Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

[Church_Militant]

sonseeker says:

Church Militant,
In answer to your question, no, Mary could not have lived a sinless life.

Why? Are you telling me that a Christian, in cooperation with the grace and power of God, that He has promised us in the very Bible that you say is the sole source of the deposit of faith, cannot live a sinless life in obedience to what God has clearly commanded us?

Church Militant, if you can show me, from God’s word, where we are called to have faith in Mary’s sinlessness, I’ll agree.

The faith is in the power and superabundant graces of God and I know that you have no issues with that (If one is a believer at all). The point is that she is the best example. Have you another candidate in mind perhaps? Her faith as expressed in her “fiat” really tells it all. You are confused in that you think that we think she wasn’t in need of a savior, but that uis not true at all. We simply offer that her sinless life was the result of her continued cooperation with the grace that God gave her. There are plenty of examples of her abundant faith. The annunciation is a prize winning case, as well as the wedding miracle at Cana.

If you tell me that no Christian can live a sinless life as commanded by God in His word, then I would have to say why waste time with Christianity since it lacks the power to do what God wants us to do?

Romans 3:20
20 …for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

How does the knowledge of sin come through the law? You can’t keep it. God does command us to, as you say “to do the impossible,” (keep his law) in order to show us that we can’t keep it, and so, we learn that we are sinners.

We’re not talking about the law…though the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph were both called righteous before Jesus was born…which suggests that God accepted them as such… (This of course gets complex because of the timeless nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross…“Slain before the foundation of the world.”)

Why is it necessary for the law to teach us that we are sinners?
Galatians 3:22-24
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ

, so that we may be justified by faith.
That is why works of the law, and works by the law cannot save us. No one is suggesting that she (or any of us) attain heaven by virtue of compliance with the works of the law alone, and that is what St. Paul is talking about. But for Christians…the sinless life is available through the power of the Holy Spirit and the finished work of Christ isn’t it? That’s where all the power for the Christian life comes from is it not?

No. You are born fallen. You sin because you are a sinner; you are not a sinner because you sin.

So you concur with Martin Luther’s misbegotten view of mankind as nothing more than dung heaps covered in snow?

It is literal. The truth of de facto (and everything else) is found within DEO—a fact.

The fact then negates the power and the graces of God? And the commands of God are just rules that we cannot meet EVER even with the promised power of the risen Christ in our lives? So then our failings, even as Christians mean that God’s grace and power are not sufficient for us to obey Him? St. Paul might wonder at that and disagree.

Your rejection of what Paul says is “the result of a serious lack of faith.”[/font

I’m anything but
[/quote]

rejecting what St. Paul has said. I’m saying that perhaps there is more to it than you are willing to accept and live out.

You are free to reject what I have said.

No problem there…
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Scripture is clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short, the only noted exception is Jesus - there’s a number of folks posting on this thread who are ignorant of this fact. Scripture also states that if anyone thinks they are without sin, they deceive themselves. Mary is never mentioned or inferred in scripture as being sinless.

Dozens of early church writings clearly state that Jesus alone was without sin, not ONE indicates that Mary was sinless. Some go so far as to indicate which specific sins Mary was known to have committed (re: Augustine).

Even the great doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas agreed with the ancient doctor Augustine and did not accept the idea that Mary was sinless.

The Orthodox Church (the first Church established by the apostles) also does not teach that Mary was sinless.

Here’s something to think about. If Mary was Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix, as some here believe, why is there no mention of anything like that in ANY early Church writings? None, nada, ziltch, zippo . . .in fact, of the volumes and volumes of writings covering the first thousand years of the Church, she is mentioned very little. How so for someone who is today reverved as being “Queen of Heaven” and the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” and “Mediatrix of ALL Grace”? It’s inconceivable.

David

Or else Mary’s position is unique in all of history and even Augustine and Thomas Aquinas didn’t understand it. I strongly advise you non-Catholics to dig out your Strong’s Exhaustive Concordances and look up the Hebrew word “Giberah” and follow up that word study until you are fully aware of who they were and what they did and then see how that applies De Facto to the Blessed Virgin.

There are many Christian doctrines that have developed over the course of church history as we come to understand the deposit of faith better. Have tyou actually read any of the actual church documents about the titles that you have mentioned? I doubt it since I have and they do not mean what you seem to imply that they do. I submit that most of the n-Cs and worse still a-Cs have published their opinions based on the titles themselves with out really reading through the church teachings behind them and as such are offering knee-jerk ractions to something they really don’t understand well enough to discuss and worse still to attempt to explain to their congregations. this is not at all uncommon and we answer this sort of misperception of Catholic teachings on here all the time. Ya gotta do your homework from real catholic writings…not someone’s book that offers their slant on what they think the church teaches. If all these preachers did that temselves then about 9/10ths of all this baloney would be consumed at a fellowship pick-nic.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sonseeker]

Church Militant,

You say:
Church Militant:

Why? Are you telling me that a Christian, in cooperation with the grace and power of God, that He has promised us in the very Bible that you say is the sole source of the deposit of faith, cannot live a sinless life in obedience to what God has clearly commanded us?

Yes, I am telling you that. I will discuss it further down in the post.

You say:
Church Militant:

The faith is in the power and superabundant graces of God…

I did not ask you where the faith is. I asked you to show me, from God’s word, where we are called to believe that Mary is sinless. You have yet to do that.

You say:
Church Militant:

If you tell me that no Christian can live a sinless life as commanded by God in His word, then I would have to say why waste time with Christianity since it lacks the power to do what God wants us to do?

Church, slow down a minute.

Read Rom 7:14-25. In that passage, Paul discusses the conflict between the two natures of the believer.

Prior to justification, a man has one nature—sin. After justification, man has 2 natures—sin, spirit.

The believer is regenerated spiritually, but he still dwells “ in the flesh.” That is why he still sins. He now has the ability to “not sin,” but, as Paul says:”…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.”

That is why no Christian can live a sinless life—he is still in his body. It is the present position of “I am already saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.”

As long as the believer is alive, “being saved,” he sins.

The believer will not be sinless until he dies. Then, he “will be saved.”

Your remark about Luther’s “misbegotten view of mankind” tells me that you are not aware of the grave nature of sin. Think about it. Someone can live a short time past what you refer to as, the age of accountability, reject God, and Christ, and God says that is deserving of eternal punishment.

You say:
Church Militant:

The fact then negates the power and the graces of God?

Nothing can negate the power and grace of God. I am saying that when Paul says “all have sinned…” it is a statement of fact. In other words, God has not, through His power and grace, extended sinlessness to anyone. Either that, or Paul is a liar, and that would make God a liar.

If Mary were sinless, I would expect Paul to say in Romans 3:23: all have sinned, except the Lord’s mother, or something to that effect.

I know the Marian doctrine is important to you, and your church, but from a careful reading of Scripture, it does not seem so to God.

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

Or else Mary’s position is unique in all of history and even Augustine and Thomas Aquinas didn’t understand it. I strongly advise you non-Catholics to dig out your Strong’s Exhaustive Concordances and look up the Hebrew word “Giberah” and follow up that word study until you are fully aware of who they were and what they did and then see how that applies De Facto to the Blessed Virgin.

There are many Christian doctrines that have developed over the course of church history as we come to understand the deposit of faith better. Have tyou actually read any of the actual church documents about the titles that you have mentioned? I doubt it since I have and they do not mean what you seem to imply that they do. I submit that most of the n-Cs and worse still a-Cs have published their opinions based on the titles themselves with out really reading through the church teachings behind them and as such are offering knee-jerk ractions to something they really don’t understand well enough to discuss and worse still to attempt to explain to their congregations. this is not at all uncommon and we answer this sort of misperception of Catholic teachings on here all the time. Ya gotta do your homework from real catholic writings…not someone’s book that offers their slant on what they think the church teaches. If all these preachers did that temselves then about 9/10ths of all this baloney would be consumed at a fellowship pick-nic.
Pax vobiscum,

Ahh, the fact that I know Augustine, Aquinas and a dozen or so eary church fathers clearly state that only Jesus, and not Mary, was sinless, ought to tell you that I have researched this issue throughly, obviously more than you have. I can’t post the quotes (I tried, but the letter count prohibits that). And those titles do mean everything I inferred. I have indeed read the current Catechcism and am well versed with the Cathoic Encyclopedia.

I suggest YOU go do you homework and do some digging to understand just how the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness came about and the lack of foundation for it from Tradition. What were the circumstances that allowed it to occur? Did this dogma have a consensus of the bishops or was it an infallible pronouncement by a Pope under pressure? Why did it take over 1,800 years for the Church to decide to do it?

David

 

[yqbd]

Church Militant:

If you tell me that no Christian can live a sinless life as commanded by God in His word, then I would have to say why waste time with Christianity since it lacks the power to do what God wants us to do?

i think a Christian can live a sinless life from a point. i think that’s what you mean by a Christian living a sinless life, but is that what you mean with Mary? do you mean she lived sinless from her conception, since she was born?

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[TESSfromCALVARY]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
Are you telling me that a Christian, in cooperation with the grace and power of God, that He has promised us in the very Bible that you say is the sole source of the deposit of faith, cannot live a sinless life in obedience to what God has clearly commanded us?

Can you name another?

Bottom line for us who search the holy scriptures to see if a teaching is true, is it contradicts the apostles’ teaching – all have sinned, the fall has condemned all.

And, no amount of creative problem solving regarding Mary’s type of salvation (preemptive), can argue with Scripture.

 

[TESSfromCALVARY]

Momofone:

… the Ark of the Covenant is being transported, it started to slip. A man reached out to steady it, and BOOM, God struck him dead, just for touching it. A sinful man touches something that held the Ten Commandments(and a few other things?), which were objects that God had declared holy, and died. …
How is it that some can think that GOD could be carried 9 months in the womb of a sinful woman and yet nothing happens to her, … Jesus was much holier than objects He made holy, right?

The Mary/Ark parallel is a new one to me. And, I’ve got to admit, whoever made it up, made it sound good. But, your logic didn’t follow accurately for me, MOMOFONE.

Mary wouldn’t be struck whether she was sinless or not, because she wasn’t the outsider touching the Ark. She is said to be the Ark. Mary was chosen by God to carry Jesus; the struck man was not instructed to steady the Ark.

 

[Axion]

TESSfromCALVARY:

Bottom line for us who search the holy scriptures to see if a teaching is true, is it contradicts the apostles’ teaching – all have sinned, the fall has condemned all.

And, no amount of creative problem solving regarding Mary’s type of salvation (preemptive), can argue with Scripture.

It has been shown you many times on this thread and elsewhere that your “proof” text, “All have sinned” is

A> taken out of its context.
B> The word “All” does not means “absolutely everyone without exception” as generally used in scripture. (see “you will have ALL knowledge”, “ALL Judea came to Jesus”)
C> There are MANY clear exceptions to the ALL in this context (Jesus, Gabriel, the newborn, unconscious etc, etc.). **None ** of whom have sinned.

It has also been shown to you that sinlessness is essential to one bearing and giving their human nature to Christ.

Yet you come back parroting your one “proof” text, and insisting that you are sticking to scripture! In fact what you are clearly sticking to, is not scripture at all - but stubborness. Stubborness in trying to oppose a Catholic teaching simply because it is Catholic! I cannot think what other reason you could have for trying to attribute sins to Mary.

 

[Church_Militant]

TESSfromCALVARY:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Militant
Are you telling me that a Christian, in cooperation with the grace and power of God, that He has promised us in the very Bible that you say is the sole source of the deposit of faith, cannot live a sinless life in obedience to what God has clearly commanded us?

Can you name another?

Bottom line for us who search the holy scriptures to see if a teaching is true, is it contradicts the apostles’ teaching – all have sinned, the fall has condemned all.

And, no amount of creative problem solving regarding Mary’s type of salvation (preemptive), can argue with Scripture.

This would be a good answer If the early church believed Sola Scriptura. They didn’t. (another topic)

I see no contradiction with the writings of the apostles…just in your less than open-hearted way of understanding.

This isn’t “creative problem solving” at all. If we are called to live a sinless life as Christians, then I fail to see how the one creature that God chose to be His Son’s mother and called full of grace from the mouth of His own archangel, could not be the first example of such among all of His people. It just makes no sense to believe anything else IMO.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

sonseeker:

That is why no Christian can live a sinless life—he is still in his body. It is the present position of “I am already saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.”

As long as the believer is alive, “being saved,” he sins.

The believer will not be sinless until he dies. Then, he “will be saved.”

Your remark about Luther’s “misbegotten view of mankind” tells me that you are not aware of the grave nature of sin. Think about it. Someone can live a short time past what you refer to as, the age of accountability, reject God, and Christ, and God says that is deserving of eternal punishment.

Nothing can negate the power and grace of God. I am saying that when Paul says “all have sinned…” it is a statement of fact. In other words, God has not, through His power and grace, extended sinlessness to anyone. Either that, or Paul is a liar, and that would make God a liar.

If Mary were sinless, I would expect Paul to say in Romans 3:23: all have sinned, except the Lord’s mother, or something to that effect.

I know the Marian doctrine is important to you, and your church, but from a careful reading of Scripture, it does not seem so to God.

