Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
gladtobe:
Then perhaps you can supply us with some historical statements made by the pre 5th century church fathers that Mary indeed was born without sin. Would you please supply two or three clear statements? I never found any?
Click to expand...
Wow… I just noticed in your profile you say you are catholic.

Do you disagree with the dogma of Immaculate Conception defined by the Catholic Church? Or do you mean “catholic” in another sense?
 
40.png
gladtobe:
Then perhaps you can supply us with some historical statements made by the pre 5th century church fathers that Mary indeed was born without sin. Would you please supply two or three clear statements? I never found any?
Click to expand...
“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),in ULL,94

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
“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),in THEO,132
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“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),in JUR,II:166
 
I believe itsjustDave supplied three good posts from the Latin fathers stating that Mary was immaculate. I must agree, that’s what they said. But did the fathers mean by this, that Mary was born without sin or that her role as the Mother of God was immaculate or above reproach as a holy and pious woman? That is the question.
Code: 
                               And may I ask this question as well. Does the church have the authority to **contradict what is already written in scripture?** Or should it uphold what scripture says? Paul's writing in Romans chapter 3 is a depiction of mankind's universality in sin. **ALL** men. And as I said before, since Paul knew of Mary, why didn't he say Mary was the exception to all men as being a sinner and falling short of the glory of God? Was Paul absent minded?

                              I certainly support tradition and scripture as binding, but **not **tradition that contradicts **what scripture already** states clearly. **Catholic tradition originally was never established to replace scripture or correct it, **but to uphold it's sacred meaning. 

                               Shall we now also be Arians and deny the divinity of Christ because Arius the great a Greek church Father denied scripture and it's clear meaning? God forbid. **The Trinity was formulated because the scriptures do support God being represented as three persons.**

                                If this is so, does not scripture also clearly say, that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God? Does not scripture say, that **there is none righteous, no, not one?** **Mary was born a human being of** **mankind.** Was Mary born in glory or was she fallen short of glory as Paul says in Romans 3:23 ? How could Mary be glorified to heaven at her death if she was already a glorious being while alive? 

                                 Do you see how making Mary, perfect, sinless and full of glory contradicts what Paul says in Romans chapter 3 about all men?

                                 I do not doubt for a minute Mary was a very pious and holy woman who loved God and was faithful in her Jew's religion. But she was still just human and she had need of a Savior. Please try to tone down the harsh remarks. Thank you.
 
Exporter said:
****************************************************************************
Look at what you wrote, I highlighted it blue. Sure she went to the Temple AFTER she gave birth. She was following Jewish Religious Rituals. All Jewish women made a small sacrifice after child birth. SHE DIDN’T GO TO THE TEMPLE FOR ACTUAL SIN.IT WAS A RITUAL. She was obeying her God in the Temple.
Click to expand...

:amen: Good response. Absolutely the correct and only response.

MaggieOH
 
When reading the offerings Mary made at the temple, read also what Leviticus 12:8 says what the offerings are for. Mary did not just come to the temple to be obedient, but to offer the pigeons FOR A SIN OFFERING.We know Jesus was without sin, so just who was the sin offering for?
 
Gladtobe, your profile says you are Catholic, but the way you express you knowledge of St. Mary tells me that you are just joking or you really don’t know very much. I will only comment on one topic

You wrote:“I believe itsjustDave supplied three good posts from the Latin fathers stating that Mary was immaculate. I must agree, that’s what they said. But did the fathers mean by this, that Mary was born without sin or that her role as the Mother of God was immaculate or above reproach as a holy and pious woman? That is the question.”

You say you are a Roman Catholic, but you don’t know what the Immaculate Conception is. Do you know what Original sin is? Do you think God would have sent His Son to live in a woman who had the stain of sin in her? I think not. The Early Fathers wrote what they had been taught by the Apostles.When one reads the Early Fathers he sould not try to change the meaning, or interpret, the Magesterium has interpreted the Immaculate Conception. Mary was concieved without original sin , therefore. she did not have the propensity to sin, she did not have the appitite to sin.

If I am wrong, prove me wrong.
 
40.png
gladtobe:
When reading the offerings Mary made at the temple, read also what Leviticus 12:8 says what the offerings are for. Mary did not just come to the temple to be obedient, but to offer the pigeons FOR A SIN OFFERING.We know Jesus was without sin, so just who was the sin offering for?
Click to expand...
She had to meet the ritual requirement or she would have sinned.

MaggieOH
 
Exporter

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. But please respect my position, that I accept what the apostle Paul said in Romans chapter 3 about the universality of mankind as well. Paul knew of Mary. And surely if he knew that Mary was without sin, he would have made mention of that in that chapter. He only states that it was Christ alone that knew no sin.
 
