Did Mary ever sin?

[ALLFORHIM]

JMJ + OBT​

I’m sorry that I didn’t do a better job. Which part(s) of my explanation didn’t make sense?

I will leave it up to you whether to continue the discussion, but you’re not bothering me or anyone else who is participating in this thread. We are glad to try and help you understand this beautiful teaching of the Catholic Church.

“Agreeing to disagree” has its place in matters of personal taste, but when it comes to the Truth, I don’t think such a retreat has any place in the life of a believer, other than as providing a moment in which to regather one’s strength for future studies and dialogue.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Hi,
I appreciate that and I agree with you. The fundamental problem is that I follow Scriptual truth and the Marian doctrines cannot be proven in the Scriptures. It seems to me(and I have been doing some research)that the CC explains the Marian doctrines with Tradition added in which is really the only way the CC can justify it(I dont mean that to be disrespectful, just an observation). I believe the biblical truth. So you see why I say we have to agree to disagree.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Do stillborn babies need a Savior? Are they sinners?

I tend to agree with Ambrose who believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I tend to agree with Ambrose who believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:

“He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized, so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: ‘For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.’” (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)

 

[whosebob]

The fundamental problem is that I follow Scriptual truth … I believe the biblical truth. So you see why I say we have to agree to disagree.

JMJ + OBT​

Well, you have indeed indentified a fundamental problem. The fact is, the Bible doesn’t tell you which books, chapters, and verses belong in the Bible. So … how do you know just what constitutes biblical truth???

If you wish to be intellectually and religiously truthful, you must thoroughly and carefully address that question. I posted this before, earlier in this thread, but I’ll post it again as a restatement of the problem at hand:

Can show us which book, chapter, and verse gives the Table of Contents for the Holy Bible? That’s a topic for another thread, but it must be readily admitted that such information has been provided and passed on by the working of the Holy Spirit apart from the text of the Bible itself. Something interesting happens if we “ask” the early Christians and their pastors – by reading their extant writings – how they understood the Holy Spirit to have worked in the Church to transmit the uncorrupted teaching of the Apostles, and whether this was limited to the text and “tables of contents” of the Old and New Testaments: Apostolic Tradition, Documents illustrating the coordinate authority of Sacred Tradition, Oral Apostolic Tradition.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi,
Yeah are you running yet?

Nope… I’m hobbling at a snail’s pace, but with no pain!!!

About the baby question please read my post #13:thumbsup:

You stated the babies are born with original sin. That’s not an active sin. That’s being born without the sanctifying grace that Adam was created with. (Yes, I know there’s more to it, but I’m trying to keep it simple).

BTW, I wasn’t aware that Baptist taught the doctrine of Original Sin. Are you familiar enough with our doctrine to compare it? I know it’s off topice, but a PM will suffice or another thread.

 

[NotWorthy]

. No argument there
Another questio. The CC states that Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the bible but I believe this topic does. If the bible is telling us that ALL sinned and then Sacred Tradition is saying except Mary well-----

Then you’ll have to address my points in post 28.

Isn’t anyone righteous?
Doesn’t anyone try to do good?
Isn’t anyone searching for God?

Paul says they are not, so then they can’t be.

 

[whosebob]

I tend to agree with Ambrose who believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:

JMJ + OBT​

Surely St. Ambrose’s life, example, and writings make for worthwhile study; and we may confidently ask for his heavenly intercession as His soul is alive in Heaven with God, according to the Church.

However, the Catholic Church does not formulate its theological explanations of dogma and doctrine based on the writings of one man or woman, no matter how gifted he/she was or is. For those readers interested in acquiring a balanced Catholic view of this subject, allow me to once again recommend the Original Sin article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the relevant section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Further, I should note right off that St. Ambrose, at least in the quote you provided, seems to have embraced the idea that sexual relations between a woman and man are always sinful or corrupted, at least to some degree, because of the effects of Original Sin. This was not an uncommon view in his day (probably owing to errors of the Manicheans, and a sharp Christian response to them), and St. Augustine struggled with the same notion; however, that teaching has never been officially proposed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; in fact the Church has officially taught just the opposite in recent centuries – that chaste, pure love-making between a man and wife can be an instrument of grace in their lives. Please see this essay: St. Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[6glargento]

“He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized, so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: ‘For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.’” (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)

ambrose also said

“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).

 

[squeekster]

…but God intervened at the moment of her conception and provided a special gift to Mary, the gift of sanctifying grace, which meant that she never suffered that lack of grace which is the hereditary stain transmitted to all of the descendants of Adam and Eve, as the effect of A&E’s Original Sin.

Can you prove that (Edited for respect and charity)?

Does that make sense?

I’m sure it does…to a Catholic. But you see, I am a Bible Christian. I don’t buy into the (Edited for respect and charity) ideas of the RCC, including their “one, true church” (Edited for respect and charity). And frankly, posting links to Catholic websites to “prove” that Catholic theology is correct is laughable. Your churches’ “oral tradition” was just too easy to make up as they went along. And that is exactly what they have done over the years, starting with (Edited for respect and charity) that only the magisterium can correctly interpret Scripture. They took John 21:25 and ran with it, calling it “oral tradition”. Once they got you all to believe that, everything else was easy.

