Did Mary know she was sinless?

[Nickkname]

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according wo what is said in teh law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12:6-8 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Whoever has thoughts on the matter please share, even protestants who will undoubtedly take this as proof that catholic teaching must be wrong…

Mary was sinless, so she was obedient to God in everything. This also includes obeying the laws on purification after childbirth. But whether or not she knew she was sinless is irreleven to the truth that she was. The infallible Church has dogmatically defined her Immaculate Conception and that’s good enough for me.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

You’ve convinced me of your earlier assertion that the sacrifice in Maccabees must be (and I use the word ‘must’ in the rhetorical but not literal sense) referring to the levitical sacrifice… I re-read the passage and have realized it actually does say the ‘sin offering’ at the temple (when you put that term in quotations before I assumed this was your imposition and not that of the text, which I now realize it was).

There are two things that we then may draw from this though:

i) You have now at least in this instance agreed that the levitical sin offering was in fact not offered for ‘accidental sins’ (ie. mistakes) but was offered for real sins that must be overcome for our own salvation as is shown in the text of Maccabbees

ii) In the text of Maccabees, while the offering is being made for the dead it is specifically mentioned that it is for being done for them and their atonement. This is contrasted from Lev 12 where is says that the woman is making the offering for herself; it does state she is making it for others nor does it leave it ambiguous that it is for her.

Putting these two points together we then find that the person who offers the sin offering is doing it for real sins, and that the woman in Lev 12 is making this offering on behalf of her own sins.

You ask how I come to the conclusion that there is no forgiveness. My answer is that the sin offering being made on their behalf cannot presume that the people for whom it is being made for are necessarily forgiven. For one thing, the Israelites could not even know if these people went to eternal damnation or not (and as such prayers to save them from purgation for sins would obviously not end in forgiveness). Rather they presume without knowledge, as we do usually when we pray for the dead, that the people for whom they are offering the prayers for may be aided by these prayers.

Those who are dead may find forgiveness, and the prayers may help them find it, but it could not be known that they will find it from the prayers and indeed they may not. If the souls in purgatory do not repent of their venial sins, than even if we pray for them so as to bring them to repent and be forgiven, they will not find forgiveness.

When I say that the grace achieves nothing, what I mean is that it achieves nothing for the person who refuses to cooperate with it… it does achieve something in that it reveals the glory, mercy and love of God even when it is not accepted… but if a person does not cooperate with grace by refusing to repent of sins than it is not going to effect such a change in her as to bring her to be in that grace.

I don’t know very much about what the divine mercy devotion promises (this is St. Kowalska’s chaplet right?), although if it is does promise salvation than I think we must understand that in context. Jesus says that all who believe in me will be saved, but we know that simply believing without works is not in itself going to find salvation even though Jesus seems to say that she will… we have to take what Jesus said in context and realize he did not mean that was the only thing that was necessary but there was more to the instruction. Likewise a person who prays for God’s mercy but who hates God for eternity is not going to find salvation as loving God was necessary in addition to praying for His mercy… I’m unsure if this hits the mark or not, as I’m not too familiar with what you’re suggesting

You say that murderers, rapists, etc. entered heaven before the pharisees… which is correct, except I think you know what I must have meant… if not I will state that former murderers, former rapists, former mortal sinners entered heaven (ie. repentant sinners) before the pharisees whose hearts were hardened… people aren’t committing murder, rape and idolatry up in heaven (which is what would be suggesting by people who did not repent those things being in paradise) and if they were it would not be much of a reward.

You ask how do I know that God would not be angry with the window being broken… I would also have assumed you would know the answer to this, but neverthless I’ll give it to you… I once met a confessor who told me a story about a little boy who came to him in the confessional booth and told him (the priest) that he had knocked over his mother’s vase, and the priest asked the boy if he did it on purpose, and the boy said no, that it was an accident. And the priest explained to the boy that this was not a sin but simply a mistake and he didn’t need to be absolved for it (and therefore the priest was able to tell me this, since priest’s are not allowed to reveal a sin confessed to them), and the boy responded that his mother yelled at him so he must have done something wrong.

In short, a mistake is not a sin. If the boy threw the rock without intending any harm, and yet accidentally broke, he would not be required to confess this, God would not punish Him for it and He would not need to repent it because God would not be angry at Him for it. God could perhaps have had some purpose for the window for which He did not want it to be broken… I suppose… and I couldn’t know this, but He would nevertheless not punish a person who committed a mere unintentional mistake. Rather He would only be angry with the child, not on account of the window, but on whether the person truly had the harmful intention in his heart.

I don’t understand your question about resurrecting the body of the damned.

 

[D_M]

Forgiveness is offered before contriteness, but if the person refuses to repent they cannot actually be forgiven for that sin… this is why traditionally the priest requires an act of contrition before he will give the absolution to the confessing penitent. If you went to confession and told a priest that you were not sorry for your sins or that you fully intended to continue committhing them, he should not absolve you even if you told them to him and offered up prayers in sacrifice.

I agree that sin implies impurity and impurity does not imply sin. Which is what I meant when I said that the woman’s impurity in either Lev 12 or Lev 15 did not imply that she committed a sin. We do know though, as you have just admitted, that the sin offering really was offered for real sins and I then say that it could have been a pentitential rite which was incorporated into these laws but which was not a penance for these impurities but for sins that the person assumedly committed which were not these impurities.

If we have original sin, than it means that we really have committed sinful acts. If we are conceived in sin, that means we are sinners. We can be either in grace or in sin, and only three human beings have ever been conceive in grace, while everyone else has been conceived in sin. We are committing sin from our very conception, there is no period when from our earliest existence in the womb where we were not committing sins until we find God’s grace. (hence Augustine’s teaching that the infants who die in sin are deprived of salvation, which the church has since added to in its belief that evenso, people who die without God’s grace may find it after they die if they truly seek it so that they be cleansed from this sin and enter the Kingdom)

I agree the St Augustine’s admits his logic is limited, and sometimes it is, but I don’t believe he was so completely wrong about this point here. Infants (and people in general) who die without God’s grace cannot find heaven as St Augustine taught, but we then modify this to say that they might find it after they died if they truly seek it and would have come to it in life if they had simply been given the opportunity… it is nevertheless true that they need to come to that grace though in order to enter life.

