did Mary have fallen human nature?

[Mystic_Warrior]

The issue isn’t what I believe or what you believe but what God has said in His written word. God has clearly said in His written word that Jesus is sinless. God has clearly said in His written word that all of humanity is sinful and Mary of course is part of sinful humanity.

Is Gods written word the Truth? How can people believe what tradition teaches when it clearly goes against what God says in His written word.

.

emeraldisle,

They were honest, hypothetical questions. You have an intelligent mind that God gave you. I was just asking you to use it in an objective, thoughtful way, irregardless of Tradition or Scripture to fall back on. You missed the entire point.

Peace…

MW

 

[expectthebest]

Because Tradition trumps the CE. Not to mention a very strong biblical argument can be made. Put these together, coupled with the teaching authority of the Church Jesus Christ established, and you get authentic Christian doctrine, not rebellious doctrine like protestantism that has gone against the grain of traditional Christianity.

What I am saying it that it cannot be shown that this was even a though, let alone Tradition until 500 years after the death of Jesus.

 

[expectthebest]

As for early belief, most of the same people who would challenge the Apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) for their belief in this “late” doctrine, reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – a belief universally held in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age that can be demonstrated from Scripture (including from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which so many non-Catholics think they can beat us up with). So if “early” belief is important, why do they not believe what the early Church believed on such an important matter?

I totally agree. One must be consistant on what the early belief was. The thing I am getting at here is it cannot be shown this was an early belief. Are you saying that this is one of the teachings Jesus didn’t think the Apostles could “bear”? That seems unlikely.

Moreover, today we have many Christians teaching “from the Bible” all manner of novel doctrines concerning tribulation and rapture that were never dreamed of until around 1830 with a conviction that makes the promulgation of the Marian dogmas look tame.

I also agree. I am not arguing this from a Catholic vs protestant Faith. I am simply discussing this one point.

 

[allhers]

Here is another good answer from an expert, Fr. John Echert on the EWTN web site if anyone cares to read it. Perhaps he can help you understand better than we can.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=289514&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=all+have+sinned&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=16&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[expectthebest]

unfortunately all FAther does in his discussion is try and show how it might be possible for Mary to be without sin. He readily admits that we don’t know what’s Pauls thoughts on this were. He does not show any evidence for it being infallibly true other than that the Church leadership decided this is how it should be. As I’ve said in other posts, if this is the real standard, what does it gain a faithful person to think at all?

Father also uses Jesus in the example of saying Paul didn’t really mean All men. His example is easily defeated since the Scripture says very clearly that Jesus had no sin.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Father also uses Jesus in the example of saying Paul didn’t really mean All men. His example is easily defeated since the Scripture says very clearly that Jesus had no sin.

St. Paul is not talking about individuals in Romans, but nations.

 

[water]

But it had to come from somewhere! As far as I can tell, this was not a teaching until after the 5th century. So 500 years when by and the Church did not consider this true (as far as we know). The Apostles certainly either consider it true or they didn’t consider it important enough to include in Scripture or the Oral Tradition. How then, after hundreds of years does the Church come up with this infallible truth? If the Apostles didn’t believe it, why should we? And if one says that we don’t know if the Apostles believed it or not, how does that rise to the level of infallibility?

Hi expectThebest! If we use the time as an indicator to say "that cannot be true because it few hundred years later, then how could you say about the reformation. Why would few hundred years later? So, I wouldn’t use the time for this purpose.

Where in the Bible does the Apostles said they didn’t believe it?
Furthermore, St Paul also told us to hold fast to the both writing and oral. Not only that, as Jesus ascended to Heaven, He promised us the Holy Spirit to teach us what has been taught and what we need to know.

 

[VociMike]

It does mean all in the following verse;
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: Rom 5:12

Here we go again.

What sin has a stillborn baby committed?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Here we go again.

What sin has a stillborn baby committed?

** #define** NUM_SINS_STILL_BORN_BABY 0

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know and niether do you. You are asking me to prove that she did have a fallen nature. All I know is what Scripture says and the fact that it cannot be shown to be in the Tradition until the 5th century. The scripture has already been quoted in this thread. Therefore, it is you that must prove that it is true.

What does scripture say. State clearly what scripture says on this matter. Are you talking about “all have sinned”? OK, what sin has a stillborn baby committed. Don’t beat about the bush, tell us what sin a stillborn baby has committed, since “all have sinned”.

By the way, not every new thought was treated as a heresy. Many Church Fathers had many ideas that were not necessarily accpeted by the Church. They were not declared heritics for simply offering the idea. It was many years after the 5th century that the belief was cannonized.

Oh please. Every new thought that goes directly against the faith received by the apostles is most certainly heresy. And yet the Church never condemned this teaching as heresy. Which means she never considered it as going against the faith received by the apostles. Nothing could be simpler. The dog never barked.

 

[VociMike]

** #define** NUM_SINS_STILL_BORN_BABY 0

But “all have sinned”, so that stillborn baby must have committed sin. And I have actually seen some Protestants twist themselves into pretzels to think up a sin that a baby can commit in the womb.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

But “all have sinned”, so that stillborn baby must have committed sin. And I have actually seen some Protestants twist themselves into pretzels to think up a sin that a baby can commit in the womb.

That would be *unreasonable. *Perhaps they should listen to the Holy Father when he says Faith and Reason go hand in hand. Faith does not contradict reason but goes beyond it, just as you cannot reduce Love to just reason.

 

[allhers]

unfortunately all FAther does in his discussion is try and show how it might be possible for Mary to be without sin. He readily admits that we don’t know what’s Pauls thoughts on this were. He does not show any evidence for it being infallibly true other than that the Church leadership decided this is how it should be. As I’ve said in other posts, if this is the real standard, what does it gain a faithful person to think at all?