(Edited for respect and charity)

 

[4given]

Thank you, squeekster. I agree. They believe things for which there is no Scriptural evidence at all just because the CC says it’s so. And if the very word of God doesn’t have authority over what the men in the RCC come up with, something is wrong.

 

[whosebob]

But you see, I am a Bible Christian. I don’t buy into the (Edited for respect and charity) ideas of the RCC, including their “one, true church” (Edited for respect and charity) …

Thank you, squeekster. I agree. They believe things for which there is no Scriptural evidence at all just because the CC says it’s so …

JMJ + OBT​

What about the material I presented from ScriptureCatholic.com, from the page on Mary? Will you even try to address it?

Yes, Catholics readily admit that we are not “Bible only” Christians, though we can proudly claim to be the original Bible Church and Bible-believing Christians!

And you, squeekster and 4given, are not really Bible-only Christians, for you certainly didn’t get the Holy Bible’s “table of contents” from any book, chapter, and verse contained in it. Also, it is more likely than not that at least one of you believes in the Doctrine of the Trinity; and while that doctrine is implied by the Scriptures, it isn’t spelled out exactly by any one chapter and verse. Consider, then, that there are Bible-believing Oneness Pentecostal Christians down the street from me that deny that doctrine based on their devout and careful reading of the exact same texts. And there are other beliefs common to many self-described Bible-only Christians which don’t come straight from a particular text of Scripture, but are rather traditions of ancient origin (e.g. Christological formulations of the first Ecumenical Councils) or recent origin (e.g. the sinner’s prayer and belief in a future event called The Rapture).

One last thing: let us strive to dialogue with one another in an open and charitable way, even if hard issues must be addressed; and let’s avoid hurling insults at one another. (Highlighted in red by Moderator as needed and charitable response.)

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[VociMike]

Thank you, squeekster. I agree. They believe things for which there is no Scriptural evidence at all just because the CC says it’s so.

This is the Church, the very Body of Christ, with Christ as its Head, which has been promised to be led into all truth, and which has been promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and all you can say is “just because the Church says it’s so.” Well yeah, that’s all it is, just because God through His Church says it is so. That’s not enough reason for you? It was enough reason for all the doctrines not explicit in Scripture that the Reformers didn’t toss out, and it was enough reason for your very canon of the New Testament.

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me.” Reject the Church and you reject Christ. Just because the Church says it is so, indeed! There’s no better reason in all the universe for a Christian to believe than because the Church says it is so.

 

[drforjc]

Can you prove that fairy tale?

I’m sure it does…to a Catholic. But you see, I am a Bible Christian. I don’t buy into the goofy ideas of the RCC, including their “one, true church” nonsense. And frankly, posting links to Catholic websites to “prove” that Catholic theology is correct is laughable. Your churches’ “oral tradition” was just too easy to make up as they went along. And that is exactly what they have done over the years, starting with the nonsense that only the magisterium can correctly interpret Scripture. They took John 21:25 and ran with it, calling it “oral tradition”. Once they got you all to believe that, everything else was easy.

And this thread is a prime example of the deceit they have gotten Catholics to believe in.

This is insulting and uncharitable.

 

[tptram]

The Bible did not hide the fact that Peter and Paul sinned.
The Bible did not state Mary sins so she did not sin!

Tak

 

[Tom317]

It comes down to interpreation and authority. If one accepts that Luke 1:28 states Mary was full of Grace for entire life up to that point, then one cannot help but conclude that she was sinfree at least up to that point. However, if one rejects that interpretation and falls upon their own authority, then they will interpret Luke 1:28 to mean something like “highly favored,” and that would allow the belief that Mary was a sinner up to that point of the annunciation.

The debate always comes down to authority and many people will not accept the authority given to the RCC and the Chair of Peter and those same people will then create their own interpretations claiming the Holy Spirit guided them to their views, despite the fact that it also means there will be thousands of different views about that one single passage.

Somehow I just cannot image the Holy Spirit provides thousands of interpretations of any verse.

 

[jim1130]

It isn’t MY And in Romans 5:12, God again VERY PLAINLY says
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Since you are a literalist, you may notice that it speaks of sin passed onto all men, but it does not say that sin was passed onto all women. Henceforth, women are free from sin.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Since you are a literalist, you may notice that it speaks of sin passed onto all men, but it does not say that sin was passed onto all women. Henceforth, women are free from sin.

Now that is a STRETCH!!! and Im sure you dont believe it

 

[jim1130]

Now that is a STRETCH!!! and Im sure you dont believe it

No I do not, but I was merely pointing out that to take something too literally without understanting context and historical background, as this person has done, opens a person up for error and misinterpretation.

 

[Tom317]

If we take every word of the Bible at face value, then ““all”” people who do not receive the Eucharist have no life in them and have utterly no chance of receiving salvation.

 

[VociMike]

If we take every word of the Bible at face value, then ““all”” people who do not receive the Eucharist have no life in them and have utterly no chance of receiving salvation.

Actually, that’s not what the Scripture says.