Therefore to have original sin, is equivalent to truly being a sinner.

I think what many people suppose is that infants are incapable of mortal sin, and this view is incorrect. My understanding is that everyone who has original sin is in a state of mortal sin by their own fault, as they are deprived of God’s grace through their own sinfulness.

I couldn’t tell you how it is that God makes each spirit, whether it is fresh or old, or however he does it… but what I do know is that when the body is formed in the womb, all of us are committing sins just as our foreparents did into which we are continuing.

I do apply Paul’s statement to the unbaptized, because it would simply be absurd to suppose that the unbaptized are incapable of resisting the temptations to sin… I think the position otherwise is was what Martin Luther incorrectly taught wasn’t it? (that man in original sin was simply a mad horse that rode in whatever direction that its rider, God or the devil, was directing it, without the will to resist)… people are capable of obeying or resisting God as is shown throughout the stories of the old testament without a baptism, as God’s grace is never lacking.

I know that the Mosaic law we are talking about refers to a woman, except what I meant was that even though a person who is unclean cannot enter the temple…that does not also mean that this person cannot touch Jesus. If it were sin to do so, than Jesus is in fact causing them to sin by touching them and would then be sinning Himself…furthermore the sacrifice in Lev 12 is for all women and does not specify simply those who give birth to the Incarnate Son of God, hence the sin offering Moses wrote here could not be because of touching Jesus.

I think anyone who has a soul and free will is capable of sinning, and that would include the mentally deprived, infants or whoever else we may mention who are suggested. If they were not capable, then they do not have free will, and they are likewise incapable of loving either (since love is something that can only be freely given or else it is not love).

Thank you for wishing me well in the age to come, may the Lord grant the same to you, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[GailMac]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…the intimacy of the union between the Mother and the Son was such that all generations still call her blessed. Ave Maria, gratia plena…seat of Wisdom makes a little better sense to me!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
You’ve convinced me of your earlier assertion that the sacrifice in Maccabees must be (and I use the word ‘must’ in the rhetorical but not literal sense) referring to the levitical sacrifice…

There are two things that we then may draw from this though:

i) … at least in this instance … the levitical sin offering was in fact not offered for ‘accidental sins’ (ie. mistakes) but was offered for real sins …

Unfortunately, No, I haven’t admitted it was not offered for accidental sins – I have only admitted it was offered for actual sins in addition.

Eg: in Maccabees, not only do the dead have the idols in their tunics – but those who came to bury the dead as an act of mercy had to handle the tunic “accidentally” to discover the unclean, accursed, idols. They, themselves, needed to offer a “sin offering” according to the Law of Moses…Not only for the dead.

Eg:

Deute 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
Deute 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Those men who died in battle also undoubtedly and previously entered the tents of their comrades on occasion.
So, no one could be certain who didn’t have the accidental sin…

Here is the classic first canon example:

Joshu 7:12 Therefore the children of Israel … turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.
Joshu 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you

Very clearly, Israel is being punished for a sin in the above passage. However, to most, it was a hidden sin – literally buried out of sight. By merely being in the company of those who had idols, all of Israel suffered and was punished and had to go through a purification ceremony. eg: lots of sin offerings are implied…

ii) In the text of Maccabees, while the offering is being made for the dead it is specifically mentioned that it is for being done for them and their atonement. This is contrasted from Lev 12 where is says that the woman is making the offering for herself; it does state she is making it for others nor does it leave it ambiguous that it is for her.

Nowhere in Maccabees does it state that they offered the sin offering for themselves, The thing is, anyone familiar with the law would have been aware of they had to do so!

Putting these two points together we then find that the person who offers the sin offering is doing it for real sins, and that the woman in Lev 12 is making this offering on behalf of her own sins.

Oh? the woman in Lev 12 is not necessarily doing it only for her own sins. Take, for example, that when Adam sinned, everyone under him “sinned in Adam”. Also when Abraham tithed 10% to Melchizadech — so did all his children “in him”. That is where the practice of the tithe comes from, and is also a NT argument against the Levites…

But it is not only the Father which affects the children, but also the mother:

Isaia 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isaia 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Sarah is Abraham’s first wife, she then (and only she) is his flesh. The other wives do not share the same physical unity.

When Jesus of the house of Judah talks to the Pharisees, they are quick to say “we are not born of fornication” in a place which does not refer to THEIR parents. But, they are speaking to Jesus, and the WHOLE tribe of Judah is born ancestrally from an act of fornication. Ergo – the insult.

If this is so, then what of the mothers Leah and Rachel?
Note what Rachel does – but Leah does not do:

Genesis 31:34 Now Rachel had taken the idols, put them inside a camel cushion, and seated herself upon them. … Rachel said to her father, “Let not my lord feel offended that I cannot rise in your presence; a woman’s period is upon me.” So despite his search, he did not find the Idols.

Rachel Bore the tribes of Benjamin (St. Paul’s tribe), and Joseph (The man who married the Egyptian priestess…)

Leah bore the tribes of Judah and Levi. hmmm…

You ask how I come to the conclusion that there is no forgiveness. … the Israelites could not even know if these people went to eternal damnation or not (and as such prayers to save them from purgation for sins would obviously not end in forgiveness). Rather they presume without knowledge, as we do usually when we pray for the dead, that the people for whom they are offering the prayers for may be aided by these prayers.

Yes, and I pray for you too. God is the God of the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – not the dead. God knew before I prayed that I was going to do so, and may have applied my prayer to you some time in the past – even before I prayed for you or you for me.

Also, Some of the dead may not have worn the amulets, but only was in the company of those who did – they would still require sin offerings out of Justice in case any of these discovered the sin before dying.

more…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Those who are dead may find forgiveness, and the prayers may help them find it, but it could not be known … If the souls in purgatory do not repent of their venial sins, than even if we pray for them so as to bring them to repent and be forgiven, they will not find forgiveness.

