Could Mary have sinned?

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

Continued:

If we were to believe Jesus was wanting us to actually drink His blood then what of the other times Jesus gave examples so that we might understand:

*“I am the **light ***of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

Is Jesus composed of fire? Is that what “the light” means?

*“I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.” *(John 10:7 & 9)

Is Jesus a wooden gate or a metal one or a gate at all, except for a way to God?

Jesus also said He was the “vine” and the “shepherd” but we know He was a carpenter. Was He part plant? He also said He would give “living water.” Do we need an ordinance to give water in order to be saved?

Augustine was the one who put it in the proper perspective but his followers apparently do not believe him or have changed his beliefs through the years.

“…the body and blood of Christ shall be each man’s life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, “It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are the Spirit and Life.”

The Sacrament is to be “commemorated” but not relived.

Augustine also said:

“Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is “commemorated” in the Sacrament.” (Faustis 20.18, 20)

Jesus said He is with us “always” even until the end of time.” He didn’t say He would only be with us during the Eucharist. To a Christian, that is very assuring.

I don’t want to discourage anyone’s faith or question your personal faith as a Christian and I don’t want to minimize the significance of the communion. This is a special time in which we celebrate the sacrifice Jesus gave so that we may be holy when we face God, cleansed by the blood of the New Testament.

But we need to understand what the Scriptures are trying to tell us and it is in this spirit that I am presenting this.

By the way—is it true that the laity doesn’t even get to drink from the cup?

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Church Militant

When you take verses out of context like that it seems to prove your point. However you must read more of John in order to understand it.

I am always amused when you want to read verses literally when you think they support your position but when they don’t, you want to twist them and make them say things they don’t; such as Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Why don’t you look a little harder at John 6. It begins with the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish and then Jesus declares himself to be the bread of life. Then He says:

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent.” (John 6:29)

He is not saying anything about eating, but only about believing.

Here it is obvious that Jesus is not speaking of physical bread because if we eat bread we will hunger again. He is declaring Himself to be spiritual bread. He has clearly defined Himself to be spiritual bread. Those who “eat” of the spiritual bread by believing in Him will not hunger again. It is the “coming to Him” that is the “eating of the bread.” There are also other examples of Jesus referring to “eating” and “drinking” from other sermons of His.

*“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” *(Matt 5:6)

*“For My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” *(John 6:40)

*“Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.” (John 6:49) * Manna was the physical bread provided by God.

If you eat the Eucharist, you will still die. It is only by belief that one will live forever. If you “eat” the bread of life, you will live forever.

*“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” *(John 6:51)

The spiritual bread is Christ’s body and He gives it for the life of the world. This does not refer to the Eucharist, but is a sacrifice of His body and blood, which He gave at the cross. The eucharist is not given for the world but is given to the “believer.” Jesus’ body was given as a sacrifice for the sins of the entire world. (John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Cor 5:19, l John 2:2, l John 4:14)

If we want to believe the Eucharist as you do, then you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. In the chapter of John we see Jesus saying over and over that to have eternal life, you must “believe” in Him. We “eat” Jesus only in a spiritual sense. Eating is a physical thing but believing is spiritual. Remember the thief on the cross and Jesus promising to see him in paradise… Did he have to “eat” Jesus’ body and drink His blood? Of course not. We know Jesus does not lie.

If we wanted to believe we actually eat the body and drink Jesus’ blood in the Eucharist, Jesus would have to be talking nonsense in the rest of this chapter in John and throughout the entire Bible. It is the “believing” we are drinking the “spiritual” blood of Jesus that is what the Eucharist is all about. Christ was simply using earthly terms to give us spiritual truths.

Since the Bible tells us it is a sin to drink blood, if we really were, during the Eucharist, then we would be sinning. In addition we would be sacrificing Jesus again every time we partake of the Eucharist and Christ died one time for all our sins. There is no use for Him to die again.

Christ also makes sure we know He was speaking of spiritual things in John:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Jesus promises “spiritual” nourishment for us, not physical benefit.