Most of this I’m just not gonna bother to answer, because it’s basically what I’ve been trying to get some n-C on this forum to admit all along. It’s not that we Catholics misunderstand the gravity of sin, but that we have a different (and better I believe) understanding of the nature of God’s creation and man as part of it. I do not believe that man is doomed to sin just because of his birth as a human and I don’t think that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I do not beleive in the total depravity of man and I don’t believe the Bible implies that in the passages that most of you have cited. Any time there appears to be a conflict between passages of the Bible I believe that it is our misunderstanding of the Bible that is the problem, not the Bible per se. I think that is something that St. Augustine said?

I wouldn’t go there about St. Paul, lying, and then say that it would make God a liar…since that stunt he pulled in front of the Sanhedran about being “on trial today for the resurrection of the dead” was certainly not the full truth and he used it as a ploy to get out of a tight spot. And that’s right there in Acts of the Apostles, in the Word of God… there’s a couple of other items like that, but Iplan to wait til I see him in person to discuss them.

I have to disagree with your beliefs since if that what you say is true then Christianity is without any hope of true holiness and a farce. That I certainly do not believe to be the case.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

Ahh, the fact that I know Augustine, Aquinas and a dozen or so eary church fathers clearly state that only Jesus, and not Mary, was sinless, ought to tell you that I have researched this issue throughly, obviously more than you have. I can’t post the quotes (I tried, but the letter count prohibits that). And those titles do mean everything I inferred. I have indeed read the current Catechcism and am well versed with the Cathoic Encyclopedia.

I suggest YOU go do you homework and do some digging to understand just how the dogma of Mary’s sinlessness came about and the lack of foundation for it from Tradition. What were the circumstances that allowed it to occur? Did this dogma have a consensus of the bishops or was it an infallible pronouncement by a Pope under pressure? Why did it take over 1,800 years for the Church to decide to do it?

David

The doctrine was believed by the church in spite of the writings that you imply…it was finally affirmed in the 1800’s. Do you suppose that the early church had all the doctrines of Christianity down by the death of St. John? I would say no, since the heresies that later sprang up about the diety of Jesus required church councils to condemn them as wrong and to affirm what we really believe. There’s nothing new…just new errors that are answered by affirmation of the church…what do you think te creeds are?

Did you research in seeking the truth…or to prove it wrong? I submit that you had a bias in your research…I did not and do not to this day. If you can show me that the Catholic Church is wrong, I’ll haul butt today, but no one has…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[DavidB]

Axion:

It has also been shown to you that sinlessness is essential to one bearing and giving their human nature to Christ.

1 John 1:8 “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

“Church Militant”, your claim that believers can possibly lead a sinless life is contrary to scripture, Church Tradition and current Catholic teachings. We are called to conform to the image of Christ, that much is true and we should all be striving to be holy and without sin, but scripture clearly teaches that we can’t actually reach that goal this side of Heaven.

I challenge you to find anything in the Catechcism that supports your claim. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from Tradition that refute your claim:

Tertullian “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God”
Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Augustine “He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

David

 

[sonseeker]

Axion,

You say:

Axion:

Two words are translated into English as blessed in the NT.

One, makarios, means fortunate, happy.

The other, Eulogio, means **exalted, **

BOTH words are used of Mary in Luke.

Actually, there are more than two words in the NT that are translated blessed, and eulogio is not used of Mary.

Makarios (makarioV) is the first one used of Mary in Lk 1:48, and to all believers in James 5:11. The only difference being the parsing. When used of Mary, it is future, active, indicative; when used of believers (which includes Mary), it is, present active indicative. Both of the voices (active) indication a continuous action/result.

Karitoo (karitow) is the second one used of Mary, and it means “to show kindness,” rather than “blessed.” It is also used of believers in Eph 1:6. The major difference in usage is that in the Eph passage it is used as a noun (in the genitive, possession), while in the Lk 1:28 passage it is used as a verb, passive participle. In the Lk passage the action is to Mary. Either way, Mary is also a believer so she has been both “verbed” and “nouned,” while from the Eph passage believers are only “nouned.”

Still a stretch to move from there to sinlessness, but ammunition for you nonetheless.

In another post you made the statement: “It has also been shown to you that sinlessness is essential to one bearing and giving their human nature to Christ.” I disagree with you, and will write something up hopefully by later today (I am busy), but look for that if you will, it should help you out with the necessity of Mary’s sinlessness.