I understand Purgatory a bit differently. Look to
1Corinthians:

1Cori 3:13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
1Cori 3:14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Cori 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The “Day” is clearly not every day, nor once a week. This passage is referring to the final judgment. Things that are valuable and can survive fire are burned (purged) to cleanse them. In the text from Joshua the Guilty party and children are burned with fire. That is their purification on the day of Judgment. But the passage in 1Corinthians offers hope that the effects of their sin is burned off, and the persons themselves saved after death.

But 1Cor does not say repentance is required – rather it only says they will suffer a loss. , and by fire we know that they are cleansed / purified regardless of “who’s” sin put the flammable materials into a person’s body and soul…

More tomorrow – time to sleep now and dream about all the possibilities…
I am definitely enjoying this.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When I say that the grace achieves nothing, what I mean is that it achieves nothing for the person who refuses to cooperate with it… it does achieve something in that it reveals the glory, mercy and love of God even when it is not accepted… but if a person does not cooperate with grace by refusing to repent of sins than it is not going to effect such a change in her as to bring her to be in that grace.

OK. I agree, with the exception that “repent” and “purification” are two subtly different aspects. Purgatory, I would hold, causes a loss of something associated with sin. Sin is that which causes an impurity in a person being purged. Ergo, both the sin and the results (impurity) are to be ultimately removed in purgatory in some undisclosed way.

I am not certain, but it seems there is the possibility that the will is not entirely in control once a person is in purgatory – eg: Gravity is a constraint against the freedom of the body, likewise perhaps purgatory may act as a restraint against the sinful will. Since the will is free, here on earth, but heaven will never have sin – something must change at death/resurrection. eg: perhaps the will becomes “fixed” in its final state, and can no longer change at all.

I don’t know very much about what the divine mercy devotion promises (this is St. Kowalska’s chaplet right?),

exactly.

although if it is does promise salvation than I think we must understand that in context. Jesus says that all who believe in me will be saved, but we know that simply believing without works is not in itself going to find salvation even though Jesus seems to say that she will…

In the case of Jesus’ teaching one may compare various passages to come to the conclusion that belief implies a work. yes. However, infants have the work applied from the outside as far as I know. (eg: they have no fruits that are visible to me, which does not mean they have none at all…)

Likewise a person who prays for God’s mercy but who hates God for eternity is not going to find salvation as loving God was necessary in addition to praying for His mercy… I’m unsure if this hits the mark or not, as I’m not too familiar with what you’re suggesting

The promise, as I commonly hear it, is that if one prays the divine mercy chaplet for another person over a certain period of time – they will be saved. That is to say, they will come to repentance. The issue of free will is not addressed in the promise as far as I know. It bothers me as well…

You say that murderers, rapists, etc. entered heaven before the pharisees… which is correct, except I think you know what I must have meant…

yes. ergo the

Although, since we do not know much of the world to come, certain sins may have no possible object in the life to come.
eg: they may become moot points as they can not be committed anyway – since burnable “tinder” for some sins may be specific to this world.

You ask how do I know that God would not be angry with the window being broken… I would also have assumed you would know the answer to this, but neverthless I’ll give it to you… I once met a confessor who told me a story about a little boy … And the priest explained to the boy that this was not a sin but simply a mistake …

I had a father Elwin Schwab out here … he thought that three way gay marriages weren’t sins either, nor materbation, nor … People came out of his confessional with the STRANGEST ideas.

Until he blessed a three way homosexual/lesbian union which went sadistic, and made the front page of the Oregonian…

Back to the vase idea:
Depending on the mother, the child may still need to repair or replace the vase from his allowance or through work.
The mother may be angry with the child simply because she made the vase and the child was told how valuable it is.
Ergo, it was a sin – but not one the child was culpable for.
(Unless he were being rambunctious against his mother’s orders, etc.)

But even in the case of such a mother, if a neighbor gave her an identical vase to replace the one that is broken – I can imagine a little irritation would remain, but that the mother would probably be appeased (or at least socially humiliated if she continued to carry on.) since the consequences of the child’s accident have been mitigated.

In short, a mistake is not a sin.

In the American sense of the word…

God could perhaps have had some purpose for the window for which He did not want it to be broken… I suppose… and I couldn’t know this,

And the body of man is just one such item. God created it, and I think we KNOW that he doesn’t wish his image to be “broken”.

Rather He would only be angry with the child, not on account of the window, but on whether the person truly had the harmful intention in his heart.

But, in fact, I think he would be upset on account of the body being for a purpose that is thwarted regardless of how it became broken. A broken body is not the Glorious image it was intended to be when created…

I don’t understand your question about resurrecting the body of the damned.

At the general resurrection, all bodies – those of the Damned as well as of the Just will be raised to immortality.
If the “window” or “body” itself had no intrinsic value to God, why would he bother “taping” it back together (AKA raising it) no matter how disfigured it is?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Forgiveness is offered before contriteness, but if the person refuses to repent they cannot actually be forgiven for that sin… this is why traditionally the priest requires an act of contrition before he will give the absolution to the confessing penitent.

Agreed – if you mean that forgiveness which is given may in fact be revoked at a later time.

eg:

Matth 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
…
Matth 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Matth 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

This also points to the way that we will be Judged in relation to God, by what Judgment and Justice we show to others.

I agree that sin implies impurity and impurity does not imply sin. … We do know though, as you have just admitted, that the sin offering really was offered for real sins and I then say that it could have been a pentitential rite which was incorporated into these laws but which was not a penance for these impurities but for sins that the person assumedly committed which were not these impurities.

eg: does not imply sin of one’s own.
Rather than comment on this, I think I need to let you comment on my last post and see what you think at this time.

If we have original sin, than it means that we really have committed sinful acts.

The years have passed since I read Augustine’s works, but as I remember he denies the act itself, but rather relates the infants position to that of ignorance. So, I am not sure how you mean the above.

If we are conceived in sin, that means we are sinners.