Father also uses Jesus in the example of saying Paul didn’t really mean All men. His example is easily defeated since the Scripture says very clearly that Jesus had no sin.

Yes but we are talking here about what St. Paul said.
Clearly you are confused, I seriously am beginning to understand your confusion on everything else also. How it is that you can read something so simple and yet make it into what you think is being said?

Read this part of it again:
This may not convince those who reject the Church as the authentic interpreter of such matters. Granted, without divine revelation which is found in Tradition we would assume Mary is to be counted among the “all” who have sinned. But we do have Tradition, and this is as surely God’s word as is any Scripture.
Why is it that you can’t understand that? Why is it also that you cannot understand that the Scriptures that are referred to in the New Testament are the Old Testament?—The New Testament is Jesus, and it wasn’t written about HIM yet.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Hi expectThebest! If we use the time as an indicator to say "that cannot be true because it few hundred years later, then how could you say about the reformation. Why would few hundred years later? So, I wouldn’t use the time for this purpose.

Where in the Bible does the Apostles said they didn’t believe it?
Furthermore, St Paul also told us to hold fast to the both writing and oral. Not only that, as Jesus ascended to Heaven, He promised us the Holy Spirit to teach us what has been taught and what we need to know.

St. Matthew, a New Testament author, depends on Oral Tradition.

Furthermore, consider the Genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1: Tell me, the first 14 names we can recognize to be the royal line, but the LAST 14 are no where to be found elsewhere. If you were an Israelite and wanted to know where the royal line went after the diaspora of the Jews due to the Babylonians captivity, you would hit the roof if you read the Gospel of and saw it preserved. Where did Matthew get this information from? None other than the KING, St. Joseph, chosen father of Jesus. This is another example of Oral Tradition.

 

[expectthebest]

Hi expectThebest! If we use the time as an indicator to say "that cannot be true because it few hundred years later, then how could you say about the reformation. Why would few hundred years later? So, I wouldn’t use the time for this purpose.

Where in the Bible does the Apostles said they didn’t believe it?
Furthermore, St Paul also told us to hold fast to the both writing and oral. Not only that, as Jesus ascended to Heaven, He promised us the Holy Spirit to teach us what has been taught and what we need to know.

The reformers claimed to be taking the Church back to what the early Church taught so I don’t understand what you mean.

Where in the Bible does it say the Apostles did believe it?

This was not an oral tradition, as far as we can tell, until the 5th century. To say this is oral tradition means the tradition must have started much later on. Say 500 years later?

I’m sure I’m wrong, but it seems as though the Church made an infallible statement based on tradition that started in the 5th century instead of the 1st or ealier.

 

[expectthebest]

Here we go again.

What sin has a stillborn baby committed?

A stillborn baby of course has not overtly sinned but he burdened with original sin all the same. We are held responsable for Adams sin even before we are borne. Because of this sin, the Church has taught that a child must be baptized to get into heaven.

 

[expectthebest]

Oh please. Every new thought that goes directly against the faith received by the apostles is most certainly heresy. And yet the Church never condemned this teaching as heresy. Which means she never considered it as going against the faith received by the apostles. Nothing could be simpler. The dog never barked.

It was not decided upon for many hundreds of years period. It was not considered heresy or not heresy until the Church officially decided it as infallible.

The Church didn’t immediately act against all beliefs. Some took a long time to decide. Many were not decided until the Church decided what books would be included in Scripture and which ones would be declared heresy. The heretical books had been around for a long time before being declared heresy.

 

[expectthebest]

Read this part of it again:
This may not convince those who reject the Church as the authentic interpreter of such matters. Granted, without divine revelation which is found in Tradition we would assume Mary is to be counted among the “all” who have sinned. But we do have Tradition, and this is as surely God’s word as is any Scripture.
Why is it that you can’t understand that? Why is it also that you cannot understand that the Scriptures that are referred to in the New Testament are the Old Testament?—The New Testament is Jesus, and it wasn’t written about HIM yet.

Because this tradition did not start until the 5th century. From what you are saying, a tradition could start tomorrow, and the Church could make this tradition infallible 500 years from now.

 

[expectthebest]

St. Matthew, a New Testament author, depends on Oral Tradition.

Furthermore, consider the Genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1: Tell me, the first 14 names we can recognize to be the royal line, but the LAST 14 are no where to be found elsewhere. If you were an Israelite and wanted to know where the royal line went after the diaspora of the Jews due to the Babylonians captivity, you would hit the roof if you read the Gospel of and saw it preserved. Where did Matthew get this information from? None other than the KING, St. Joseph, chosen father of Jesus. This is another example of Oral Tradition.

Yup. And what you are describing is actually an oral tradition going back to St. Joseph. Not to some unknown person in the 5th century. I have not problem with original oral tradition. But when one tries to call something tradition that did not originally start in the oral tradition it gets hard to understand.

 

[VociMike]

A stillborn baby of course has not overtly sinned but he burdened with original sin all the same. We are held responsable for Adams sin even before we are borne. Because of this sin, the Church has taught that a child must be baptized to get into heaven.

“All have sinned” is a statement of active sinning, not a statement about original sin. And the Church teaches that we are not “held responsible” for the sin of Adam, but rather that we suffer the consequences of that sin.

CCC 405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

Now you, who speak about the plain language of scripture, how do you account for the phrase “and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”? Jesus died, does that mean he sinned? Or was subject to original sin? So again I ask, if all have sinned, what was the sin of a stillborn baby?

BTW, the Eastern Orthodox don’t even have the concept of original sin as we do, but they still maintain that Mary did not sin. How do explain that? Are they wrong about Mary too?