God Bless

 

[sonseeker]

Church Militant:

Most of this I’m just not gonna bother to answer, because it’s basically what I’ve been trying to get some n-C on this forum to admit all along. It’s not that we Catholics misunderstand the gravity of sin, but that we have a different (and better I believe) understanding of the nature of God’s creation and man as part of it. I do not believe that man is doomed to sin just because of his birth as a human and I don’t think that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I do not beleive in the total depravity of man and I don’t believe the Bible implies that in the passages that most of you have cited. Any time there appears to be a conflict between passages of the Bible I believe that it is our misunderstanding of the Bible that is the problem, not the Bible per se. I think that is something that St. Augustine said?

I wouldn’t go there about St. Paul, lying, and then say that it would make God a liar…since that stunt he pulled in front of the Sanhedran about being “on trial today for the resurrection of the dead” was certainly not the full truth and he used it as a ploy to get out of a tight spot. And that’s right there in Acts of the Apostles, in the Word of God… there’s a couple of other items like that, but Iplan to wait til I see him in person to discuss them.

I have to disagree with your beliefs since if that what you say is true then Christianity is without any hope of true holiness and a farce. That I certainly do not believe to be the case.
Pax vobiscum,

Fair enough.

You say:

we have a different (and better I believe) understanding of the nature of God’s creation and man as part of it.

I am intensely interested in that better view of God’s creation and man as part of it. (I am not being sarcastic. I understand why others* I have talked *to reject total depravity, but I do not understand why *you *reject it. The reasons are many, and I have not called you any names, or given you any reason not believe that I am sincere in my request, have I?)

Please, tell my why.

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

The doctrine was believed by the church in spite of the writings that you imply…it was finally affirmed in the 1800’s. Do you suppose that the early church had all the doctrines of Christianity down by the death of St. John? I would say no, since the heresies that later sprang up about the diety of Jesus required church councils to condemn them as wrong and to affirm what we really believe. There’s nothing new…just new errors that are answered by affirmation of the church…what do you think te creeds are?

Did you research in seeking the truth…or to prove it wrong? I submit that you had a bias in your research…I did not and do not to this day. If you can show me that the Catholic Church is wrong, I’ll haul butt today, but no one has…
Pax vobiscum,

No need to “haul butt”, even though the Pope was indeed wrong in 1854 to make this highly controversial idea a dogma. In fact, he did so via his own ex cathedra declaration rather than based on an espicopal council because he knew it wouldn’t have the concensus of the bishops if he did.

My purpose isn’t to lead anyone away from the Catholic Church. This is just a discussion. The Catholic Church can be wrong without necessitating an abandoning of ship. If the Church weren’t ever wrong, then she never would change something that contradict previous beliefs, but that has happened a number of times.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

No need to “haul butt”, even though the Pope was indeed wrong in 1854 to make this highly controversial idea a dogma. In fact, he did so via his own ex cathedra declaration rather than based on an espicopal council because he knew it wouldn’t have the concensus of the bishops if he did.

My purpose isn’t to lead anyone away from the Catholic Church. This is just a discussion. The Catholic Church can be wrong without necessitating an abandoning of ship. If the Church weren’t ever wrong, then she never would change something that contradict previous beliefs, but that has happened a number of times.

David

I strongly disagree with you on this David. If you can support you allegations that the church changed doctrines (not disciplines) then I want you to open a new thread to that effect and provide me with your evidence.

I am of the opinion (as I’ve stated) that this belief is consistent with the work of grace in the Christian life, and it simply makes sense to me. I don’t really very much care what others believe since this is something that rings true within my soul by the Holy Spirit. I find it uplifting and encouraging in my Christian life.

BTW, I suspect that you are confusing this with the Immaculate Conception, which is dogma…but this topic is really not about that and the church does not consider this dogma if I’m not mistaken. This is merely the opinion of some…of whom I am one. It changes nothing and detracts nothing from Christ. I see great harmony with scripture in this in spite of n-C protestations to the contrary.

If we cannot live the life commanded us by God then I think it invaildates grace within us. Didn’t God tell St. Paul that His grace was sufficient…that His power is made perfect in weakness? What is wrong with seeing God as able to do in my life the very things that He has commanded me to do and to be?
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

sonseeker:

Fair enough.

You say:

I am intensely interested in that better view of God’s creation and man as part of it. (I am not being sarcastic. I understand why others* I have talked *to reject total depravity, but I do not understand why *you *reject it. The reasons are many, and I have not called you any names, or given you any reason not believe that I am sincere in my request, have I?)

Please, tell my why.

Okay…you got a deal…but lemme get it organized and then I promise I’ll open a new thread on it since it’s off this topic. Or you can and then just PM me the link and we’ll go from there okay? This is well worth exploring…
Pax tecum,

 

[DavidB]

Church Militant:

I strongly disagree with you on this David. If you can support you allegations that the church changed doctrines (not disciplines) then I want you to open a new thread to that effect and provide me with your evidence.

I am of the opinion (as I’ve stated) that this belief is consistent with the work of grace in the Christian life, and it simply makes sense to me. I don’t really very much care what others believe since this is something that rings true within my soul by the Holy Spirit. I find it uplifting and encouraging in my Christian life.

BTW, I suspect that you are confusing this with the Immaculate Conception, which is dogma…but this topic is really not about that and the church does not consider this dogma if I’m not mistaken. This is merely the opinion of some…of whom I am one. It changes nothing and detracts nothing from Christ. I see great harmony with scripture in this in spite of n-C protestations to the contrary.

If we cannot live the life commanded us by God then I think it invaildates grace within us. Didn’t God tell St. Paul that His grace was sufficient…that His power is made perfect in weakness? What is wrong with seeing God as able to do in my life the very things that He has commanded me to do and to be?
Pax vobiscum,

No, I’m not confusing sinlessness with the Immaculate Conception. It’s the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that declares a special grace was upon Mary from her conception to death preserving her from all stain of sin. So the topics are one and the same.

Scripture and Church teaching never places the expectation of sinlessness on any of us. There’s a difference between a goal for Christ and expectation of reaching that goal. Again, your “thinking” of what “makes sense” and the concept that it “invalidates grace within us” is meaningless and off-the-mark. I refer you back to my previous challenge. Go research in the Catechcism or speak with your priest about your theory of sinlessness being an achievable and expected goal. I guarantee you’re in for an education. I don’t recall any theological stream that ever supported your claim in the history of the Church, at least no one who actually understands sin and the nature of man.

David

 

[Church_Militant]

DavidB:

No, I’m not confusing sinlessness with the Immaculate Conception. It’s the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that declares a special grace was upon Mary from her conception to death preserving her from all stain of sin. So the topics are one and the same.No they’re not!

Scripture and Church teaching never places the expectation of sinlessness on any of us. There’s a difference between a goal for Christ and expectation of reaching that goal. Again, your “thinking” of what “makes sense” and the concept that it “invalidates grace within us” is meaningless and off-the-mark. I refer you back to my previous challenge. Go research in the Catechcism or speak with your priest about your theory of sinlessness being an achievable and expected goal. I guarantee you’re in for an education. I don’t recall any theological stream that ever supported your claim in the history of the Church, at least no one who actually understands sin and the nature of man.

David

I think you’re wrong about the doctrines here …see this David :
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

 

[Axion]

1 John 1:8 “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

Another quote ripped from its context in order to be misapplied.

This is part of a discourse in a letter to new Christians, urging them to seek forgiveness for their sins and live a truly Christian Life. There is no reference to Mary here, nor any hint that she is in the group defined by “we” in the verse. (others not included in this “we” will include Jesus, the faithful angels, the newborn, the unconscious etc.)
Nor do Zechariah and Elizabeth seem to be of this group:

Luke 1.5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in **all ** the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Further on in the discourse of John which you quote we have this verse.

1 John 2.4 If you say “I know Him” and you do not fulfil his commands; you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

Using your analysis, this would mean that no-one in the world knows Christ since no-one fulfils all his commands!

This is the danger of snatching single verses out of context and setting them up as doctrinal statements!

here are a few quotes from Tradition that refute your claim:

Tertullian “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God”
Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Again we have the same pattern of snatching (unreferenced) phrases from 10,000 word documents, and setting them out as representing the views of the speakers - or the early church! You also seem to misunderstand Tradition, since no individual represents Tradition. tradition is the consistent teaching of the Church **as a whole ** throughout the ages.

And there are indeed reams of quotes from the Church Fathers affirming Mary’s sinlessness. As for your quotes above:Tertullian was a heretic, and I can find no referenced writing of Clement of Alexandria as quoted by you.

Augustine “He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

The Augustine reference I find is this: “The holy Virgin Mary, about whom, for the honour of the Lord, I want there to be no question where sin is mentioned, for concerning her we know that more grace for conquering sin in every way was given to her who merited to conceive and give birth to him, who certainly had no sin whatsoever” Nature and Grace 36