Could you explain this a bit more, as in “how” or “what way”?
eg: the psalm on original sin as usually cited does not refer to Adam – the head of the human family. Rather it refers to the mother. Yet the “original” sin belongs to Adam.

KJV:
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

Psalm 50:7 (51:7) ιδου γαρ εν α-νομιαις συν-ελημφθην και εν α-μαρτιαις εκ-ισση-σε/ν με η —>μητηρ<— μου

→ εν-εκ-ισση-σε <— - Gen 30:41

It is the mother’s act. The only other place I am sure of this abnormal word for conception occurring is Genesis 30:41.

KJV.
Genes 30:41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did → conceive <–, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might → conceive ← among the rods

Genes 30:41 εγενετο δε εν τω καιρω ω —> εν-εκ-ισση-σεν <— τα προβατα εν γαστρι λαμβανοντα εθηκεν ιακωβ τας ραβδους εναντιον των προβατων εν ταις ληνοις του -->εγκισσησαι<-- αυτα κατα τας ραβδους

As far as I know, this word has to do with a conception in desire, perhaps cravings or rut would be appropriate?
The offspring were not the ones who “caused” the mottled and striped defects – it is the conception in evil cravings.

We can be either in grace or in sin, and only three human beings have ever been conceive in grace, while everyone else has been conceived in sin.

Dogmatically, conception without sin belongs to Mary. Hers is spoken of as a “singular” grace – so that other similar births happened on a different principle. Else I have misread the teachings on Mary’s singular grace – I’ll have to look again…

The rest of your post stumps me for various reasons at the moment, and I will get back to you after considering it for a while longer…

May your day bring a ray of Joy.
Pax Tecum.

–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

P.S. A minor bibliography of oblique references…
Since I have a minute.

Explanation of mercy in the parable of the prodigal son:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia_en.html
Scroll down to section 5 “An analogy”, the last two to three paragraphs are the most important.

The immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is dogmatically defined:
ineffibalus Deus, December 8, 1954
Her exemption from sin is “by a singular grace and privilege”
So, I remembered the quote correctly – although the interpretation is still a bit fuzzy to me.

(By an ODD coincidence, the Vatican does not appear to be able to find that document itself on their site!!! (Nor can Google…)

As to Jesus and the interaction with the Pharisees concerning ancestral sin:

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham
.
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Note they do NOT assume their immediate parents but immediately refer to the patristic fathers as a reference to righteousness or sin.

eg: when they say “we are not born of fornication” one might at first thing they are referring to Hagar and defending themselves – but the slave woman, Hagar, is not considered fornication to the pharisees since concubines and second wives are not explicitly condemned yet as of Abraham’s time. Eg: I would hold the Pharisees are trying to reverse the argument on Jesus by referring to the father of his tribe – Judah himself – whom’s tribe exists only because Judah committed an act which he “thought” was fornication!

Therefore, what they are trying to do is shame Jesus by his heritage. (and undoubtedly would accuse Mary of fornication if they were given the chance…)

As a general rule, I use quote blocks when doing copy paste of actual articles, and I use “” when referring to an idea from memory which may not be an exact quote.
Hope these help…

–Andrew

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

I think I understand what you mean when you say ‘real sins in addition’, except I question the anecdote you offer from the text.

Deuteronomy 7 does not refer to a person simply touching an idol, but rather it refers to a person who sets up an idol in his home (presumably to honour it as a god) or who takes the precious metals (and presumably jewels also if they were used) for himself… neither of these are really suggested by the narrative in Maccabbees wherein the soldiers are simply taking the idols from the bodies without any mention of what happened to them afterwards, and I think that if a person did either of those things they would be guilty not of impurity but of genuine sin.

The narrative in Maccabees still then seems to point at real sins, and makes no mention of any ‘accidental sins’ (ie. mistakes, for then it can’t be a sin if it is accidental) in addition.

I would interpret Joshua 7 as meaning that all of Israel was punished, not simply because that one man had taken spoil from the siege but rather because all of Israel was responsible for preventing such from happening.

I say this because you can’t be punished for another person’s sins, unless of course you had some responsibility within it. Hence, if all Israel was punished than all Israel must have sinned. What I imagine is that Israel as a national body must have been sinfully negligent about preventing someone from taking spoil for himself, just in the same way perhaps as catholics can be committing a sin if they do nothing about someone stealing a host from the communion line.

Similarly, perhaps, the jews in Maccabees who found their fallen comrades could have been similarly negligent (and again perhaps they weren’t), and they would have then sinned, but it would be then an ‘accidental sin’ but it would be a real sin committed unwittingly.

While Melchizidek can bless all the children of Abraham before they are even conceived, and while you can offer prayers for me that already prefigured in God’s complete foreknowledge, I’m not so sure about the concept of forgiving the children who are not yet even born by forgiving the parent.

If that were true, I think perhaps the children of christians who have been freed from sin should not be born with original sin, and yet they most certainly are.

Furthermore, in Mary’s case, that could imply that Jesus was being forgiven of sins…

The simple fact that a person has descent from a sinner does not in itself mean that they are conceived into that sin, and there are two exceptions, Mary and John the baptist, who are both truly children of Adam and Eve and yet were not conceived into their foreparents sin. The issue of whether or not a person inherits such sin (and ‘inherit’ is a poor word) rests in that person’s own choice in their conception as to whether or not they should sin.

It is our always our own fault as to whether or not we are sinners. It can be others fault in addition to our own sometimes (like when others tempt us, or have sinned themselves in some fashion), but it is still our personal fault. Therefore you can’t be forgiven in place of your descendants, because their sin, even if they have sinned in you, is not yours to be forgiven, and neither could it be the same for the woman in Lev 12.

In terms of purgatory, perhaps I should put it like this then… if repentance is not required, and the person therefore does not stop sinning, they can never enter God’s presence because in God’s presence there can be no sin.

Ceasing to sin, and repentance, is essentially the exact same thing, and in order for a person to enter the Father’s presence they cannot be committing even the smallest venial sin, and if they have not ceased committing sins, then they can’t be there.

You are correct that 1 Cor 3 does not mention repentance, but that doesn’t mean it is not necessary.

I could not accept the idea that God would ever take away our free will, even in purgatory or in heaven… as I mentioned previously, a being without free will is not capable of loving because love, in order for it to be love, has to be given freely. A robot or a puppet cannot love, only a being that has free will can love. There is no creature in purgatory or in heaven who is incapable of sinning because there is a limitation on their free will, but rather they are forever sinless by their own free choice which is no longer subject to any outside temptation.

Therefore there is no creature in heaven who cannot sin, but rather it is that there is no creature in heaven who will sin and there is no creature who has ascended into heaven who would sin any longer (ie. the saints who have been washed clean in Christ’s blood) and no creature has remained in heaven who has freely chosen to sin while being there (eg. satan and the demons).

 

[D_M]

Belief can be a good work, but belief in itself is not necessarily a good work:

James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe- and shudder.

Mark 5:7 and crying out with a loud voice he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High god? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”

Demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but that doesn’t mean that they are doing a good work, even though Jesus says that those who believe in me will be saved. The demons believe in Jesus, but that doesn’t mean they are going to be saved, because belief in itself is not necessarily good unless it is accompanied by not simply believe but love also, and if we love then we will do God’s commandments (since he said those who love me will keep my commandments) which in turn implies good works.

In terms of the promise of St Kowalska’s chaplet I have two possible answers to the problem:
i) God has arranged it so that the only people that anyone will ever choose to pray the chaplet for over a long time period already had their names written in the book of life before the beginning of the world (ie. ‘the elect’) and so they will all likewise come to repentance with the addage of the mercy granted to them through prayer… and those who were not the elect, God will arrange so that no one will ever choose to pray for them over a long period in this way
ii) God has not arranged it to be so, and the promise accompanying the chaplet is not to be taken as a strict absolute without exceptions, just as it is likewise true that not Jesus saying that those who believe in me shall find life is not a strict absolute without exceptions.

If we tried praying the mercy over a long period of time for satan, would he find forgiveness?

I think the second option is the more likely, but the first is perhaps possible as well.

You may be right about certain sins no longer having any potential to be committed in the world to come, although since all sins stem from a lack of love which ultimately determine their sinfulness, it would still stand that there are no people who don’t love each other in heaven.

Although I do understand the smiley now…

Your priest did what?..

There are defintely some stories out there about the behaviour of some priests in the history of our church, and I think that one should be added to them.

Probably the greatest I know of is this one:

Fr. Jozef Tiso became the fascist dictator of Slovakia in 1938, and sent three quarters of the country’s jews to the death camps before the vatican ordered him to stop in 1942… I don’t know how some of these shepherds are able to reconcile in their own minds what they are doing with christian teaching as though they were doing nothing wrong, but somehow it exists.

I can’t imagine what it would have been like if someone ever confessed to him…

In terms of the vase example, I know that the mother may require the child to pay even though it were an accident, but God would not do so because He doesn’t punish or require penance on account of accidents. God could perhaps require that the child pay it back, not as a punishment of the child, but for His own good purposes if that is what He has called the child to do, and then again He may not.

What would remain true here though is that even if God required such payment, that He would not be angry with the child for what was an accident on the child’ part.

The body of a window and the body of a man are different things.
The body of a window can be good thing when it is broken, but the body of a man when it is broken is always a corruption.

I would agree that God could have some purpose with a whole window such that He would want it whole, but He nevertheless would not be angry with the child on that account if the child committed a mere accident.

For forgiveness, I would say that forgiveness can be offered and that the offer can be repudiated.

The person who truly repents and is forgiven, but (like in the story of the evil servant) ‘loses’ his forgiveness later, I would say has not really lost their prior forgiveness but has rather committed a new sin to provoke the master’s anger by his lack of love to his neighbour whom he will not forgive, and therefore unless that person repents of the new sin, they then enter into a state in which they are unforgiven sinners again.

I can’t recall Augustine damning the infant on account of ignorance, but rather I think he would have damned the infant on account of sinfulness as he did to all who were not in God’s grace.

I’ll quote him here for reference:

City of God, Book XIII Chapter 14 ‘Man as he was created, and man’s condition after his Fall’

God created man aright, for God is the author of natures, though he is certainly not responsible for their defects. But man was willingly perverted and justly condemned, and so begot perverted and condemned offspring. For we were all in that one man, seeing that we all were that one man who fell into sin through the woman who was made from him before the first sin. We did not yet possess forms individually created and assigned to us for us to live in them as individuals; but there already existed the seminal nature from which we were to be begotten. And of course, when this was vitiated through sin, and boud with death’s fetters in its just condemnation, man could not be born of man in any other condition. Hence from the misuse of free will there started a chain of disasters: mankind is led from that original perversion, a kind of corruption at the root, right up to the disaster of the second death, which has no end. Only those who are set free through God’s grace escape from this calamitious sequence.

 

[D_M]

Adam’s does not cause us to be sinners, but rather our own sin in Adam has made us sinners…

What kind of God would punish people for a sin they never committed?

think of the Amalekites who tried to destroy Israel in Sinai during the days of Moses, and whom Saul completely annihilated (except for the animals which he sinfully took as booty) on account of the sins of their foreparents which they were assumedly continuing.

or maybe think of Jesus reminding the pharisees that they are the children of the men who killed the prophets, and we know that those pharisees were continuing in the same sin of their ancestors by killing John the Baptist and Jesus.

The pharisees did not have to continue in the sins of their foreparents, and they could have repented too, which means that this sin from their ancestors, while commuted to them, is essentially their fault and not that of their ancestors

Similarly, the sin of Adam is transmitted to his offspring who came from him, and it is our own sin when we have continue in Adam’s sin into which we are almost all universally conceived into.

I had already found it, but nevertheless I thank you for providing the reference to JPII’s article

When the pharisees said they were not born of fornication I would have interpreted in the context that they meant that were not bastards with the implication there were jews who fornicated with foreign wives and had children who would not themselves be part of the covenant of Abraham in their eyes (since they thought the children of Abraham was a birthright and not, as John the Baptist said that God could raise up children of Abraham from these rocks, the deeper meaning in that being Abraham’s children meant someone had faith in God in all circumstances)… I think it’s not about the transmitting of sin necessarily, but it has to do with their understanding of the covenant.

I’m wondering if perhaps we should ask for any help with this discussion?

(anyone may repeat this yourself if they choose)

Lord, you who know all things, truly know the answer to our question of whether or not our virgin Mother knew she was sinless. We pray that, if it does please you, that you grant us the answer to this question and whatever other wisdom that may accompany such an answer. We ask this, if it pleases you to grant it, in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Thank you for your kindness,

God Bless,

-David

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi David,

Hi Andrew,

I think I understand what you mean when you say ‘real sins in addition’, except I question the anecdote you offer from the text.

Deuteronomy 7 does not refer to a person simply touching an idol, but rather it refers to a person who sets up an idol in his home (presumably to honour it as a god) or who takes the precious metals (and presumably jewels also if they were used) for himself… neither of these are really suggested by the narrative in Maccabbees wherein the soldiers are simply taking the idols from the bodies without any mention of what happened to them afterwards, and I think that if a person did either of those things they would be guilty not of impurity but of genuine sin.

The presumption of the use of the idols in Deuteronomy 7 is a reasonable interpretation. However the text of the Maccabees, as you say, does not show that these men “used” the idols in their homes. So, then the odd point is – why did the whole army give for sin offerings, and Judas (the head) was the ONLY one given credit for the prayers?

The narrative in Maccabees still then seems to point at real sins, and makes no mention of any ‘accidental sins’ (ie. mistakes, for then it can’t be a sin if it is accidental) in addition.

Of course, the sin offering is for actual sins — I am just building the thesis up slowly that → it is not for one’s own sins of commission necessarily. There is nothing which excludes the premise that a sinless person may offer a sin offering in the text either…

I would interpret Joshua 7 as meaning that all of Israel was punished, not simply because that one man had taken spoil from the siege but rather because all of Israel was responsible for preventing such from happening.

That is reasonable, but I think it misses the target.

In 1’st canon Joshua – only One man is singled out as the transgressor of this command. They could have cast lots multiple times if there had been more. And on a battlefield inside and out of cities, and on the plains, every man in the army of THOUSANDS is responsible (guilty) of sinning because they did not STOP this man from taking the Idols and gold…?
How many of them could possibly have even seen the action of this one man?

I suppose his children did – when he brought them into the tent, and so did his wife. So, I suppose even if a baby was sucking at his mother’s breast – he was still “responsible” for stopping his father… And that is why the WHOLE family of that man, his wife, his children, and especially ALL his property – were burned.

I would say at least one of the people in the army was ignorant – or else, why did Jesus the son of nun (Joshua) need to cast lots to find the guilty party out? (I mean if EVERYONE KNEW) And also, why did the whole army need to purify itself in order for the trial to begin? The connection of purification and sin offering is plain here too… The sin offering in this instance was NOT a substitute animal – it was the man and family itself. No symbol.
Joshua did not even find out what the family was like, children, infants, before he passed the sentence. (To him, it could have been any family…)

I say this because you can’t be punished for another person’s sins, unless of course you had some responsibility within it.

I agree. But responsibility is not the same as knowingly committing a sin one’s self – that was the point of my water bill analogy, and which I see plainly spelled out in non-symbolic language in Joshua.

Hence, if all Israel was punished than all Israel must have sinned. What I imagine is that Israel as a national body must have been sinfully negligent about preventing someone from taking spoil for himself, just in the same way perhaps as catholics can be committing a sin if they do nothing about someone stealing a host from the communion line.

Exactly. I agree. The whole army needed purification because it was contaminated by one man, and one man’s transgression.

Similarly, perhaps, the jews in Maccabees who found their fallen comrades could have been similarly negligent (and again perhaps they weren’t), …

And the whole army sent the money to buy the offerings in the temple… Was it a sin offering AND a purification offering, or just a purification offering? (My original question about the proper way to interpret the passage referring to Mary and women after childbirth). It would seem to be both in Maccabees, but since they don’t specify the “forgiveness” aspect of the rite – you are free to hold it is only a purification offering being called a “sin offering”. The text in Maccabees does not talk about the army purifying itself…(I don’t know).

But – according to the example in Joshua – if even ONE man in his army had idols in HIS tent – Then the whole army could be held accountable to the point of being slaughtered. No wonder they burned the man’s family!

If this is so, how much more would Judas expect that his whole army could be slaughtered (eg: they were under the certain sentence of death.)

If the one army was dead because of one man’s sin – then how much more Judas’ army with so many betrayers in it?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m not so sure about the concept of forgiving the children who are not yet even born by forgiving the parent.

Neither am I. Especially since they haven’t even been conceived in their parents minds… Did you think I was suggesting that?

If that were true, I think perhaps the children of christians who have been freed from sin should not be born with original sin, and yet they most certainly are.

They are born clean – but not free. Original sin is figuratively spoken of under the metaphor of slavery. One may be a willing or unwilling servant. That is all I can draw from St. Paul’s comment on the birth of children from mixed marriages.
For he says, the children of a sinful father and Christian mother are clean. PERIOD. He can’t be speaking of already baptized children, for obviously they would be cleansed in baptism and NO one could question the issue of the Pagan father/mother.

Paul also goes so far as to say the Christian spouse “sanctifies” the unbelieving (unrepentant) spouse. I see only two ways to make sense of it – with regard to a true (first) marriage being a one flesh union such that the Christian being the body of Christ is united to the inexhaustible source of holiness, (… edit / deleted sentence was here…)[p.s. I just reread this – and it is somewhat botched, but I can’t fix this paragraph tonight.]

Do you see something else? eg: something like … dunno … the child is all clean, except the “feet” as on the rock of Peter?

