Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

Keep in mind that a failure to keep your traditions and teachings in harmony with scripture is a sign of error.

It would not be my error, but God’s. He is the only Source of Divine Revelation, reflected in scritpure, tradition,and teaching. This is why we believe the Church cannot err. he is the Source of all Truth.

What responsiblity do you think you have?

Tostudy to show myself approved. When I have a problem with a docrtine, “could Mary have sinned?” for example, to strive to understand the basis for the Church Teaching, starting not from the premise of “I don’t see it in scripture so it must be wrong” but from the premise of “I am limited in my understanding, and have not yet been able to appropriate this Truth”.

This statement makes me think you are weary. Maybe you should take a break from our discussion until after easter. A good rest might do you good…:yawn:

I suspect that it is much more wearisome to Our Blessed Mother for you to sully her reputation and favor with God. It pierces her heart as with a sword for those who claim to accept her Divine Son to spurn the gifts He has given to her. That is the heart of a Mother.

No, since it is lent, I will join my sufferings in this matter with the sufferings of Christ, and allow His mercy and Grace to purify my soul. If, instead, you choose to perpetrate your sufferings upon Catholics, then I will still pray for you.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Been there and done that …you’d know that if you read My Testimony.

I read your testimony and am glad you returned to Christ.

I wonder however, why you would believe a Priest named Oscar Lukefahr and not believe Scriture? Then you go on to say you studied the teaching of the RCC and learned the truth.

Do you not know the truth is in the Bible? Why do you ignore it and believe doctrines of man?

 

[guanophore]

Alright. I’m reading it. I’d agree with you that the gifts did not end with the Acts Church.

I’ll admit I attend a Baptist church… but I’ll also admit I’ve met some pretty bad Baptists myself. Like any denomination there’s a risk for legalism among the fundamentalists and among the charismatics a risk for faked worship.

I was in a Baptist Church for a year, and the congregation eventually split over the issue of gifts. I have also seen faked things among charismatics.

I’ve seen leaders in a Conservative Baptist church who manipulated the Scriptures to avoid not only what the Bible said but their own church constitution clearly said. And when it’s Christians you trust, the wounds are the deepest.

This is very true. The scandals in the priesthood have been very painful to me for the same reason.

I can’t help but respect that what you believe comes from conviction. I personally believe in challenging truth and not blindly believing what’s told. I believe in self-examination and being completely honest and sincere with others.

I have seen that religion and legalism can occur in any denomination. I’ll admit I get a bit defensive in settings like this but I try to keep aware of my faults and not to just write off what others are saying because I disagree with them, although when they attack my character I’ll admit it’s hard to do.

At any rate, I’m not going to fault you for reaching the conclusions you did. People being legalistically cruel and unforgiving are about as bad as they come, and it’s hard not to feel wary ever after.

How is this related to Mary’s sinlessness? Are you saying that Catholics believe this because it is legalism (we are required) and it is a result of people be cruel and unforgiving? I mean, people that don’t are not good Catholics?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3326234]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
No. The reason is not only from mine and others expierence but also from Romans 7:15-23 which clearly explains why no one can stop sinning;

guanophore
Ahh. So, what Mannifit said about you is true! You really do have a shortened understanding of God’s grace. Well, news flash, ja4. The HS is shed abroad in our hearts through faith,a nd we CAN choose not so sin! Not by our own Power, but by His.

God never commands us to do the impossible. He always makes a way. You have stopped reading one verse short (again!)

Rom 7:24-25
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Did Paul ever claim in his writings that he never sinned again after this? If so where?

Where do the scriptures teach a man can completely stop sinning?

Jesus has overcome the world and the flesh and the devil, and by His power working within us we can choose not to sin. He has set us free from the bondage of sin, so that we can make this choice. This is what Mary did. It was easier for her to be successful because she was not in posession of the tainted flesh that Paul speaks about in Rom. 7.
This condition is a result of original sin.