(continued)

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Excuse me, isn’t this thread about “Could Mary have sinned?” If you want to discuss Real Presence made a thread on Real Presence of Jesus Christ. If you can’t do that. I’ll make it for you.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Excuse me, isn’t this thread about “Could Mary have sinned?” If you want to discuss Real Presence made a thread on Real Presence of Jesus Christ. If you can’t do that. I’ll make it for you.

And of course you’re singling me out for posting a single Bible verse on the subject when others have been posting extensively on it until now?

 

[anthony022071]

To compare these 2 marian doctrines with the Trinity doctrine makes me think that your grasp of scripture on this point is lacking. There is far more support for the Trinity than any of the marian doctrines. With the trinitarian doctrines the explicit support for it is quite good. With the marian doctrines you must have to take so many scriptures out of context to make it say what the scriptures never say.

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. 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).

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

 

[Church_Militant]

To compare these 2 marian doctrines with the Trinity doctrine makes me think that your grasp of scripture on this point is lacking. There is far more support for the Trinity than any of the marian doctrines. With the trinitarian doctrines the explicit support for it is quite good. With the marian doctrines you must have to take so many scriptures out of context to make it say what the scriptures never say.

I disagree and frankly implicit is implicit in both cases.

Were the apostles the “best of His people” also? Were they not closest to her and yet they never mention it?
Or Jesus Himself when He has opportunity to extol Mary He does not.

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s…

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Certainly…look at that article on the immaculate Conception that I linked for you and notice the discussion of the Greek there.

Are you familar with Luke 1:47 where she acknowledges a Savior? This alone tells you she was a sinner otherwise she would never have said this.
Or take Romans 5:12 in which all of mankind suffers from the sin of Adam.

I’m glad you brought these two up.

Nowhere will you ever find anything in authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching that even hints that the Blessed Virgin did not need a savior. As I pointed out, the Catholic teaching is that that redemptive sacrifice was applied to her at her conception within St. Ann so that she was actually born with that stain of original sin already washed away. She’s the only person, who is not Divine, in all of human history that that would apply to and it a work of God because of her unique destiny.

Think of the way they purified the Ark of the Covenant, which only held the Covenant of the Law…how much more so would God see to the purity of the human vessel that carried His only Son and then was charged with raising and protecting Him. Don’t you suppose that it took very special graces from God for Mary and Joseph to fulfill their roles? Can you even imagine the level of demonic assault and temptation that was targeted at them? Look at what happened when someone gave in to that? Herod’s slaughter of the Holy Innocents as he sought to kill the child Jesus! Even Judas!

No… they were given very special graces and angelic protection, (which we know from Joseph’s interaction with the angel) by God because of their unique roles and the parents and guardians of the Lord Jesus Christ. Think about it…

Surely you realize that there is not one explicit verse in the entire scriptures that says she was sinless? You bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that she was sinless and that burden has never been borne nor can it for the mere fact the scriptures never teach such a doctrine.

I’ve already pointed out that you misunderstand what Catholics mean when they speak of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3321340]I beg to differ my friend. The problem with your premise is that there those Christians who used Scripture to deny the Trinity. You know there Christians who considered themselves non-Trinitarians. They based their belief on Scripture Alone.

As we can see, the concept of interpreting Scripture on your own falls apart. Scripture needs to be interpreted by someone who can. The Church’s teaching office is the only who can interpret Scripture.

Without getting into the support for the Trinity do you think that some protestants are able to interpret some Scripture correctly?

Second, I trust the Jesus Christ’s promise that he will guide his Church to all truths. He did in fact send us the Holy Spirit.

Even if that is the case it does not necessarily follow that it would be impossible to err.

Compared to the Apostles. They know Jesus for 3 yrs. Mary know Jesus for 33 yrs.

That may be. Howerver the apostles did have a strong assoication with Him and yet they still faltered.

We are familar with Luke 1:47 and Mary acknowledge she need a savior. This is not a contradiction of her being sinless. There are two ways to be saved. You can save someone by preventing them from falling into a dark pit, or by tossing a rope into the pit and pull a man out.

This analogy is not proof though. You need to show that this is what actually happened.

If you bother to read the Pope Pius IX on the dogma, you would understand this;

That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

I have read some of it. On what grounds is the pope making this claim? Think about it: for centuries this was totally unknown not only to the apostles but countless others through time.

Mary herself could not save herself. It wass through the virtue of merits of Jesus Christ, whom preserved Mary from all stain of original sin.

All this is is an assertion. There are no facts to back this claim up.

There is no explicit Scripture verse in the Bible where she committed personal sin. All doesn’t necessary means all. I’m sure you have been told that infants and the mentally retarded cannot commit sin because they cannot determine right from wrong.

It is true an infant does no “active sinning” in the way we think of it. However your church does baptize infants because they need to be “washed-cleansed” from original sin. If an infant dies without being baptized they go where?

So this is a question, I need to ask you. Where in Scripture does it say that Mary actually committed personal sin? Show me? All I see in Scripture concerning Mary is that she was obedient to God’s will.

This is poor argumentation becausee i could say the same kind of thing about others in the NT. Since the Scripture don’t record any sin of Mary and no since of Andrew the apostle should i assume they both never sinned?

She said, My soul proclaim the greatness of the Lord. She also said, “Be it done unto me according to your world.” Of course, Mary also said to servant at Cana, “Do whatever, he tells you.”

This tells me she was a God fearing woman and that she had some influence with Jesus.

Second while the other disciples fled and abandon their Lord, except John, Mary remained with her son at the foot of the Cross. Mary’s obedience to God is clearly explicit in Scripture. We don’t see her disobedient.

No argument here. She was truly a courageous woman. However that does not mean she did not sin though. Thats a different issue.

 

[Mannyfit75]

And of course you’re singling me out for posting a single Bible verse on the subject when others have been posting extensively on it until now?

Don’t derail the topic. I have made a thread for the Scriptural Basis of the Real Presence. Take a look at it. Real Presence is ancient as Christianity itself because we received Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If Paul is wrong when he says, “all have sinned”, then we must wonder if Paul is wrong about other things he had to say. What about Romans? In Romans, Paul speaks of the universality of sin and says that “all of mankind” has sinned. Could this possibly be wrong?

To believe Mary was without sin all her life conflicts too much with Scripture to be even remotely true. If we were to believe that, then we could make up anything about anybody in the Bible and claim it was true.

If it isn’t supported by Scripture then it can’t be true still stands…Why does anyone want to speculate about something like this. Suppositions will kill your faith. There has to be a standard!

 

[anthony022071]

Continued from post #806

“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).

“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).

“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).

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Without getting into the support for the Trinity do you think that some protestants are able to interpret some Scripture correctly?

They can’t. They interpret Scripture in a vacuum. They are not all in agreement concerning theological beliefs. To be a truth Christian who have to believe everything that Jesus taught, whom he handed his authority to his Apostles and their successors, the bishops. You can’t pick and choose beliefs, like many of your Protestant brothers and sisters do.

Even if that is the case it does not necessarily follow that it would be impossible to err.

Most Protestant belief are erroneous but we are not here to discuss that. We are here to discuss “Could Mary sinned?”

That may be. Howrever the apostles did have a strong assoication with Him and yet they still faltered.

They falter but Mary remain faithful. Her faith in God explicit in Scripture.

This analogy is not proof though. You need to show that this is what actually happened.

Hail, full of grace is the Scriptural Proof text (see Luke 1:28)

In fact, a strict translation of kecharitomene is “thou who hast been graced.” Of the two options, “full of grace” is a more clear and definite rendering of the angel’s words than “favour.” For this conclusion there exists the authority of the Latin Fathers; the Codices of Alexandrinus and Ephrem; the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Bible; and even the writings of Protestants such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Beza.19

The Church, furthermore, asserts that God, immediately after Adam’s fall, cursed Satan and said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head” (Gen. 3, 15). It was by the Virgin Mary’s seed, that is, Jesus Christ, that the kingdom of Satan was demolished. It was not fitting that She, who was to co-operate in the defeat of Satan, should ever be infected by his breath or a slave to his kingdom of sin. The enmity between the Virgin Mary and the serpent placed by God was Her triumph over sin, Her Immaculate Conception.

I have read some of it. On what grounds is the pope making this claim? Think about it: for centuries this was totally unknown not only to the apostles but countless others through time.