Furthermore, in Mary’s case, that could imply that Jesus was being forgiven of sins…

How so? I have to accept several assumptions of yours to come to that conclusion. Perhaps this will clear up with other issues I am beginning to see. (excuse my ignorance as I am learning your thoughts as we go along…)

The simple fact that a person has descent from a sinner does not in itself mean that they are conceived into that sin

I think it does – so correct me: eg:Not that this is the ONLY way, but even physical bodily defects (physical evil/sin) do pass down. Many diseases (physical) use genes as their vector of propagation. and there is also, eg: fetal alcohol syndrome…

Although what I have said is not well argued – I am absolutely certain of one point –
It is according to the flesh that original sin travels – not the spirit.

Not as proof, but to quote the Catholic church on how one KNOWS the doctrine of original sin:

“388: We MUST know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.”

, and there are two exceptions, Mary and John the baptist, who are both truly children of Adam and Eve and yet were not conceived into their foreparents sin. The issue of whether or not a person inherits such sin (and ‘inherit’ is a poor word) rests in that person’s own choice in their conception as to whether or not they should sin.

I do not agree with the exception of John the baptist. I am well aware that many Catholics hold the “opinion” not ratified by the church that John was freed from original sin in the womb when he “leapt” – (so his conception is already excluded) but what happened to John is no more than that which happens to the Christian child of a mixed marriage.

For Jesus says of John.B. as a born man, the least born into the kingdom of God is greater than he.

I will not deny he is “clean” – but that isn’t the same as free of original sin by sanctification and justification. Clearly, John says when Christ came to him at the Jordan – John 1:33 I did not know him myself.

Thus is his original sin revealed…as is the pharisees in John 1:26

However, I will briefly add talking points from the CCC, not as proof but as a springboard (I am rushing, so check the actual statements…)

CCC: 404 – [original] sin is transmitted by propagation to all mankind. … it is a sin “contracted” and not committed.

CCC:366 – The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents.

You have given me enough information to explore the Marian issue in more depth – but I need to sleep and work is going to make time on Monday sparse… so, I leave you with a two thoughts to ponder for a bit, because one is a cardinal issue and the other you brought to my mind and I think you might find interesting.

Do you think that the Law of Moses is the Divine law of God AND free from all error and ambiguity and especially compromise?

If Jesus were purified at the purification, then what is the point of the Dove (the sign of the poor’s sin offering, etc.) coming to rest on Jesus? (eg:at his baptism in the Jordan?)

P.S.
I really appreciate the study of the Devil which you bring up, and look forward to clarifying some of the things I have said.
No, the Devil will not be saved by prayers – so the divine mercy ought not be applicable to him…

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I think I see where you’re going with the text in Maccabbees… for you are right that it does appear that the money for the collection to give the sin offering was taken from those who (presumably) it was not being given on behalf of.

I would assume that the whole army would have had merit as well for giving the money, but Judas is perhaps given special mention if it was done at his direction.

The argument then I think must go, that if these men can have an offering done at the temple on behalf of others, that perhaps Mary in Luke’s narrative or the woman in Lev 12 can do the same… I challenge that, mainly for the reason as I stated that Lev 12 does not seem to give any ambiguity about who the offering is being made on behalf of when the woman offers a dove for a burnt offering and a dove for a sin offering, and she is then declared clean and atoned.

I would understand that all Israel was guilty in the narrative in Joshua 7, not because all Israel had seen this man take the spoil, but because they were responsible for preventing it. I would interpret or infer that Israel had a duty to take precaution, be vigilant, keep an eye out, etc., to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and they were being irresponsible by failing in that duty.

Even if the spoil had not been taken to prove that they had such neglect, I would assume that Israel’s neglect would still be considered sinful. That is to say, it is not that they sinned because they knew that the man had taken the spoil and they had not stopped it, but rather they didn’t know that he had taken it, and their sin was that they were collectively neglectful or irresponsible to the extent that it was possible for a man to do this.

We are supposed to seek to serve the Lord with all of our being, and to be neglectful in that task is a sin. Failing to perform one’s responsibility, even without a scenario being given that that responsibility is for, is still a sin.

I also imagine that the man’s children were also stoned because they are assumed to have known about what the man did.

Judas’ army could have been held accountable in the same way, but I don’t know if they would have been or not… if they were, then we would then have lost our example of the sin offering being given on another’s behalf.

I’m not sure what you mean by purification, as neither Maccabbees or Joshua appears to use that word. The text in Maccabbees specifies it is a sin offering and says nothing about a burnt offering, and the text in Joshua makes no mention at all of the burning being consecrated as a levitical offering.

If the whole army was punished, than the whole army must have committed real sins. God will only punish people for their own sins. If they committed no sin, but only Achor had sinned, then the army would not have been punished, but they were punished which means they must have committed real sins.

I thought you were suggesting that the children were being forgiven by the parents offering when you said:

"Oh? the woman in Lev 12 is not necessarily doing it only for her own sins. Take, for example, that when Adam sinned, everyone under him “sinned in Adam”. "

I interpreted by context of what you wrote, that if the woman was not doing it for her own sins she was then doing it for that of her descendants as Adam’s descendants sinned in him, and therefore her descendants in such a way were forgiven in her… but I now realize I was reading too much into it…

I do see something else with regard to the unbaptized being sanctified, consider when Jesus says:

Matthew 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it , and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

St Augustine, once considered the topic of the salvation of all the christians who had been martyred in the name of Jesus, but who had not yet been baptized (since in those days, it was common practice to delay baptism to later adulthood), and he wrote that they found eternal life because Jesus had promised that whoever loses his life for His sake will find it.

That would necessarily imply, that a person can be holy even without being baptized.

To this dynamic, one could also reference the following quotation:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

Even though those martyrs were not baptized, they still possessed the Holy Spirit because they believed in Jesus. If an unbaptized non-christian decided to convert and to call Jesus her Lord, simply confessing that means that she possesses the Holy Spirit, by whose power alone she can confess that, even though she is not yet baptized.

