did Mary have fallen human nature?

[adam_in_ohio]

Guess I need to shut up and just blindly follow, right? What is a person to do when something does not make sense with the Faith? .

Only a fool follows blindly. One who is seeking truth must relise, every truth will not come to light over night. Look at the Church fathers. They were not explaining these deep tough questions at 15. This scripture has helped me in my journey.
“He who is estranged seeks pretext to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his oppinion.” Proverbs 18:1-2

 

[mercygate]

Point well taken.

It’s still hard for me to see the logic in looking for the Truth in a point that already been infallibly decided though. The question is, why wouldn’t one just blindly follow the Chruch? It’s impossible for the Church to be wrong. See the contradiction I am trying to resolve?
Thanks.

OK. It’s impossible for the Church to be wrong. Fine. But you have a mind and you ask questions. The answers are THERE and you are entitled to know the answers.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

It’s not what I think. I don’t know. The fact is, nobody knows. That’s my point. How can the Church take something to the level of infallibility without some evidence the this was even and initial beliefe within the Church. Sure, it can be speculated. But the Church has taken an ifallible stance on this. How can the Church take an infallible stance on something like this when they won’t take an infallible stance on limbo or the fate of unbaptised inocents?

I don’t think I am alone. This kind of stuff is extremely hard to understand. I think most people just don’t really ask the question.

Expect, I apluad you for questioning your faith and searching out if it is “Truth”.
This may be helpfull: newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
New Advent breaks down the Doctern of the Immaculate conception.
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. " -Ineffabilis Deus
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
Here too is the Doctern Ineffabilis Deus.
They both will give you a quick tour of how the doctern was developed. That is has been a Tradition of the Church. Just a complicated one.

 

[bilop]

Point well taken.

It’s still hard for me to see the logic in looking for the Truth in a point that already been infallibly decided though. The question is, why wouldn’t one just blindly follow the Chruch? It’s impossible for the Church to be wrong. See the contradiction I am trying to resolve?
Thanks.

Because it is far more satisfying to understand. You should, as a Catholic, obey even if you don’t understand. But, at the same time, you should seek to further your understanding.

There’s a little prayer from Matthew 9:24, “Lord I believe, help my unbelief”.

I, myself, had doubts in the past about teachings, like artificial contraception. But, when I studied this issue, I understood my mistakes.

Keep seraching, but search in orthodox catholic sources.

God Bless

 

[expectthebest]

Now who’s upset? Another poster assumed you were a Protestant, and I agreed that it was an understandable mistake from your posts. What’s sarcastic about that?

Anyway, what’s this stuff about blindly following? Has anybody suggested that to you? I doubt it. But blindly half-following is no better. If you are going to question the Church at the most fundamental level (her ability to preserve and to teach without error the faith given to the apostles), then you have to apply that doubt to everything which the Church has handed down, and that includes the scriptures which you keep using to support your arguments. Well, if the Church is wrong, then those books in the bible aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Protestants refuse to acknowledge this, or rather, the ones who do acknowledge it become Catholics or Orthodox. But their refusal doesn’t change the fact that if you’re going to question the ability of the Church to preserve the faith without error, you can’t use the bible to do so. You have no possible way of knowing those books are scripture except on the testimony of the Church.

Question what you want, but be consistent.

No inconsistancy here. Most of the protestants I talk don’t argue the Church was wrong until it started contradicting Scripture. A protestant would argue that the early Church was guided by the Hold Spirit, giving us the Bible but as time went on, they would argue the the leadership guided the Church in the wrong direction. A lutheran, for example, would argue that the Church left them, not the other way around. I’m not saying I agree with this. But I have also not been inconsistant.

 

[expectthebest]

You keep talking about “blindly following”. What we need to know is, as opposed to what? If “blindly following” is wrong in your view, what way of following is right in your view?

I didn’t say blindly following was wrong. I’m trying to reconcile the worth of not blindly following know that in the end one must follow whether they come to the same conclusions as the Church or not. So, in the end, what’s the point of really studying and asking questions of things that you know are not up for discussion anyway. See what I’m getting at?