You greatly misunderstand the Scriptures here. Paul is not speaking of any original sin here but the power of sin that is in us. Remember Paul had already been baptized and he speaks of this struggle that he had after baptism. Your assertion about Mary being “successful because she was not in posession of the tainted flesh that Paul speaks about in Rom. 7” is baseless. The scriptures never make such a claim about her nor should you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
So long as we have these “fallen” human bodies we will have to contend with sin all the time.

guanophore
I agree with you that we do battle temptation, but by God’s grace, we “have overcome the world, the flesh, and it’s desires”.

So have you or anyone you know stopped sinning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does the catholic church teach that a man could live a sin free life?
guanophore
Absolutely!

Where?

Since we are getting close to the closing point of this thread, we should move that question to a new thread.

I suggest you do. My name around here is pretty much mud–

 

[Mannyfit75]

I read your testimony and am glad you returned to Christ.

I’m glad he did as well.

I wonder however, why you would believe a Priest named Oscar Lukefahr and not believe Scriture? Then you go on to say you studied the teaching of the RCC and learned the truth.

CH does believe in Scripture. He believed as well as many other Catholics that the Church is **pillar and bulwark of the truth **(1 Tim 3:15)

There those who consider to be part of the Christian Church like Eastern Orthodox Christians and Protestants, but they lack the fullness of truth. Jesus established only One Church and it’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Do you not know the truth is in the Bible? Why do you ignore it and believe doctrines of man?

He believes the truth is not only in the Bible. He believes the Truth is a somebody; Jesus Christ. That is what Church Militant believes as well as many of us Catholics.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church is not a mere doctrine of man. It is part of the Divine Revelation, which is centered on Jesus Christ, who is the source of all revelation. He revealed the truth through his presence in the Church. What we believe has been handed down to us since Apostolic times.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3325659]

i wanted ask you something that has come up in this forum that has me perplexed. Do you believe that a catholic can chose to stop sinning if he-she choses to?

Have there been catholics who have stopped sinning?

Does the catholic church teach this?

 

[Mannyfit75]

i wanted ask you something that has come up in this forum that has me perplexed. Do you believe that a catholic can chose to stop sinning if he-she choses to?

Have there been catholics who have stopped sinning?

Does the catholic church teach this?

justasking4,

I don’t want to derail this thread as it but the issue whether a person who stopped from sinning is already discussed in another thread.

It’s under Could man live a sin free life?

 

[justasking4]

justasking4,

I don’t want to derail this thread as it but the issue whether a person who stopped from sinning is already discussed in another thread.

It’s under Could man live a sin free life?

Thans-- i’ll check it out

 

[guanophore]

I read your testimony and am glad you returned to Christ.

I wonder however, why you would believe a Priest named Oscar Lukefahr and not believe Scriture? Then you go on to say you studied the teaching of the RCC and learned the truth.

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

Do you not know the truth is in the Bible? Why do you ignore it and believe doctrines of man?

Do you not know that the Bible is not the only repository of Truth? Do you not know that Grace and Truth are found in the Person of Jesus Christ?

Are you saying that the belief in Mary’s sinlessness is a “doctrine of man”?

 

[Jzyehoshua]

I believe Jesus is the path to salvation not the Bible itself. The Bible is only a collection of stories between God and mankind covenantal relationship.

Since you don’t consider anything not explicit in Scripture, then don’t believe in the Trinity. For I tell you the Trinity is necessary for our belief as well as other revealed truth which the Catholic Church professes to believe. This include the sinlessness of Mary.

Of course, you don’t believe that because you do not think God is capable of perserving Mary from sin. You don’t think God can do it. We Catholics believe God’s grace preserved Mary from original sin and personal sin.

Your problem is that God’s grace can’t do the impossible.