If Mary was born without a sinful nature, then why didn’t Paul make mention of this in Romans chapter three, where he says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He very well knew of Mary. Was Paul absent minded? The only person he ever stated that knew no sin was Jesus. See II Cor 5:21.
Click to expand...
I think there have already been many good responses, but let me add to them. First of all, when Paul said “all have sinned”, does he mean even children before the age of reason have sinned? Did he include infants in the “all”?

Also, if you really want a reason why he would not mention Mary even though he knew of her, there are many good reasons. One, his audience, the Romans, did not know Mary, so for him to have mentioned her would have led him off topic to explain something that wasn’t a part of his discussion. Given that he could know with relative certainty that none of his readers would have been immaculately conceived, he really didn’t need to put in an exception clause. For example, if I were writing a letter to a friend about feeling alone and I said, “For all have felt isolated at one time or other”, I would not be including infants who have been well cared-for. If I knew of a person who had never felt alone in her entire life, I would not mention her because it wouldn’t be on the topic and would lead to discussing a person my friend did not even know.
 
By the way, can everyone see the post I made right before this? I can see it, but I got an error message, and it’s not showing up on the “new posts” or as the last post made.
 
There is only one flaw in your reasoning. Both Paul and Peter journeyed to Rome. So the Roman Christians would have known about Mary through Peter’s ministry.After all Mary, was the Mother of God incarnate. Also, I am sure the Christians in Rome were told of the Son of God’s incarnation as well as his death, burial and resurrection.
Regarding Romans chapter 3, it is true that Paul is referring chiefly to mankind's actions of sin, rather than nature. But the fact that all men do sin, only points to the fact that something within their being causes them to do so. And this is man's fallen nature **that man is born with**. To deny this is to deny man has inherited Adam's fallen sinful nature. Do you deny this?
 
40.png
gladtobe:
There is only one flaw in your reasoning. Both Paul and Peter journeyed to Rome. So the Roman Christians would have known about Mary through Peter’s ministry.After all Mary, was the Mother of God incarnate. Also, I am sure the Christians in Rome were told of the Son of God’s incarnation as well as his death, burial and resurrection.
Code: 
                                       Regarding Romans chapter 3, it is true that Paul is referring chiefly to mankind's actions of sin, rather than nature. But the fact that all men do sin, only points to the fact that something within their being causes them to do so. And this is man's fallen nature **that man is born with**. To deny this is to deny man has inherited Adam's fallen sinful nature. Do you deny this?
Click to expand...
Ah therein lies the rub GTB!
Do you know for sure that every person out there sins?
I stand by my statement that it is wrong to believe that no one can live a sinless life if that is indeed what God has called us to.(and we know that He has!) . The only thing that causes us to sin is our lack of faith in the grace of God and the will to CHOOSE to disobey God. Is not every sin a choice of the will? The Catholic teaching is that if I find myself in hell for all eternity it will be because I have actually chosen that destiny for myself and rejected the boundless love and mercy of God as delivered for me by Our Lord Jesus Christ. That will be the reason that I would turn away in shame and despair at the day of judgement because I would KNOW that I had chosen my own fate…
I will not choose that though, God’s grace helping me and I will make every effort to live a life that is as sinless as possible. Thanks be to God for the beautiful sacrament of reconcilliation! (TUT! That’s another thread alltogether…not this one. 😉 )
Pax vobiscum,
 
Yes, every man woman and child all sin. Many in a worst degree than others. But we all do sin, in thought word or deed in one form or another. Why? Not because of lack of faith, but because we are the offspring of Adam who fell into sin and we have inherited his fallen nature to sin. We are born with a propensity to sin as well as do good.
Code: 
                     I believe this was Martin Luther's great struggle. The church told him to work out his salvation by pious works and he would achieve sanctification. But inwardly he still had a propensity towards sin.He realized that no amount of good works could save him. He was a debtor in the flesh to sin. His spirit only wanted to serve God, but his flesh was weak and prone to the desires of sin. 

                      Many men, like yourself claim there is no such thing. But denying one's sinful being within, does not make it vanish.I believe it was St Augustine who also realized that he was undone before God and claimed only his mercy.

                      No, the sinful nature within man is like a disease that indwells the inner being of man. He constantly struggles with it.
 
GTB, let me ask you a simple question. Could God have caused it so that Mary did not sin? Not did He cause it, but did He have the power to cause it?

The reason I ask is because you argue that Mary sinned because she decended from Adam, as though this fact made her sin inevitable. I’m asking you if God Himself had the power to break the chain of sin for one of His creatures, or if even He could not break it. If He had the power, then to say that she must have sinned because she decended from Adam is not a valid argument. If He did not have the power, then we have a whole new subject for discussion.
 
Yes a sinless life.
Code: 
   Although it is difficult to see a young girl not doing what young girls do by nature. Gestures,pouting,etc A young girl that is 100% good all the time would have been noticable in the community I feel, and would have attracted much talk and attention.