 

[expectthebest]

The ancient tradition is that she did die and that is why Eastern Catholics call it the feast of the Dormition(means ‘falling asleep’ in Greek) rather than the Assumption.

I was always taught that she did die. After death, she was raised to heaven, body and soul.

 

[expectthebest]

Maybe you’re just asking the wrong questions. Don’t ask peripheral questions, ask questions that will allow you to believe or disbelieve in the fundamental claims of the Church. Is she divinely guided and protected in teaching a preserving the faith, or isn’t she?

That’s exactly what I am trying to resolve within myself. I believe the Church is divinely inspired. My question is, how can one be sure that the RCC is the Church currently being guided by the Holy Spirit? How do we know the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the reformation because the Church was refusing to listen? Your are correct that this is the basic question. Once this question is answered, one could argue there is no need for any other questions. It’s already been decided for us. A scientist doesn’t do a research project on something that has already been difinitively proven. By the same logic, why would a Catholic ask questions of something that has already been infallibly decided? Does this make sense?

 

[expectthebest]

Only a fool follows blindly. One who is seeking truth must relise, every truth will not come to light over night. Look at the Church fathers. They were not explaining these deep tough questions at 15. This scripture has helped me in my journey.
“He who is estranged seeks pretext to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his oppinion.” Proverbs 18:1-2

So a devout Catholic who follows all the infallible teachings of the Church is a fool? Wouldn’t this person actually be saved?

He who is estranged seeks pretext to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his oppinion." Proverbs 18:1-2 /

This is a very wise quote. Very wise. Thank you for that.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

That’s exactly what I am trying to resolve within myself. I believe the Church is divinely inspired. My question is, how can one be sure that the RCC is the Church currently being guided by the Holy Spirit? How do we know the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the reformation because the Church was refusing to listen? Your are correct that this is the basic question. Once this question is answered, one could argue there is no need for any other questions. It’s already been decided for us. A scientist doesn’t do a research project on something that has already been difinitively proven. By the same logic, why would a Catholic ask questions of something that has already been infallibly decided? Does this make sense?

Because you are trying to understand why the Church believes what she believes, not because you are looking to bolster or discredit the teaching. It’s about learning why it’s been infallibly declared as such.

Peace…

MW

 

[expectthebest]

Another thing about this has occurred to me. It has nothing to do with Mary but about questioning the Church in general and maybe it should be a new thread but we are discussing it anyway sooooo,

Scripture indicates that in the end, there will be very few Faithful left. Is it possible that these few Faithful will be the ones who questioned the Church and said it was wrong on certain issues? Could these be the ones that are still truely the Faithful while the Church, as an institution goes off on a tangent? The devil is the ultimate deciever. Could the devil/anitchrist actually deceive people by rising within the Church masking the true Church from the false Church? See what I’m getting at here?

If we give up all ability to question our Faith because something has been infallibly decided, don’t we risk being deceived by the devil?

I often wonder why the complete revelation of Fatima is not revealed. It makes me wonder what the Church might be hiding in the relevation. Maybe it is more insidious then we think.

 

[expectthebest]

Because you are trying to understand why the Church believes what she believes, not because you are looking to bolster or discredit the teaching. It’s about learning why it’s been infallibly declared as such.

Peace…

MW

Yes, but if it doesn’t make sense one is back where they started. Actually, I often ask myself why I burden myself so deeply with these questions. It’s because I want to do the right thing. I want God in my life the right way. It’s much easier just to play along than it is to actually research the reasons why and then try to make sense of something that you stuggle reconciling.

 

[sandusky]

…And early Christians, taught their Faith by the Apostles, wrote of a New Eve, Mary.

Please lists all of the early Christians who were personally taught by the apostles that Mary was the New Eve, and, list all of their writings where they refer to this, or that apostle as having personally taught them this, or that concerning Mary as the New Eve.

 

[allhers]

Yes, but if it doesn’t make sense one is back where they started. Actually, I often ask myself why I burden myself so deeply with these questions. It’s because I want to do the right thing. I want God in my life the right way. It’s much easier just to play along than it is to actually research the reasons why and then try to make sense of something that you stuggle reconciling.

