did Mary have fallen human nature?

[VociMike]

Are you kidding me? Please show me how this teaching is not contradictory to the plain language of the Scripture.

No, are you kidding me? What teaching? That Mary had a fallen human nature? Show me this plain language that you think is there.

As far as the true Church, one must accept that there are many teachings, such as the one on Mary, that have come after the early Church gave us the Scripture. This teaching wasn’t known to have been circulated before the 5th century. So the question becomes, has the RCC remained faithful to the teachings of the Apostles or has it drifted. Basically, this is what Luther taught.

Ah, so the Church didn’t go off the rails until after the canon of scripture was settled. That’s just whistling past the graveyard. It’s nothing but wishful thinking, with nothing to back it up.

BTW, if the teaching was invented in the 5th century, why didn’t the Church oppose it at that point? Why didn’t she treat it like every other heresy she attacked through the ages? That is the question you must answer. You cannot skirt that question.

 

[allhers]

Emeraldisle
One other thing, here is a list of the Approved Bibles we Catholics use, just so you know. I never heard of the site that the Alpha and Omega people (James White) were talking about so I checked another (besides this one), good Catholic site and came up with this list.
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
Click on Scripture, Divine Revelation and then click on Bible, Approved.

 

[clmowry]

Scritpture makes no statements about Mary having sinned.

Chuck

The Scriptures clearly tell us that Mary a human being was a sinner. The Scriptures do not tell us that Mary was sinless.

.

 

[allhers]

Another good point to keep in mind, as we come up to Pentacost this coming Sunday. The Apostles all knew Mary, they prayed with her. We still do.

 

[water]

Another good point to keep in mind, as we come up to Pentacost this coming Sunday. The Apostles all knew Mary, they prayed with her. We still do.

A great reminder! Thanks!

 

[emeraldisle]

This is to tell you that the word “all” does not always mean “all”.

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

So, if Adam and Eve were sinless at the beginning,

Are you suggesting that God didn’t create Adam & Eve without sin?

God can do all things…and He does just that with Blessed Virgin Mary.

Actually God can’t do all things, He can’t sin and He can’t go against what He has said in His written word.

This is also to tell you that you cannot find everything in the Scriptures.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, **thoroughly equipped **for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17

.

 

[allhers]

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.” [Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum 19; Acts 1:1-2]
   1. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.” [DV 19]
   2. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.” [DV 19]
      ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp

 

[water]

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
Are you suggesting that God didn’t create Adam & Eve without sin?

Now, how do these two sound contradicting to you? Do you believe Adam & Eve were sinless at the beginning?

Actually God can’t do all things, He can’t sin and He can go against what He has said in His written word.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, **thoroughly equipped **for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17

Jn 21:25 … not everything is in the Bible.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, **thoroughly equipped **for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17

.

. If we take St. Paul’s words literalistically Sola Scriptura would therefore mean all I need is the Old Testament since this is the context which he is referring too. I doubt they know what they are proposing, but that is what Protestant evangelicals argue by turning to this verse for evidence.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

To emeraldisle and others who believe Mary was a sinner…

Would it really make a difference to you if God chose Mary to be sinless? If He made Adam and Eve sinless, why wouldn’t/couldn’t He choose to keep her from the stain of sin?

Does it lower your status with God? Or does it just go against your reading of Scripture? I’m non-Catholic, so you can’t claim I’m just going by what my church says.

Just wondering…

Peace…

MW

 

[expectthebest]

This is to tell you that the word “all” does not always mean “all”. So, if Adam and Eve were sinless at the beginning, God can do all things…and He does just that with Blessed Virgin Mary.

This is also to tell you that you cannot find everything in the Scriptures. But all the time, you keep asking for where it says in the gospels and what not.

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?

 

[expectthebest]

No, are you kidding me? What teaching? That Mary had a fallen human nature? Show me this plain language that you think is there.

Ah, so the Church didn’t go off the rails until after the canon of scripture was settled. That’s just whistling past the graveyard. It’s nothing but wishful thinking, with nothing to back it up.

BTW, if the teaching was invented in the 5th century, why didn’t the Church oppose it at that point? Why didn’t she treat it like every other heresy she attacked through the ages? That is the question you must answer. You cannot skirt that question.

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.

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.

 

[expectthebest]

Scritpture makes no statements about Mary having sinned.

Chuck

It also doesn’t make and direct statements that she did not. Since all men are sinners, Mary must be singled out as not having sin. This did not happen. Therefore, the best one could do logically is say they don’t know. But an infallible statement of truth? That’s a tough one.

 

[expectthebest]

Another good point to keep in mind, as we come up to Pentacost this coming Sunday. The Apostles all knew Mary, they prayed with her. We still do.

I totally agree. I pray for the intercession of Mary every single day.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

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?

The Chaldean Church, founded by St. Thomas the Apostle, is an apostolic church that had virtually no ties w/ the west and in our Tradition, hymns and prayers, the Virgin Mary has always been held truly sinless, spotless, and pure. Let our testimony be heard.

 

[emeraldisle]

To emeraldisle and others who believe Mary was a sinner…

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.

Does it lower your status with God? Or does it just go against your reading of Scripture? I’m non-Catholic, so you can’t claim I’m just going by what my church says.

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.

.

 

[expectthebest]

. If we take St. Paul’s words literalistically Sola Scriptura would therefore mean all I need is the Old Testament since this is the context which he is referring too. I doubt they know what they are proposing, but that is what Protestant evangelicals argue by turning to this verse for evidence.

Prior to the official Bible, Christians used many texts. Not all of these were accepted into the Bible but the Faithful were still using text. One could ask the question, why was only part of the oral Tradition written down? Once could also make a point that the oral Tradition was written down and this is what we have in Scripture today. Then, Scripture would contain it all. I’m not saying I believe this but the agument can be made.

 

[expectthebest]

The Chaldean Church, founded by St. Thomas the Apostle, is an apostolic church that had virtually no ties w/ the west and in our Tradition, hymns and prayers, the Virgin Mary has always been held truly sinless, spotless, and pure. Let our testimony be heard.

The Catholic encyclopedia says that this belief can be traced to the 5th century. It doesn’t say it can be traced to even the first century. How can you then claim it was always taught?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Catholic encyclopedia says that this belief can be traced to the 5th century. It doesn’t say it can be traced to even the first century. How can you then claim it was always taught?

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.

 

[mercygate]

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?

The Church was promised by Christ that the Spirit would “guide you into all the truth” and Christ promised that he had more to tell the Eleven “but you cannot bear it now.” Throughout history the Church has been forced to define things that were not even on the horizon in the apostolic age. The definition of the Trinity was the greatest early example of this. The introduction of the word “homoousion” shows that the Church needed to look beyond the written words of Scripture (actually, the New Testament had not yet been canonized and no fewer than seven books of the New Testament were still held in dispute). The Marian dogmas are articulated as back-reasoning following from the doctrine of the Incarnation.

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?

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.