It has been based on both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Many of the writings of the ECF spoke of Mary being sinless. The doctrine overtime developed.

All this is is an assertion. There are no facts to back this claim up.

Believe what you must but your lack of understanding is your burden to understand this.

It is true an infant does no “active sinning” in the way we think of it. However your church does baptize infants because they need to be “washed-cleansed” from original sin. If an infant dies without being baptized they go where?

Infants who die are left to God’s mercy. The Church has the means of obtaining the full means of salvation but God can work outside his Church.

This is poor argumentation becausee i could say the same kind of thing about others in the NT. Since the Scripture don’t record any sin of Mary and no since of Andrew the apostle should i assume they both never sinned?

There is a difference. Mary is the Mother of God, who have a more personal relationship with her son compared to other disciples. Her mission on her earth was to be the mother of Jesus, and the mother of the Church. This is her role now and forever. We are in fact, her offspring because we have become brothers and sisters in Christ, and so we become her adapted children.

This tells me she was a God fearing woman and that she had some influence with Jesus.

She cooperated with God’s will perfectly. I see no disobedience.

No argument here. She was truly a courageous woman. However that does not mean she did not sin though. Thats a different issue.

The main point is this. You have not produce a Scripture proof text where Mary sinned. I’m still waiting.

 

[anthony022071]

To believe Mary was without sin all her life conflicts too much with Scripture to be even remotely true. If we were to believe that, then we could make up anything about anybody in the Bible and claim it was true.

If it isn’t supported by Scripture then it can’t be true still stands…Why does anyone want to speculate about something like this. Suppositions will kill your faith. There has to be a standard!

The Church Fathers did not believe as you do. Only the heretics would go on scripture alone.

“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 5:19)” Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

“While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb…It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments.” Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373).

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).

“When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God.” Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” Basil, Epistle To the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

“All heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and …make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers…” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Anitquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 24:63 (A.D. 434).

 

[emeraldisle]

The main point is this. You have not produce a Scripture proof text where Mary sinned. I’m still waiting.

What about Daniel, does it say in the Bible that he sinned? Can i start a new teaching that Daniel was sinless??

Does the Bible teach us that only the God/Man could live a sinless life?

Why did Jesus Christ come to earth and die on the cross if it was possible for a human to be sinless and live a sinless life?

Why didn’t God give us all this “special grace” so that we could all live a sinless life? Wouldn’t this have been better than the Lord Jesus having to die such a terrible death on the cross for us?

 

[justasking4]

anthony022071;3321338]From an article by Mark Bonocore,a Catholic apologist:

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/ic.html

< "First of all, in Luke 1:28 (10 verses BEFORE she gives her “yes” in Luke 1:38) Mary is called “Kecharitomenae” --“Full of grace” or, more properly, “She who is perfectly graced.” This could not be possible unless Mary was already sinless prior to the angel’s arrival --that is, before her “yes” to God.

This is a good example of reading into the words catholic doctrine. If you have a greek lexicon of the NT, look this word in these passages and you will not find this kind of response in it. In fact this word has nothing to do with sin.

Likewise, if the humanities of both Mary and Jesus Himself were “deified” (“sanctified”) at the time of Christ’s conception, then this means a) That Jesus drew His humanity from a fallen source and, even more problematically, b) that mankind, in the prototypes of Mary and Jesus, WAS NOT redeemed by the INCARNATE Son (the God-man), but by the Son INDEPENDENTLY of His Incarnation!!! And, if this is the case, then the Incarnation would not be necessary at all. Rather, the eternal Son could have remained in Heaven and “zapped” everyone on earth with sinlessness from there.

However, that’s obviously not what we believe. We do not believe that Mary became sinless via the eternal Son’s (spiritual) Presence entering her womb, nor do we believe that Jesus’ own humanity became sinless because of the eternal Son’s “taking on” of it.

Rather, we believe that the God-man (the Incarnate Christ --the New Adam) redeems humanity and we believe that this happened because 1) the saving merits of the God-man were applied to His intended mother outside of time / in advance (rendering her sinless), and that Jesus took His own sinless humanity from her - that is, Jesus also “redeemed” His own humanity in advance (in redeeming His mother’s) by applying the merits of own His Incarnation to His mother, and then taking that sinless humanity from her."