Simply from reading the Scriptures, I can’t believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stories. It approaches itself as absolute truth that will never fail, which is how Jesus approaches it too. In Psalms 12 I see that God completely preserves His Word from all generations and purifies them like silver in a furnace! Peter and others claim the Scripture is given by God’s inspiration and man has no power over it. Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away before God’s Word does. Jesus and the apostles frequently state that the Scripture must come to pass, it must be fulfilled. The Bible approaches itself as irrevocably true and to believe it I can not believe differently. It says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness; it makes us wise to salvation, records the testimony of Jesus, and is enough to equip Christians to do God’s will. As Peter says, the Scripture was not by private interpretation but the very leading of God. Paul thanks his readers that they accepted those very words as from God, not men. I see men like Paul and Peter and Jesus all quoting from the Scripture to focus even on just one little subtlety of the wording to make a statement on absolute truth! They consider it as Jesus said, that it’s easier for Heaven and earth to pass away then for so much as a grammar mark to fail from God’s Word! To believe God could inspire it is to believe He could preserve it. To what else should I trust in? The godliest men I’ve ever known have told me not to trust in them for they will let me down, but to trust only in God’s Word and the God who gives it to me. From my own experience I’ve found people to let me down, and I can’t put my full trust in them - only God will never let me down.

I believe I can use God’s Word like literal armor and weaponry against Satan’s attacks. Resting on God’s promises from His Word is how I gain strength. It’s one thing to just know doctrine, it’s another thing to actually believe God’s promises.

 

[guanophore]

Simply from reading the Scriptures, I can’t believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stories.

This is off topic here, so I am going to take it over to the scripture thread, and answer it there.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3326740#post3326740

 

[Truthstalker]

Thinkin’ about this…

Is it really anybody’s business as to whether Mary sinned? Or whether she could have? Seems to me this is between God and her. I have enough trouble with my own sin.

It is entirely possible that she is standing here reading this over my shoulder as I type. I’ve read speculations about Mary and Joseph’s marital state that I don’t think we would engage in for any other couple in history. Don’t you think they are entitled to some privacy? Some respect? Consider whom you are writing about. She is a real, live human being, a wonderful lady, and yet we get into these rude theological arguments that are unworthy of her. Or her Son.

Spouting off as usual.

TS

 

[Mannyfit75]

Simply from reading the Scriptures, I can’t believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stories.

It is a bunch of stories and psalms. The story about the relationship between God and mankind. It’s basically a love story between the creator and the created being us. The Bible is also a historical document.

It is God’s story. That is why it is called his STORY.

It approaches itself as absolute truth that will never fail, which is how Jesus approaches it too. In Psalms 12 I see that God completely preserves His Word from all generations and purifies them like silver in a furnace! Peter and others claim the Scripture is given by God’s inspiration and man has no power over it. Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away before God’s Word does. Jesus and the apostles frequently state that the Scripture must come to pass, it must be fulfilled. The Bible approaches itself as irrevocably true and to believe it I can not believe differently.

No man has power over Scripture? I don’t see that written anywhere in the Bible. I do see in 2 Timothy 3:15, which Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Well, this verse doesn’t say that no man has power over Scripture. Scripture by the way is not meant for private interpretation.

I have read many of the post you made and assumed Eliakim as the Holy Spirit, which I think is pretty new doctrine. That to me is private interpretation.

St. Peter even warn us not the interpret Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-17 which said,

And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do with the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with error of lawness men and lose your own stability.

It says all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness; it makes us wise to salvation, records the testimony of Jesus, and is enough to equip Christians to do God’s will. As Peter says, the Scripture was not by private interpretation but the very leading of God. Paul thanks his readers that they accepted those very words as from God, not men. I see men like Paul and Peter and Jesus all quoting from the Scripture to focus even on just one little subtlety of the wording to make a statement on absolute truth! They consider it as Jesus said, that it’s easier for Heaven and earth to pass away then for so much as a grammar mark to fail from God’s Word! To believe God could inspire it is to believe He could preserve it. To what else should I trust in? The godliest men I’ve ever known have told me not to trust in them for they will let me down, but to trust only in God’s Word and the God who gives it to me. From my own experience I’ve found people to let me down, and I can’t put my full trust in them - only God will never let me down.

Good for you. People should put their faith in God not in individuals. He is always faithful. We maybe unfaithful but God is always true to himself.

I believe I can use God’s Word like literal armor and weaponry against Satan’s attacks. Resting on God’s promises from His Word is how I gain strength. It’s one thing to just know doctrine, it’s another thing to actually believe God’s promises.

Likewise, the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception or her sinlessness has its source from God. Since it is God’s grace that Mary is preserved from original sin and committed no personal sin.

Pope Pius IX defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December 1854.

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a **singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”

This dogma has its bases on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is why I believe Mary remain sinless. She is the Immaculate One of God. Just as the magnificat says, Mary is the handmaid of the Lord.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thinkin’ about this…

Is it really anybody’s business as to whether Mary sinned? Or whether she could have? Seems to me this is between God and her. I have enough trouble with my own sin.

Everyone of us struggle with our own sins and temptation. Many times, we fail to respond to God’s grace calling us to be more obedient to his commandments.

It may not matter so much to Non-Catholic Christians because they find this teaching difficult to grasp. For Catholics, this is something we must believe because the Church teaches it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe this benefits us all. If we following Mary’s example, we too can be immaculate by not sinning so much and cease offending God, who is so much offended by our sins.

It is entirely possible that she is standing here reading this over my shoulder as I type. I’ve read speculations about Mary and Joseph’s marital state that I don’t think we would engage in for any other couple in history. Don’t you think they are entitled to some privacy? Some respect? Consider whom you are writing about. She is a real, live human being, a wonderful lady, and yet we get into these rude theological arguments that are unworthy of her. Or her Son.

Mary, Joseph, and Jesus are real. Many Catholics here are very protective of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We consider her as Our Spiritual Mother. We consider her son, our brother. We consider, God, as the Father. When NCC try to convince us that Mary’s sinlessness is erroneous or unbiblical, we take offense to it. We have explained numerous times from Scripture why we believe Mary as sinless.

Yet some NCC insist, that we are misintepreting the passage out of context. I don’t think so. We have done our research, and what we see in the Catholic Church is the consistent beliefs that she professes. Mary could have sinned if she decided to, but she didn’t. She cooperated with God’s grace and willing became the obedient handmaid of the Lord. She was there when Jesus was born. She was there with Jesus at the foot of the cross when all the other Apostle and disciple, except John, left. She never abandoned her son.

I think many NNC miss out the prophecy which Simeon said to Mary. He said to her, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against, and a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

When Jesus was crucified, a sword pierced her soul. She became very sorrowful when her own son died. This is too much for any mother to bear.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

No man has power over Scripture? I don’t see that written anywhere in the Bible.

Peter said that no prophecy in the Scripture is of private interpretation, but that it was divinely inspired by God’s power. Likewise in Psalms 12 it says that God preserves His words from this generation forever.

I have read many of the post you made and assumed Eliakim as the Holy Spirit, which I think is pretty new doctrine. That to me is private interpretation.

If it’s what the Scripture says, then it’s not new. God reveals truth in the Word with time. Jesus preached some stuff from the Old Testament that the Pharisees accused of being new doctrine.

But at any rate, it’s been preached on for close to a century now, at least. There might be older examples, but a century is good enough for me.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=isa&chapter=022

The only difference I notice though is they consider Jesus to be spoken of in Revelation 3:7, not the Holy Spirit. And if so, that might explain the play on words in Matthew 16:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee , That thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it .

Peter’s name means a piece of rock, just as the new name Jesus gave him means stone. In naming what the church would be built on, Jesus used the word petra, or mass of rock, not petros which would have been Peter.

If it was Jesus, that would make sense since Jesus refers to Himself as the “Rock” or petra:

Matthew 7:25 And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house ; and it fell not : for it was founded upon a rock .

Paul specifically names who this Rock is, this Petra:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ .

I suppose it all depends on who is speaking in Revelation 3:7, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Peter said that no prophecy in the Scripture is of private interpretation, but that it was divinely inspired by God’s power. Likewise in Psalms 12 it says that God preserves His words from this generation forever.

What does this have to do with the topic, Could Mary have sinned?

If it’s what the Scripture says, then it’s not new. God reveals truth in the Word with time. Jesus preached some stuff from the Old Testament that the Pharisees accused of being new doctrine.

But at any rate, it’s been preached on for close to a century now, at least. There might be older examples, but a century is good enough for me.

Again this has nothing to do with the topic.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=isa&chapter=022

The only difference I notice though is they consider Jesus to be spoken of in Revelation 3:7, not the Holy Spirit. And if so, that might explain the play on words in Matthew 16:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee , That thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it .

