Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Michael,

On the contrary, I’m not disputing your claim “just because it’s Catholic”. I’m saying that your claim is NOT Catholic at all

!! You don’t seem capable of grasping the point of my statement.

Please show me a definitive Catholic teaching source that claims it’s normative for us to live a sinless life. Just one will do. You are the first I’ve ever heard of to make such a claim from any Christian religion. Anyone who has even a simplistic understanding of sin realizes that only Jesus led an entirely sinless life - even Mary’s supposed sinlessness was a unique act of Grace because she would normally have been incapable of doing it (as a number of church fathers stated she did).

Repeatedly, early church fathers are quoted as saying only Jesus was sinless. If your claim was true, surely they would have included the Apostles as being sinless (if anyone were capable of such as state, surely it would have been them). Yet, they are specifically known to have sinned - see Paul’s statements in Romans about how he is always doing that which he knows is wrong and Peter’s doctrinal errors that Paul had to correct (yes - that was sin).

I think you need to study Catholic teachings about sin, pray about it, and then return here to respond. You’re showing your lack of knowledge and spiritual maturity with your current argument. We are all called to lead a sinless life, but no one is expected to be capable of achieving it, which is why Jesus died on the cross for us.

David

Hey David!
It’s okay man! I don’t care whether you agree or not. I disagree with you and I believe that it is possible for us to live a sinless life, but that most all of us give up in a sort of spiritual pessimism that is contrary to the Word of God. I think the commands and statements of both the OT and NT are more than clear enough and that the failure is one our end ( self -evident, right?).

I really don’t have to have a definitive Catholic statement of all this. IMO the scriptures speak for themselves as my previous post points out as well as my IP and discussions along the way. My belief is that the Blessed Virgin is the first and best (completely human) example of true Christian living.
These NT passages would support this:
Philippians 2 :13) For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.:

1. 2 Peter 1 :10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
2. 1 John 2 :1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just:
3. 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God.
   Pax tecum David,

 

[DavidB]

Hi Michael,

I did a little digging on New Advent.org to see if I could find some references regarding your claim, and I did. I found a letter from 417 AD that sounded strikingly similar to our conversation here. Saint Jerome wrote a letter entitled “Against the Pelagians” in which he corrects the errors of Critobulus, a heretic. Critobulus claimed, exactly as you do, that God commands sinless perfection and nothing God commands is impossible. St Jerome sets him straight just as I have attempted with you. Read for yourself . . . newadvent.org/fathers/30111.htm.

I hope after reading this, you’ll see that in this case, it’s not OK to agree to disagree. And strangely enough, we have a non-Catholic Christian (me) trying to keep a Catholic (you) from maintaining a heresy as truth. I pray you are able to accept this truth with the spirit intended - as gentle nudge back on course.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Hi Michael,

I did a little digging on New Advent.org to see if I could find some references regarding your claim, and I did. I found a letter from 417 AD that sounded strikingly similar to our conversation here. Saint Jerome wrote a letter entitled “Against the Pelagians” in which he corrects the errors of Critobulus, a heretic. Critobulus claimed, exactly as you do, that God commands sinless perfection and nothing God commands is impossible. St Jerome sets him straight just as I have attempted with you. Read for yourself . . . newadvent.org/fathers/30111.htm

.

I hope after reading this, you’ll see that in this case, it’s not OK to agree to disagree. And strangely enough, we have a non-Catholic Christian (me) trying to keep a Catholic (you) from maintaining a heresy as truth. I pray you are able to accept this truth with the spirit intended - as gentle nudge back on course.

David
I’ll read it later. However, I would suggest that there may be other information that needs consideration. Jerome, Though one of my heroes, was not speaking ex-Cathedra, (since he was not pope) so therefore despite it being “heresy” at that time, it may have been better undertood later. I’ll keep digging and in the meantime I maintain my position from scripture and wonder why you would take this position unless you perhaps have some further point to make?

Most times, an n-C will come from this angle in any discussion of the Blessed Virgin in an effort to impugn Catholic belief concerning her.
I never said it was okay to agree to disagree…in fact I disagree with you on that. LOL.
Pax tecum,

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

. . .I maintain my position from scripture and wonder why you would take this position unless you perhaps have some further point to make?

Most times, an n-C will come from this angle in any discussion of the Blessed Virgin in an effort to impugn Catholic belief concerning her.

That’s just it, your understanding of scripture is incorrect, which is the point of Jerome’s argument. Suggestion for your research, on the Catholic encyclopedia, do a search on “sinless”. You’ll find dozens of similar statements all confirming Jerome’s (and my) position and NONE contradicting.

I’m actually not trying to “set you up” for some additional point. I don’t think Mary was without sin. I said that up-front. It’s just something I disagree with Catholics about. But this is heresy even from a Catholic perspective.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

That’s just it, your understanding of scripture is incorrect, which is the point of Jerome’s argument. Suggestion for your research, on the Catholic encyclopedia, do a search on “sinless”. You’ll find dozens of similar statements all confirming Jerome’s (and my) position and NONE contradicting.