    For this reason I give the issue some leeway. I somewhat feel very young children are innocent anyway, so in that sense there's nothing new here. I like to think that at the age when she could be definitly cupable of sin, she proved she was innocent of everything. 

    Andy
 
40.png
gladtobe:
Yes, every man woman and child all sin.
Click to expand...
my son isn’t quite 2 years old right now. i can assure you he has never sinned in his short life.
 
40.png
gladtobe:
When reading the offerings Mary made at the temple, read also what Leviticus 12:8 says what the offerings are for. Mary did not just come to the temple to be obedient, but to offer the pigeons FOR A SIN OFFERING.We know Jesus was without sin, so just who was the sin offering for?
Click to expand...
You tell us. Does the making of a sin offering prove that one has sinned? Must a sin offering only be for the sins of the one making the offering? In most references to a sin offering, language is used such as “when the sin which they have committed becomes known”, or “for his sin which he has committed”, but in Lev 12 there is no such stipulation that the offering is for sin that the woman has committed. So clearly Lev 12 is a different case.

BTW, was Jesus ever required as a Jew to make sin offerings?
 
gladtobe,

I read your profile again. You say catholic with a small c. You so far have avoided the question. **Are you a Catholic Christian as in denomination? **Please answer or change your profile. Lies and deceipt are not Christian. Truth does not need to come to people through a lie first.

God Bless,

Maria

BTW,

Jesus was baptized. Why? according to the reasoning you use with Mary, Jesus must have been born with a fallen nature or He would not have been baptized.
 
40.png
gladtobe:
Yes, every man woman and child all sin. Many in a worst degree than others. But we all do sin, in thought word or deed in one form or another. Why? Not because of lack of faith, but because we are the offspring of Adam who fell into sin and we have inherited his fallen nature to sin. We are born with a propensity to sin as well as do good.
Click to expand...
I think you are slightly off the point here. Catholics would not seek to deny that mankind inherits the propensity to sin from Adam. This is precisely why the Virgin Mary had to be especially protected from this through her Immaculate Conception.

But there are many who cannot, and therefore have not, sinned. The newborn. Those not of reasoning age. Those without the mental capacity to commit an actual sin. Those who are unconscious. None of these have sinned. Therefore the statement “all have sinned” is clearly a rhetorical one, just as similar statements are used throughout the bible. A well-known example being “all the world was taxed/counted” in the birth of Jesus narrative.
I believe this was Martin Luther’s great struggle. The church told him to work out his salvation by pious works and he would achieve sanctification. But inwardly he still had a propensity towards sin.He realized that no amount of good works could save him. He was a debtor in the flesh to sin. His spirit only wanted to serve God, but his flesh was weak and prone to the desires of sin.
Click to expand...
I believe Martin Luther was more than a little neurotic, in his obsession with his personal sin, and the inability of God to forgive him anything. He therefore cracked, threw out the baby with the bathwater and started arguing that following Jesus’s teachings was basically irrelevant to salvation. Catholicism teaches that both Faith and Following Jesus through deeds are important.
 
40.png
gladtobe:
… did the fathers mean by this, that Mary was born without sin or that her role as the Mother of God was immaculate or above reproach as a holy and pious woman? That is the question.
Click to expand...
The Church has infallible answered that question. Only heretics deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary, even if they claim to be “Catholic.”

The only ambiguous one of the three provided seems to be from Origen, who was a Greek father, not a Latin father. St. Ephraem, however, is clearly comparing the sinlessness of Jesus to his mother. St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church, asserts that Mary was free of every stain of sin. How could that be misunderstood?

Moreover, the Council of Trent affirms: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.” (D 833)

Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical *Mystici Corporis *of the Virgin Mother of God, that “she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.”
And may I ask this question as well. Does the church have the authority to contradict what is already written in scripture?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, and it hasn’t. You seem to have substituted your private fallible interpretation of Scripture for that of the *infallible *universal consent of the Church since before the 5th century. Are you infallible in your understanding of this verse?

Paul was not teaching about original sin, nor meaning by “all” that “each and every person” is without personal sin. There are many other passages of Scripture where “all” does not mean “each and every person” that was ever created. So your “proof text” falls flat upon its face. For one, you rip that text from the context of the passages which Paul is quoting from the Old Testament. Secondly, you attempt to interpret this text apart from Catholic Tradition. Your epistemology is flawed, so your results are erroneous.

The Church, for example, has always taught that the angels were without sin. Surely, one does not have to be divine to be sinless. Mary too was sinless, by the testimony of the Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, for which Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me.” Your faulty polemics have been tried since medieval times, and they have failed. The Bible does not teach what you say it teaches. Catholic Tradition has always upheld the sacred meaning of Scripture, your heretical opinions to the contary notwithstanding.

to be continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top