A person can say these kinds of things but where are the facts that support this assertion?

 

[anthony022071]

A person can say these kinds of things but where are the facts that support this assertion?

The fact is that the beliefs of modern Catholics were held by the Church Fathers,who were themselves Catholic. See posts 783,806,and 811.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What about Daniel, does it say in the Bible that he sinned? Can i start a new teaching that Daniel was sinless??

Daniel himself was not a perfect. He wasn’t call “full of grace.” Second, did Daniel gave God’s real presence in him for 9 months? I think not. There are Biblical typology as well as ECF writings comparing Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant.

Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (Luke 1:39–45).
Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.

When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth uses almost the same words: “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.

When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.

When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).

Sounds family right? The Ark of the Old Covenant is pure. The Ark of the New Covenant is also pure. So Mary was preserve from sin because she was pre-destined by God to be the Mother of His Son. Nothing unclean can touch God, so she was made perfect.

Does the Bible teach us that only the God/Man could live a sinless life?

Scripture shows that Zechariah and Elizabeth live righteously. For we know that in Luke 1:6 they were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. To be righteous is to live without sinning. Sinning is breaking God’s commandment.

Why did Jesus Christ come to earth and die on the cross if it was possible for a human to be sinless and live a sinless life?

Jesus came into the world to saved all mankind. The gates of heaven were closed to all humanity. Even the those who live righteously before the coming of the Messiah remain in the Abode of the Dead, or Hades. When Jesus died, he preached to the dead and open open to all the saints and prophets of old.

Why didn’t God give us all this “special grace” so that we could all live a sinless life? Wouldn’t this have been better than the Lord Jesus having to die such a terrible death on the cross for us?

The point is. Mary’s cooperated with God’s grace. By her own free will she cooperate and lived by it. It is God’s grace that is she is saved. I think that many NCC missed that point.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I have taken the liberty of putting part of your quotes in red so that you may read them.

The Church Fathers did not believe as you do. Only the heretics would go on scripture alone.

“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. **But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ **(Mt 5:19)” Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her.** All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them.** But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb…It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments." Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373).

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).

"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying: 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [the word of truth] ’ (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God." Origen, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 46, PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254).

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” Basil, Epistle To the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

“All heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and …make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers…” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Anitquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 24:63 (A.D. 434).

**It seems you didn’t even read what you quoted. I have pointed out to you by emphasizing what they had to say.

As for Origen, Hilary and Basil, I have already posted quotes from all of them saying just the opposite of what you claim. Tradition that is not supported by Scripture is false. What you posted proves that!!!**

 

[Mannyfit75]

As for Origen, Hilary and Basil, I have already posted quotes from all of them saying just the opposite of what you claim. Tradition that is not supported by Scripture is false. What you posted proves that!!!

Then throw away the Trinity because it is not explicit in the Bible. It was the Church Council which defined the Trinity not the Bible alone.

 

[Old_Scholar]

MannyFit

There is a difference. Mary is the Mother of God, who have a more personal relationship with her son compared to other disciples. Her mission on her earth was to be the mother of Jesus, and the mother of the Church. This is her role now and forever. We are in fact, her offspring because we have become brothers and sisters in Christ, and so we become her adapted children.

**Mary couldn’t have known very much about Jesus. Remember what heppened when they left Him accidentally and then had to search for Him for three days before they found Him?

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49) And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?**

Obviously Mary didn’t know much about Jesus then. She didn’t even know He had to do His Father’s business. That’s really some personal relationship isn’t it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Then throw away the Trinity because it is not explicit in the Bible. It was the Church Council which defined the Trinity not the Bible alone.

**Do you believe Christ and God are equals? Did not Christ say that His Father was greater than He? Didn’t Christ say that only the Father knew certain things? Does Christ sit at the right hand of the Father or are they the same being?

Reading the Scriptures will help you understand the Trinity much better. It is all there but must be sought with faith. The church defined th relationship as a “Trinity” but the facts are all there.**