An unbaptized person can be consecrated if they come to believe…I would have understood that when Paul said an unbeliever is consecrated through a believing family member I would have thought he meant that the unbelieving person is going to choose to convert to the true religion as a result of the believer’s intercessional influence…simply because, it makes little sense otherwise how he could say that an unbeliever will be consecrated simply by being in proximity or relationship with a believer.

 

[D_M]

This relates also to how I understand original sin.

I don’t have any argument to give for John the Baptist’s exception… I had been told that he was excepted, and I assumed the church must have defined it, although if you say it hasn’t I will believe you…

I would have understood original sin, in contrast to what the catechism says, to really have implied a true personal fault for every last person who has it. That is: a sin committed, and not only a state.

I’m reading the catechism you quote now and wondering if I need to revise my understanding… I use to think that the catechism was an infallible text… but then one day I read this entry:

“2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.”

Now I think I see what the body of theologians were thinking when they wrote this, and I could reference St Paul when he says:

Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Paul writes that what the law requires is written on our hearts, which is sort of what the theologians must have meant when they said ‘the ten commandments are engraved by God in the human heart’… and yet, someone has clearly made a mistake here, because it doesn’t say that the requirements of the law (ie. to love one’s neighbour as oneself) are engraved on the heart, but the commandments themselves are on the human heart…

How many people are out there who have the knowledge of keeping a day of rest on the seventh day written on their own heart? Are all the non-christians who do not take sunday as a day of rest acting against their conscience that is telling them that they need to take a sabbath?

If the decalogue was written on the heart, then what was Paul talking about when he said:

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

…this is a different topic, although it was after I saw this part of the catechism I then realized that the catechism was not necessarily authoritative on correct teaching…just as Augustine’s writings are not necessarily authoritative…

…which isn’t to say though, that the catechism could be right here and that I may be wrong…

The reasons I would place in favour of why I would say ‘original sin’ implied a real personal sin possessed by all of Adam’s descendants would include the following:

i) It is called a punishment. If it were given to all of Adam’s descendants as a punishment of them, that must invariably mean that they must have committed a sin that brought upon them such a punishment.

What kind of a God would punish people for a sin they didn’t commit?

If sin is simply inherited by descent and not through fault, then jews who descended from the people who killed Christ and persecuted the early church have inherited a sin… even if they had no intention of following in the path of their ancestors… and they would be punished on that account.

ii) No one can do any good action except with the help of grace. If a person is lacking grace and conceived without grace, then that also means that they are not doing good (since they would need to be in grace to do so).

Those in original sin possess some graces, and therefore are able to do good works, but since they are deprived of fully being in grace then they are also likewise not fully doing good works…and if they are not fully doing good works, then they are doing sins instead and therefore all in original sin without grace are therefore all likewise guilty of personal sin.

iii) The punishments of God in the OT: When the Israelites destroy their enemies in the land of Canaan, they kill every last person according to God’s commands. They even kill, as instructed, suckling infants and babes. In the book of Ezekiel, there is a part where little children are likewise mentioned alongside those whom the cherubim would punish. In the flood that destroyed the entire earth, there is very much the sense that everyone is killed. Not even unborn children were spared this punishment.

In order to justify why even the unborn and suckling infants should be killed in punishment, it must also be true that they are guilty of something that deserved death.

What could that possibly be though?

They hadn’t committed murder, adultery, idolatry, etc. and were innocent of such specific crimes as were being committed by their parents… but they did have a state of sin just as did their parents and ancestors from…

If they really didn’t hold personal guilt from their conception, then surely they would have been spared.

What kind of a God would punish people for sins they didn’t commit?

(and I am quite willing to accept that this is wrong, if it can be shown otherwise…I find it hard to believe that I could be right and all those theologians could be wrong… but then I remind myself of that other part of the catechism, and shrug)

 

[D_M]

In answer to the questions you asked:

i) The law of Moses was given by angels and therefore was a divine law of God, and (since angels can’t error) infallible.

If it were free from ambiguity we would perhaps not be having this discussion on its interpretation, and I think that the levitical priesthood was instituted for in one part helping to decide how it should be applied.

And it does have compromise, with regard to its not forbidding divorce (on account of their hardness of heart).

ii) I didn’t mean to say that Jesus was purified at the purification… this rather has to do with the main topic in whether or not they knew they needed such purification. I would have assumed He was always purified and that when Luke wrote ‘their purification’ he didn’t mean that they were really purified, but he was simply calling the jewish law concerning what they were doing by its proper name ‘purification’…

I give thanks to God that He has given us wisdom, which you and I have both appreciated…

I feel like praying again (and anyone can say this herself if she so chooses):

Lord, if it is your will, teach us the answers to the questions we have and in particular whether or not Mary knew she was sinless. Also, if it is your will, teach us to understand original sin as you have it understood and help us discern the truth regarding it. We ask this in Jesus name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[peary]

I do not think Mary knew she was sinless. In fact, I do not think such a thought ever entered her mind while she was alive. Her humility would not permit it.

 

[GailMac]

OH dear this thread has gone sour.

Has anyone one here ever heard of a thing called RITUALLY UNCLEAN?

And if so, how would that emphasize the obedience of the act of doing as the Law said?

Think about it - the Mother of God, St. Joesph and not to mention those waiting for His coming to the Temple, obeying the Laws by bring God’s Son to His house to recieve the blessing of the priest. What good news went forth to God’s people waiting from that day? (It still rings out from our Liturgies.)

And does this not help you think on another Mystery? Now imagine yourself doing as the Laws require, obedient as they were. What blessing do you think God has in store for your obedience?

But if you’d prefer to unsult Mary, the Mother of God, her husband, St. Joesph and God,…well, I’d prefer you didn’t.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

To this dynamic, one could also reference the following quotation:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

All I can say about this concoction of yours is wow! You actually have a Bible that says that? And you are supposedly Christian? This post of yours is definutely in the wow o wow dept for sure! God bless you man. I hope you get over yourself! Your thinking seems more Jewish than Christian. But that would be an insult to some Jews I know.

Peace,

Gail