Could Mary have sinned?

[Old_Scholar]

Is there something in the Didache about Mary not sinning or can someone list writings of the first two centuries by the early fathers that show that Mary did not sin? How about the Constitution of the Apostles? Anything there about Mary not sinning?

That’s what we are supposed to be talking about…

 

[Old_Scholar]

How could you see it? You are not looking for it.

I’m not willing to make suppositions in order to satisfy a doctrine as some do. The early church fathers all believed that every doctrine must be supported by Scripture in order to be true. Transubstantiation is not in Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

It was taught to them by their predecessors.

Was it taught orally? If so, how can you be sure it has been kept true through the years?

 

[davidv]

Was it taught orally?

I don’t know. Seminaries use a lot printed text books in the formal education of priests. Many of the teachings are written and are contained in official Church documents.

If so, how can you be sure it has been kept true through the years?

Because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry but I don’t see anything there about transubstantiation. Just the same things all Christians believe, that we are drinking the blook of Christ and eating His flesh symbolically.

I’m sorry, I must have missed the word “symbolically” in the Didache. Maybe it’s a translation error, eh?

BTW, in John Chapter 6, when Jesus talks of “symbolically eating of His flesh”, the Jewish meaning behind this is to revile and loathe. How does one revile and loathe Jesus in order to get Eternal Life?

 

[NotWorthy]

Was it taught orally? If so, how can you be sure it has been kept true through the years?

How can we be sure? Because we study the Scriptures, the same Scriptures that tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth.

 

[justasking4]

Why the revelation of God as found in the Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Teaching of the magisterium of the church. scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#142

Are you saying that all the Sacred Traditions (whatever they may be) and the Teaching of the magisterium of the church are all some kind of revelations?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Was it taught orally? If so, how can you be sure it has been kept true through the years?

NotWorthy
How can we be sure? Because we study the Scriptures, the same Scriptures that tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth.

This really doesn’t answer the question though. Do you believe that you have knowledge of what the apostles taught that is not recorded in Scripture? For example Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus for over 2 years and we don’t know exactly what this was since there are no written records of it.

Secondly the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all the truth is not entirely correct. If you are referring to John 16:12-15 this is a specific promise to the disciples who were there and not made to the church that would here after the apostles died. We know this promise was fulfilled because it is contained in the NT writings itself.

If anything, the church is to be on guard against false teachers who in part will claim to be led by the HS.

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you saying that this is the oral testimony given by the apostles? Have you read it? Are you aware of the many, many changes made to it by the Pope II in 1997?

Certainly I’ve read the catechism and any time I reference it I make sure that I check out the footnotes.

As usual you make assertions without any effort to prove your so-called point OS. There were no changes made to Catholic teaching in the Catechism in 1997, so I think you’re talking through your hat again.

This isn’t Sacred Tradition passed down, it is a collection of rules made by humans, many years after the apostles had died.

In your uniformed and highly biased opinion, which I’ve already shown several times to be in error.

So… it comes down to whether you’re going to continue to push the anti-Catholic propaganda, or actually do your own homework and seek the truth.

As for teachings and rules made by men. I’ve already refuted that idea in this article about Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Church_Militant]

So you don’t have the quotes about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the fathers?

Don’t need 'em… that’s in scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry but I don’t see anything there about transubstantiation. Just the same things all Christians believe, that we are drinking the blook of Christ and eating His flesh symbolically.

Hogwash!
St. Ignatius of Antioch says,

**CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. **

**They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.**

LINK

and then of course St. Paul writes to the Corinthian Church very plainly, saying, "1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Now, you can assert whatever you please, but it’s very clear that any idea of symbolic Eucharist is not scriptural nor was it taught by the earliest of the ECFs. That makes **your **beliefs about it a modern errant teaching of men.

Hate it for ya…:bible1:

 

[Old_Scholar]

How can we be sure? Because we study the Scriptures, the same Scriptures that tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth.

But the Holy Spirit will not guide you to anything that can’t be found in Scripture. Irenæus said:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

Irenæus is saying that the apostles preached orally at first but then everything (perfect knowledge) was written down to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

He doesn’t say the church was, but the Scripture. Then he says:

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

Irenæus says that the Scriptures are the first line of defense against false teachers who were refuted by the written tradition of the apostles. They have to be able to prove their beliefs by Scripture in order to be true.

So how can we justify what someone tells us without being able to prove it with Scripture? That seems indefensible.

Are we to simply “believe” something we are told without being able to substantiate it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Don’t need 'em… that’s in scripture.

I’ll wait for you to list them…

 

[Church_Militant]

Is there something in the Didache about Mary not sinning or can someone list writings of the first two centuries by the early fathers that show that Mary did not sin? How about the Constitution of the Apostles? Anything there about Mary not sinning?

That’s what we are supposed to be talking about…

Mary could have sinned…but she didn’t, and no one can show anyplace in the Bible that says otherwise.

The Blessed Virgin had a better “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” than anyone else.

As I said before, (A “scholar” should pay attention.), that doesn’t have to come from tradition because it’s right there in Luke 1.

 

[Church_Militant]

Old_Scholar:
I’ll wait for you to list them…Immaculate Conception and Assumption

Mary: Full of Grace (Fathers*)

Let’s see if you will even read anything that disagrees with your propaganda. I don’t believe that you will.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3321078]
Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Are you saying that this is the oral testimony given by the apostles? Have you read it? Are you aware of the many, many changes made to it by the Pope II in 1997?

Church Militant
Certainly I’ve read the catechism and any time I reference it I make sure that I check out the footnotes.

As usual you make assertions without any effort to prove your so-called point OS. There were no changes made to Catholic teaching in the Catechism in 1997, so I think you’re talking through your hat again. In your uniformed and highly biased opinion, which I’ve already shown several times to be in error.

Perhaps Old Scholar is referring to this from Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition): Hardback

This is what it says from a website where this is being sold:

"The full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, this second edition of the international bestseller has been significantly expanded, enhancing both its content and usability. Revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1997, the second edition now includes more than a hundred additional pages, offering such new features as a glossary of terms, an index of citations from sources and in-brief texts on core teachings. The essential elements of faith are presented in the most understandable manner, enabling everyone to read and know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life. The first new compendium in more than 400 years, the second edition of the Catechism stands, in the words of Pope John Paul II, as “a sure norm for teaching the faith” and an “authentic reference text.”

Q: How does the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church differ from the first edition?
A: The second edition differs in two ways. First, the second edition reflects the changes that were made in the final Latin text in 1997. Second, the second edition includes a new index. The glossary was also added in the American version of the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Note to all:

There is no separation between Christ and His Church, and no separation between the Church and the scripture. If it seems that they are not in agreement, then the individual is lacking in understanding.

You are making an assumption that all of this Holy Word is contained in scripture, but it is not. God revealed His Word orally to the Apostles, and they passed on this Sacred Tradition to others before a word of the NT was ever written. These passages apply to both the Sacred Writing,a nd the Sacred Tradition.

Enough of this Holy Word is contained to make a person “wise unto salvation”, be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, and that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works." (2 Timothy 3)

If it is enough to make a person wise to salvation, perfect, and perfectly furnished unto good works, why is it insufficient?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3321132]Immaculate Conception and Assumption
Can we agree that the idea of Mary having an immaculate conception is highly debateable and not taught explicitedly in Scripture? Can we also agree that her assumption is not debateable from a biblical perspective since it never hints of such a thing for her?

Mary: Full of Grace

(Fathers*)
Would you agree that the definition for the word “favored one” or “full of grace” does not contain in the defitnition itself anything about a person being without sin throughout their lives?

Let’s see if you will even read anything that disagrees with your propaganda. I don’t believe that you will.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that this is the oral testimony given by the apostles? Have you read it? Are you aware of the many, many changes made to it by the Pope II in 1997?

This isn’t Sacred Tradition passed down, it is a collection of rules made by humans, many years after the apostles had died.

You must be thinking of the canon law, instead of the Catechism? No, the CCC is not the “oral testimony given by the Apostles”. It is a summary of the Apostolic Teaching. It is not a rule book. It has been updated each generation, and translated into new languages.

How does your magesterium know what the oral tradition was?

They receive the Teachings from those that pre-ceeded them in the faith.

Sorry but I don’t see anything there about transubstantiation. Just the same things all Christians believe, that we are drinking the blook of Christ and eating His flesh symbolically.

Most Christians do not believe this way.

Was it taught orally? If so, how can you be sure it has been kept true through the years?

Because God’s word does not go out void, and accomplishes the purpose for which it is intended!

 

[guanophore]

How does your magesterium know what the oral tradition was?

They receive the Teachings from those that pre-ceeded them in the faith.