I’m actually not trying to “set you up” for some additional point. I don’t think Mary was without sin. I said that up-front. It’s just something I disagree with Catholics about. But this is heresy even from a Catholic perspective.

David

:irish1:

 

[DavidB]

Oh, for some reason I thought I was dealing with a mature person who deserved to learn the truth. I can see I overestimated you. I leave you to your ignorance and heresy young man.

David

 

[jsussvsus]

Hi All
Mary could not have been sinnless because Jesus was the only one who was perfect and without sin. God’s word says so, why would you believe anyone else?
Thanks

 

[jpusateri]

michael777:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

the word of God cannot be borken
ALL includes Mary unless ofcourse she wasnt part of the human race in which case christ wasnty fully human!!!

Jesus who was fully human must have sinned too.

Oops. Broke it.

 

[Axion]

jsussvsus:

Hi All
Mary could not have been sinnless because Jesus was the only one who was perfect and without sin. God’s word says so, why would you believe anyone else?
Thanks

So Michael, Gabriel, all the angels and the heavenly host are sinners?

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Oh, for some reason I thought I was dealing with a mature person who deserved to learn the truth. I can see I overestimated you. I leave you to your ignorance and heresy young man.

David

Just because I choose to take my time and examine what you say marks me as Immature? Let me suggest that you check to see if you left your manners at the door or something. What did you expect me to do? Acknowlege you as the God-emperor of all theology just because you disagree with me and provide a single source that I didn’t have time to get into right then? Geez! Who died and made you the Pope?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

DavidB:

Oh, for some reason I thought I was dealing with a mature person who deserved to learn the truth. I can see I overestimated you. I leave you to your ignorance and heresy young man.

David

Davidhttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gifunless you have been appointed Pope you have no authority to even interpratehttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/1.gifJesus gave Peter and his successors authority not you!Neither do you have the right or authority to call Church Millitant a heretichttp://bestsmileys.com/nono/1.gifI believe you owe him an apologyhttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/11.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

jsussvsus:

Hi All
Mary could not have been sinnless because Jesus was the only one who was perfect and without sin. God’s word says so, why would you believe anyone else?
Thanks

This has already been answered many times by myself and others on this thread. Please feel free to scroll back and examine them to get the answers that you seem to have somehow missed.

I think the better question would be: Why would we believe someone who tells us the he knows all that the Bible means just because he’s read it and believes in Christ and goes to church? That gets into the whole problem of Sola Scriptura, which is one of the main problems of discussions between Catholics and most n-Cs who want to base their interps of the Bible upon the Bible alone, ignoring te ECF and the 1500 years of Christian history and writings prior to the deformation in 1517. That’s another thread alltogether though.

Pax tecum,

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

Just because I choose to take my time and examine what you say marks me as Immature? Let me suggest that you check to see if you left your manners at the door or something. What did you expect me to do? Acknowlege you as the God-emperor of all theology just because you disagree with me and provide a single source that I didn’t have time to get into right then? Geez! Who died and made you the Pope?

Your immature responses such as this last response and your little ROFL icons pretty much speak for themselves. I’ve been dealing with you in a genuine and direct way from the beginning. Your recent remarks are childish and are typical of a child who gets in over his head. Start name calling, change the subject, try to be funny and insulting . . . anything to distract from the fact that you may actually have to admit your wrong and change your thinking. The fact that I’m even having to explain this to you beacuse you can’t see our own behavior is proof enough.

Please grow up a little more before deciding to participate in an adult forum.

David

 

[DavidB]

Lisa4Catholics:

Davidhttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gifunless you have been appointed Pope you have no authority to even interpratehttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/1.gifJesus gave Peter and his successors authority not you!Neither do you have the right or authority to call Church Millitant a heretichttp://bestsmileys.com/nono/1.gifI believe you owe him an apologyhttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/11.gif

Lisa,

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Read the entire exchange between us. I’m the one defending the official Catholic position here, not Michael. He’s the one in heresy on this subject, according to the Vatican, not me. Check it out for yourself. Do your own research. If you believe it’s normative for believers to live a sinless life like Michael does, then you and he are repeating the Pelagian heresy from the early 400’s AD.

David

 

[DavidB]

Axion:

So Michael, Gabriel, all the angels and the heavenly host are sinners?

You know perfectly well that he/she was referring to the scripture verse which is addressing humans, not angels. We actually don’t know whether or not the faithful angels ever sinned. We know angels are capable of sin, since at least a third rebelled against God and followed Lucifer. But we have no idea if the holy angels are subject to any kind of sinful temptations and need to repent or anything like that. Scripture is silent on this.

David

 

[Axion]

DavidB:

You know perfectly well that he/she was referring to the scripture verse which is addressing humans, not angels. We actually don’t know whether or not the faithful angels ever sinned. We know angels are capable of sin, since at least a third rebelled against God and followed Lucifer. But we have no idea if the holy angels are subject to any kind of sinful temptations and need to repent or anything like that. Scripture is silent on this.