It’s a play on words. Peter’s name means a piece of rock, just as the new name Jesus gave him means stone. Must in naming what the church would be built on, Jesus used the word petra, or mass of rock, not petros which would have been Peter.

If it was Jesus, that would make sense since Jesus refers to Himself as the “Rock” or petra:

Matthew 7:25 And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house ; and it fell not : for it was founded upon a rock .

Paul specifically names who this Rock is, this Petra:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ .

I suppose it all depends on who is speaking in Revelation 3:7, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

If you want to discuss the Matthew 16:18, make a thread. This topic is no where connected to this thread. I have refuted your claims, and I have return to the topic.

 

[Old_Scholar]

What does this have to do with the topic, Could Mary have sinned?

Again this has nothing to do with the topic.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=isa&chapter=022

The only difference I notice though is they consider Jesus to be spoken of in Revelation 3:7, not the Holy Spirit. And if so, that might explain the play on words in Matthew 16:

If you want to discuss the Matthew 16:18, make a thread. This topic is no where connected to this thread. I have refuted your claims, and I have return to the topic.

It will be kinda sad to see this thread end because in addition to the ones who are quoting the Scriptures and speaking the truth, there are two or three others who actually know something about their faith and don’t simply answer that that is what the church teaches and that’s it.

I have learned a great deal from a few—not to say that I agree that they are right but at least they are willing to check, read the early writers of the church and consider what they had to say.

If a Christian doesn’t even understand the why of their faith, then they need to read a little more and not listen to those who would lead them astray. As the Scriptures say, there will be many who will be teaching false things and beware of them…

The only problem with threads like this is that when I or a couple of others, makes a post, there are 15 or 16 who quickly throw so many questions at you that you can’t answer them all unless you are one who simply sits in front of the computer all day and fortunately, some of us have lives…

There is a forum where they have one category that is called “the List” and it is set up so that one can challenge another individual to a debate and that is an excellent way to do it. The threads are covering most all the things discussed here one by one and are very beneficial to Christians of all faiths. Too bad they don’t offer such a “List” here…In a set up like that, a decent debate can be carried out because there is time and opportunity for any proof you would be looking for on both sides, without so much “side tracking.”

 

[sodak]

If a Christian doesn’t even understand the why of their faith, then they need to read a little more and not listen to those who would lead them astray. As the Scriptures say, there will be many who will be teaching false things and beware of them…

As a Catholic, I find this highly ironic. We are protected from heretics by submitting in obedience to Christ through the Church he founded.

It might come as quite a shock for you to discover that I consider you, as well as the other aggressive Protestant posters, as the false teachers.

 

[anthony022071]

Old Scholar,have you looked at the quotes from the Church Fathers in posts and 783,806 and 811? These men believed the same things about Mary that modern Catholics believe.

See also posts 591 and 714.

 

[guanophore]

Peter said that no prophecy in the Scripture is of private interpretation, but that it was divinely inspired by God’s power. Likewise in Psalms 12 it says that God preserves His words from this generation forever.

If it’s what the Scripture says, then it’s not new. God reveals truth in the Word with time. Jesus preached some stuff from the Old Testament that the Pharisees accused of being new doctrine.

But at any rate, it’s been preached on for close to a century now, at least. There might be older examples, but a century is good enough for me.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=isa&chapter=022

The only difference I notice though is they consider Jesus to be spoken of in Revelation 3:7, not the Holy Spirit. And if so, that might explain the play on words in Matthew 16:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee , That thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it .

Peter’s name means a piece of rock, just as the new name Jesus gave him means stone. In naming what the church would be built on, Jesus used the word petra, or mass of rock, not petros which would have been Peter.

If it was Jesus, that would make sense since Jesus refers to Himself as the “Rock” or petra:

Matthew 7:25 And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house ; and it fell not : for it was founded upon a rock .

Paul specifically names who this Rock is, this Petra:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ .

I suppose it all depends on who is speaking in Revelation 3:7, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

The problem here is that you are working from the Greek, whereas, Jesus was speaking to Simon in Aramaic. He was called Cephas, the Rock. Jesus grafted him into HIs own rockyness.

My apologies for the off topic post!