Here is somthing else very interesting for you to read, it has loads of information in it that does quote different Bible verses and explains them too.
(pay particular attention to number’s 5 and 6.

scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html#tradition-II

Sandusky, you would do well to read it too as it answers a lot of the questions you just asked too.

 

[VociMike]

No inconsistancy here. Most of the protestants I talk don’t argue the Church was wrong until it started contradicting Scripture. A protestant would argue that the early Church was guided by the Hold Spirit, giving us the Bible but as time went on, they would argue the the leadership guided the Church in the wrong direction. A lutheran, for example, would argue that the Church left them, not the other way around. I’m not saying I agree with this. But I have also not been inconsistant.

But they are inconsistent when they accept those scriptures as scripture, that’s my point. Because by doing so they are saying that the Church is both inerrant and capable of error at the same time. That is the inconsistency. Take the Church out of the equation and they have no basis to believe the New Testament, in particular, is scripture.

And speaking of contradicting scripture, the reality is that you can find “bible-only” Christians on every side of every major doctrinal issue, with just the few exceptions that they generally consider “too Catholic”. You can even find “bible-only” people who deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. So “contradicting scripture” is very much in the mind of the person making the claim.

 

[VociMike]

That’s exactly what I am trying to resolve within myself. I believe the Church is divinely inspired. My question is, how can one be sure that the RCC is the Church currently being guided by the Holy Spirit? How do we know the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the reformation because the Church was refusing to listen? Your are correct that this is the basic question. Once this question is answered, one could argue there is no need for any other questions. It’s already been decided for us. A scientist doesn’t do a research project on something that has already been difinitively proven. By the same logic, why would a Catholic ask questions of something that has already been infallibly decided? Does this make sense?

One sure clue should be that the true Church will teach one faith and not a multitude of faiths. Protestantism immediately disqualifies itself on that score. So your options really only come down to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

 

[VociMike]

I didn’t say blindly following was wrong. I’m trying to reconcile the worth of not blindly following know that in the end one must follow whether they come to the same conclusions as the Church or not. So, in the end, what’s the point of really studying and asking questions of things that you know are not up for discussion anyway. See what I’m getting at?

If you accept the claims of the Church then the purpose of any study is to gain a better understanding why God gave us the revelation that he did, the faith that he did. It is a way to become closer to God in both understanding and in life, to form both the mind and the heart.

BTW, there are very good arguments relating to the Incarnation as to why God would have kept Mary sinless.

 

[allhers]

You know what? As a little child, I just believed everything that the Church taught me, didn’t question it, didn’t even consider it doubtful. Got older and forgot half of what I was taught, but still knew the truth was out there. Many people started to question me, so I started to research, and now, I can find it just about anywhere I look. Pray first, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, I always ask the Blessed Mother’s intercession too as I believe she has never been known to fail. (If I can’t find what I’m looking for, I’m not looking in the right place.) God love you and Mary keep you, and I also don’t know if she died or not, I do believe that I was told that she probably did. So, thats going to be my next undertaking. The search continues. Life long student here!!!

 

[emeraldisle]

Here we go again.

What sin has a stillborn baby committed?

Here we go again, was Mary a stillborn baby??

The Scriptures clearly tell us that all of humanity is sinful and of course Mary is part of sinful humanity. Scriptures do not tell us that Mary was sinless but they do tell us that Jesus was sinless.

Tradition is telling us Mary was sinless but tradition is plain wrong according to what God says in His written word.

.

 

[allhers]

Here we go again, was Mary a stillborn baby??

The Scriptures clearly tell us that all of humanity is sinful and of course Mary is part of sinful humanity. Scriptures do not tell us that Mary was sinless but they do tell us that Jesus was sinless.

Tradition is telling us Mary was sinless but tradition is plain wrong according to what God says in His written word.

.

Please go back and read what everybody already said, you’re questions were already answered, you just refuse to see the truth.