David

Not at all. The scripture verse doesn’t refer to Mary either. It just says “All” have sinned. It doesn’t say “all humans”, “all humans except Jesus”, "all humans except the newborn, the mentally incapable, the unconscious, etc.) You want to interpret the scripture verse as absolute in that it applies to Mary - but as loosely as you please, when a tight definition would make it ridiculous.

The point is that it has been shown many times that the word “ALL” does not have the absolute - no exceptions - sense it would need to disprove the sinlessness of Mary.

 

[DavidB]

Axion:

Not at all. The scripture verse doesn’t refer to Mary either. It just says “All” have sinned. It doesn’t say “all humans”, “all humans except Jesus”, "all humans except the newborn, the mentally incapable, the unconscious, etc.) You want to interpret the scripture verse as absolute in that it applies to Mary - but as loosely as you please, when a tight definition would make it ridiculous.

The point is that it has been shown many times that the word “ALL” does not have the absolute - no exceptions - sense it would need to disprove the sinlessness of Mary.

Actually, it does include Mary, but I understand and have stopped trying to convince Catholics of this. My point was that while I understand your wanting to make an exception to allow for Mary’s exclusion, it’s just illogical and frankly desperate to try to include angelic beings in a verse that could never have intended any such thing.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Your immature responses such as this last response and your little ROFL icons pretty much speak for themselves. I’ve been dealing with you in a genuine and direct way from the beginning. Your recent remarks are childish and are typical of a child who gets in over his head. Start name calling, change the subject, try to be funny and insulting . . . anything

to distract from the fact that you may actually have to admit your wrong and change your thinking. The fact that I’m even having to explain this to you beacuse you can’t see our own behavior is proof enough.

Please grow up a little more before deciding to participate in an adult forum.

David
Jerome is not exactly an “official Catholic position” Dave and having read the link you offered carefully I can see that they shared the same miscommunication that you and I are having right now. In fact if you read it carefully you’ll find that it says that Jerome actually tended to agree with this position. Much of the discussion is based upon the same scriptures I have cited, and since there is no official position on this then this is still open to some discussion.

As for you taking offense at my humor…sorry 'bout that, but you take it all personal when it’s not. If you didn’t bring a sense of humor with you…I’d recommend that you find one.

On the other hand… if you wanna be insulting (which I have not been, despite your oversensitve remarks), go right ahead. It adds nothing to your posts and makes them far less effective. You seem distressed that Catholics are not convinced by your arguments… if that hurts your feelings then you’ll be very unhappy here.

By the way… I haven’t seen any of your dozens of sources agreeing with you and Jerome that you spoke of, and having now answered your source from a careful reading, I await more evidence of these sources.

You act like my whole life is suppopsed to center around answering your posts David…and that is just not realistic at all. Also referring to us as “desperate” is certainly not called for is it? We are entitled to our opinions, here or anywhere else and that’s just the way that it goes. You have taken the same basic position that every n-C that comes in here has taken, and been answered all up and down this thread.

Welcome to “mature and adult” discussions…
Pax tecum,

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

Jerome is not exactly an “official Catholic position” Dave and having read the link you offered carefully I can see that they shared the same miscommunication that you and I are having right now. In fact if you read it carefully you’ll find that it says that Jerome actually tended to agree with this position. Much of the discussion is based upon the same scriptures I have cited, and since there is no official position on this then this is still open to some discussion.

As for you taking offense at my humor…sorry 'bout that, but you take it all personal when it’s not. If you didn’t bring a sense of humor with you…I’d recommend that you find one.

On the other hand… if you wanna be insulting (which I have not been, despite your oversensitve remarks), go right ahead. It adds nothing to your posts and makes them far less effective. You seem distressed that Catholics are not convinced by your arguments… if that hurts your feelings then you’ll be very unhappy here.

By the way… I haven’t seen any of your dozens of sources agreeing with you and Jerome that you spoke of, and having now answered your source from a careful reading, I await more evidence of these sources.

You act like my whole life is suppopsed to center around answering your posts David…and that is just not realistic at all. Also referring to us as “desperate” is certainly not called for is it? We are entitled to our opinions, here or anywhere else and that’s just the way that it goes. You have taken the same basic position that every n-C that comes in here has taken, and been answered all up and down this thread.

Welcome to “mature and adult” discussions…
Pax tecum,

My name isn’t “Dave”. It’s “David”. Would you prefer that I call you “Mikey” or “Mickey”? That’s a subtle form of demeaning someone. Referring to me as some sort of “God emperor of theology”, now that’s more direct, but typical of your exchanges. Am I being over-sensitive? Or are you being ignorantly rude? I’ll let the others judge.

You continue to say that you are speaking for Catholics . . . haven’t you noticed no one else is coming to your defense on this? Haven’t you come to realize it’s YOU who have misinterpreted? I provided the Jerome letter because it addresses the issue so clearly, at least if you read it properly.

I’ll leave this discussion here. I suggest you discuss this topic with your priest or someone on this forum who’s opinion you respect. I’m sure you’ll be told the same thing I have here. I started this dialogue as a genuine attempt to gentlely get you back on the orthodox track on this issue. But I’m not here to argue you into submission. I have neither the time nor inclination.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

Sheesh!..

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion…