Could Mary have sinned?

[Tomster]

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

An expanded list for your perusal.

St. Athanasius - “Discourses Against the Arians”
St .Gregory of Nyssa - “Virginity”
Didymus the Blind - “The Trinity”
St. Epiphanius - “The Man Well Anchored”
St. Epiphanius - “Against the Heresies”
St. Jerome - “Against Helvidius”
St. Augustine - “Sermons”
St. Augustine - “Holy Virginity”
St. Augustine - “Heresies”
Leporius (cured himself of heresy by St. Augustine) - “Document of Amendment”
St. Cyril of Alexandria - “Against the Emperor Julian”
St. Peter Chrysologus - 'Sermons"
St. Leo I - “Sermons”
St. Gregory of Tours - Eight Books of Miracles"
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem - “Synodal Leter”
St. John Damascene - “The Source of Knowledge”
St. John Damascene - “Ther Holy Trinity”
St. John Damascene - “Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary”

Hope this helps ! :tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

Since Sacred Tradition consists of the oral teachings of the apostles, then it should be very easy to prove.

All those who lived during the time of the apostles certainly wrote a lot and I feel certain that they would have written down what the apostles had to say or else we would not know what the Sacred Tradition was.

So why doesn’t someone point us to the writings of those who lived in the first century, such as: Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement and Justin Martyr.

They all left many writings so it should be an easy task to settle the “Sacred Tradition” thing for once and for all.

I don’t suppose anyone is saying that Ignatius and Barnabas told Clement and Theophilus who told Tertullian who told Origen and Hippolytus and Cyprian who then told Julius Africanus and Dinysius and that takes us up to the third and fourth centuries.

All those men left many writings so all we have to do is go to them and we can see what Sacred Tradition really tell us.

Would someone please list these writings so those of us who are questioning some of the RCC teachings can be quieted??? Surely these Sacred Traditions are written down???

St. Irenaeus - “Against the Heretics”
Tertullian - " The Demurrer Against the Heretics"
St. Basil the Great - “Transcript of Faith”
St. Basil the Great - “The Holy Spirit”
St. Epiphanius - “Panacia Against All Heresies”
St. John Chrysostom - “Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians”
St. Jerome - " Dialogue between a Luciferian and an Orthodox Christian"
St. Augustine - “Letter of Augustine to Januarius”
St. Augustine - "Against the Letter of Mani called ‘The Foundation’ "
St. Augustine - “Baptism”
St. Augustine - “Against Julian”
St. Vincent of Lerins - “Notebooks”
St. John Damascene - “Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary”

Hope this helps ! :tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

If that is necessarily the case, then why would Jesus tell us to “search the Scriptures”? (John 5:39) He did not tell us to have someone else teach it to us, but to search for ourselves.

Do you think the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch was an anecdote?!? I think our good Eunuch was right on.

Also, what do you think part of having a child-like faith is? Children are sponges waiting to be taught.

 

[NotWorthy]

There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion that “she CHOSE not to sin”. If we take your method of argumentation that she chose not to sin, i can also make all kinds of claims for others who chose not to sin either and you would not be able to refute them.

Well, if she is sinless, then either:
a) She chose not to sin.
b) She was prevented from sinning.

God blessed us with free will.

 

[Tomster]

This is really the crux of the disagreement. Catholics believe that the Bible is one of the legs of the stool of faith, Protestants believe it is the only leg. We’ll never agree on this point. What you think of as suppositions we think of as Divinely guided teachings courtesy of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised us.

We will never accept this “Sola Scriptura” standard. It flies against 2000 years of teaching and against the Bible itself, as demonstrated in this and many other threads.

Sodak,

I agree with you that Catholics will never accept “Sola Scriptura” as the standard.

But, Protestants, either knowingly or unknowingly, do not believe that the Bible is the only leg.

Let me explain. All you have to do is turn on the Jimmy Swaggart Show on Sunday Morning and listen to him trying to sell his “Expositors Bible” with all of the “copious footnotes” contained therein. He has, on more than one occasion, admitted that the footnotes are fallible. But, what he does not say is that he expects you to treat them, the footnotes that is, as infallible or else why would he have added them to his Bible for you to read? He expects you to accept his teaching authority, Protestant oral tradition, which he has written down and included in his “Expositors Bible.”

Whether they want to admit it or not, Protestants do, in fact, have their own form of fallible oral tradition and they have written it down and expect their adherents to believe it. If not, why have they written it down?

 

[guanophore]

The promises are clearly to each individual member of the body. “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man”… As 1 Corinthians 12 shows, each of us is an individual member of the body and gifted by the Holy Spirit accordingly so that we can all contribute uniquely to the body.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

1 Corinthians 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Furthermore, I ask you this: If this prophecy is of the Christian church, and you believe it is for the church as a whole that it applies, not members individually, then who are the “least” and the “greatest” that are spoken of in it?

Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

I agree with you, that each Christian does have a manifestation of the Spirit, and the indwelling. But each as an individual was not promised the he would be guided into all truth, or that the gates of hell will not prevail. These promises were given only to the Church, and individuals can partake in these gifts only so long as they are in communion with the Church. Mary remained in communion with the Church throughout her lifetime. She travelled, served, dwelt with and ministered to the Apostles until her work on earth was done. What we have recieved from the Apostles is that she was without sin.

 

[Tomster]

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.

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0164html?L+scstore+gdvp1661ff0dc10d+1232204829

 

[Tomster]

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.

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0164html?L+scstore+xfyq6097ff817b81+1233115116

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion that “she CHOSE not to sin”. If we take your method of argumentation that she chose not to sin, i can also make all kinds of claims for others who chose not to sin either and you would not be able to refute them.

NotWorthy
Well, if she is sinless, then either:
a) She chose not to sin.
b) She was prevented from sinning.

God blessed us with free will.

Why assume in your premise that she was sinless?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why assume in your premise that she was sinless?

Why do you assumed in your premise that she wasn’t sinless?

You still owe me a Scripture verse to prove where Mary actually sinned.

 

[justasking4]

An expanded list for your perusal.

St. Athanasius - “Discourses Against the Arians”
St .Gregory of Nyssa - “Virginity”
Didymus the Blind - “The Trinity”
St. Epiphanius - “The Man Well Anchored”
St. Epiphanius - “Against the Heresies”
St. Jerome - “Against Helvidius”
St. Augustine - “Sermons”
St. Augustine - “Holy Virginity”
St. Augustine - “Heresies”
Leporius (cured himself of heresy by St. Augustine) - “Document of Amendment”
St. Cyril of Alexandria - “Against the Emperor Julian”
St. Peter Chrysologus - 'Sermons"
St. Leo I - “Sermons”
St. Gregory of Tours - Eight Books of Miracles"
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem - “Synodal Leter”
St. John Damascene - “The Source of Knowledge”
St. John Damascene - “Ther Holy Trinity”
St. John Damascene - “Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary”

Hope this helps ! :tiphat:

Would happen to know the time period for these people? For example what year was the earliest quote?

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3324184]Why do you assumed in your premise that she wasn’t sinless?

Her acknowledgement of a Savior and Romans 5:12

You still owe me a Scripture verse to prove where Mary actually sinned.

There is none explicitedly that states this. However there are no such statements for many others either in the NT. I guesst they were sinless to.

 

[guanophore]

Would happen to know the time period for these people? For example what year was the earliest quote?

At least as soon, and some sooner than the canon was defined, the Trinity, and the hypostatic union. You see, ja4, it is not reallly relevant WHEN doctrine is defined. What matters is that it is true, and it is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith. You accept all these other tenents of Catholicism, including worship on Sunday. Do you know the date for that?

What you are doing is rejecting the Teaching of the Church. It is really more of an authority problem than anything else.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Would happen to know the time period for these people? For example what year was the earliest quote?

All these ECF are from 300-700 AD. St. Athansius to I believe is the has the oldest quote to the last, John Damascene.

You have to take into account that the concept of the Trinity didn’t exist until around the 300s in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. So your argument would fall apart because you might as well deny the Trinity since that belief didn’t became part of the orthodox Christian belief until the Council in 325 AD.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Her acknowledgement of a Savior and Romans 5:12

That doesn’t prove she sinned. She didn’t say she is a sinner. So that is false premise on your part.

There is none explicitedly that states this. However there are no such statements for many others either in the NT. I guesst they were sinless to.

They could be. I do believe they are righteous. The only difference is that none of them gave birth to God. Mary gave birth to God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Jesus could not be born of a sinful woman because sin offend God. Jesus’ own flesh comes from Mary. If she had sin, Jesus’ flesh would be defiled because of her sin. Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM! Therefore, Mary is sinless and pure.

A sinful Mary is an insult to Jesus. God made her pure from the moment of her conception.

You can’t have God born of someone who has sinful vomit on her soul. She had to be pure! Just like the Ark. The Ark carried the Word of God and Jews take special care of making sure it is pure. No one was allowed to touch it and someone did, they die.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3324191]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Would happen to know the time period for these people? For example what year was the earliest quote?

At least as soon, and some sooner than the canon was defined, the Trinity, and the hypostatic union. You see, ja4, it is not reallly relevant WHEN doctrine is defined. What matters is that it is true, and it is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

It is very relevant when things in history are mentioned and under what circumstances. For one it tells us how long it was after the NT was finished and if what someone says is in line with it. Secondly just because a bishop mentions it in a sermon somewhere does not mean its true either. Thirdly, just because he mentions it doesn’t mean it was believed by the church at the time. Who is to say any of these men speak for the entire church? Who is to say they cannot err on matters of faith?

guanophore
You accept all these other tenents of Catholicism, including worship on Sunday.
Do you know the date for that?

It must have been before 64 since Paul mentions it before he dies.

What you are doing is rejecting the Teaching of the Church. It is really more of an authority problem than anything else.

 

[guanophore]

Her acknowledgement of a Savior and Romans 5:12

Mary must have known that she was saved from sin. Otherwise she could not thank God that she had been!

Rom 5:12 does not apply to everybody. If you look at the psalm where Paul took that line, you can easily see that it is about unbelievers.

There is none explicitedly that states this. However there are no such statements for many others either in the NT. I guesst they were sinless to.

You could certainly speculate about that, but it is not something we have from the Apostles.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Mary must have known that she was saved from sin. Otherwise she could not thank God that she had been!

David also called God his Saviour, but he committed adultery, killed the woman’s husband to cover it up, tried to pretend it didn’t happen, and then cowardly asked God to punish the whole nation instead of himself.

2 Samuel 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Furthermore, it says Jesus is the Saviour of all men who believe, but that sure doesn’t mean we’ve never sinned.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Furthermore, what was Jesus saving His people from? Their sins.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

But logically it follows that if a person has never sinned, than they have no need of a Saviour for their sins.

 

[guanophore]

It is very relevant when things in history are mentioned and under what circumstances. For one it tells us how long it was after the NT was finished and if what someone says is in line with it.

No, ja4, this is not the case. I agree that it helps to know the historical circumstances around which doctrine is defined. However, the length of time it took the Church to understand the Divine Revelation is irrelevant. Previous centuries could not fathom things that happen today in terms of the volumes of abortions, cloning, and genetic engineering.

Whether or not Teaching is consistent scripture is entirely independent of when the proclamation was made. The nicene creed was not formally adoped until 325, but we find all of it in the scripture, and we know it was used by the Apostles and their successors.

There are no Church Teachings that contradict the Bible. It seems that way to you because you don’t understand one or the other.

Secondly just because a bishop mentions it in a sermon somewhere does not mean its true either.

I agree with you entirely, which invalidates the whole point of your question. Knowing this, what difference does it make to you when those writers/preachers/bishops said those things?

Thirdly, just because he mentions it doesn’t mean it was believed by the church at the time. Who is to say any of these men speak for the entire church? Who is to say they cannot err on matters of faith?

True, and they can err on matters of faith. However, the Church does not. What we can see is a thread going back that these things were always believed. That is what is evident in the early writings. However, that will not make any difference to you, since you reject the Church Teaching on Mary’s sinlessness outright. You are trying to pursuade Catholics to reject it too, because you do not see it in your Bible.:tsktsk:

It must have been before 64 since Paul mentions it before he dies.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3324210]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Her acknowledgement of a Savior and Romans 5:12

Mannyfit75
That doesn’t prove she sinned. She didn’t say she is a sinner. So that is false premise on your part.

Do you have any catholic scholarship on the Scriptures themselves (commentaries) that supports your view?
For example this is what the New American Bible in its footnotes on this passage says this:
“[12-21] Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-13) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, “Adam made me do it,” for all are culpable (Romans 5:12): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (Romans 5:13) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to Romans 5:15-21, God’s act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam’s crime.
5 [12] Inasmuch as all sinned: others translate “because all sinned,” and understand v 13 as a parenthetical remark. Unlike Wisdom 2:24, Paul does not ascribe the entry of death to the devil.”

Quote:
justasking4
There is none explicitedly that states this. However there are no such statements for many others either in the NT. I guess they were sinless to.

Mannyfit75
They could be. I do believe they are righteous

.

Are you saying these people were also sinless i.e. chose not to sin?

Mannyfit75
The only difference is that none of them gave birth to God. Mary gave birth to God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Jesus could not be born of a sinful woman because sin offend God. Jesus’ own flesh comes from Mary. If she had sin, Jesus’ flesh would be defiled because of her sin. Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM! Therefore, Mary is sinless and pure.

A sinful Mary is an insult to Jesus. God made her pure from the moment of her conception.

You can’t have God born of someone who has sinful vomit on her soul. She had to be pure! Just like the Ark. The Ark carried the Word of God and Jews take special care of making sure it is pure. No one was allowed to touch it and someone did, they die.

I don’t think you are taking into consideration what Paul writes in Philippians 2:6-7 which says that Jesus “emptied” Himself of His full deity rights so that He could live among us as a man. He limited Himself for our sakes that He could live among us without destroying us because of our sin.
Who, 3 though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 4
7
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance,

The other problem you have with this – “Jesus is Holy and nothing impure can touch HIM” is that it is not supported in the gospels. Impure and sinful people are touching Him all the time and He does not destroy them for it. So it follows that Mary would not have to be sinless and pure for her to birth Jesus. Jesus would not be “contaminated” by Mary’ sinfulness nor any man’s for that matter.