- Status
G
GailMac
Guest
Excuse me, but the original question posed was not about Mary’s sinless state, but rather whether or not she knew she was sinless. The thread is getting clouded by speculations about her state, some thinking she is sinless, some thinking she isn’t. I can see from some of the posts that their are those engaging in the discussion who think Scripture must prove whatever some of us say about Mary, in particular her sinless nature. This may push the whole thread into a discussion about Mary’s state. Some require Biblical proofs of her Immaculate Conception, some want to point to her sublime obedience, and I might add, Joseph’s as well, in coming to the Temple for Circumcision and also Purification fulfilling the precepts of the Law. I think it would be best if we stick to the original premise, and ask those who have other issues to start their own threads for their questions. I think it is pointless to reply to the OP if you don’t believe Mary is sinless for the question is about the knowelge she had regarding her state, not whether or not she was sinless.
Peace,
Gail
Peace,
Gail
D
Des
Guest
You’re totally hypothesizing that fear means you have sin within you just because death entered the world because of sin which is another verse you obviously misinterpreted. Jesus died therefore He must have sin within Him.
As a matter of fact, in that same book of Romans you quoted from below, it says all of these sinful people didn’t fear the Lord so that seems to contradict your earlier statement doesn’t it. It seems here it’s the sinful people who don’t fear the Lord. Makes one think huh.
*Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is not any man just. *
*11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet swift to shed blood: *16 Destruction and misery in their ways: 17 And the way of peace they have not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
I could show you verses to say there have been righteous people along with showing you verses where people ‘ARE’ doing the will of God, or who seeketh God, Mary being one of them using that Angel’s Salutation, so again, Romans isn’t saying what you’d love for it to be saying. It isn’t saying “ALL” people in the literal sense you think and want it to mean.
Agreed, Jesus was Mary’s Saviour. Catholics don’t disagree with you there.
Actually Mailman, his interpretations did not make sense at all.
G
GailMac
Guest
Ummmmmmmmmmmm…Excuse me, but citing the Letter to the Romans of St. Paul as “proof” of Mary’s sinfulness is quite a stretch.
If you notice, the Letter to the Romans was written to the Jewish community in Rome, not to the whole world. It is an admonishment to the Jews living at Rome. St. Paul was writing it to them specifically, thus the name of the Letter, Romans. He wasn’t writing to or **about **Mary, nor was he writing about the whole human race either. Taking things out of context and misapplying them to persons not mentioned in the Letter is misleading at best, false teaching at worst.
Peace,
Gail
If you notice, the Letter to the Romans was written to the Jewish community in Rome, not to the whole world. It is an admonishment to the Jews living at Rome. St. Paul was writing it to them specifically, thus the name of the Letter, Romans. He wasn’t writing to or **about **Mary, nor was he writing about the whole human race either. Taking things out of context and misapplying them to persons not mentioned in the Letter is misleading at best, false teaching at worst.
Peace,
Gail
T
TWG
Guest
Are you saying that you think that the context of the “all” and “not even one” statements from Paul are limited, and referring strictly to the Romans?
I will say that I do agree with your point that one should always look at who the letters are addressed to, but I am still more prone to thinking that Paul was telling the Romans that nobody, anywhere, is without sin, as it seems too awkward for it to be limited to just the Romans.
In any case, please don’t get me wrong, I do think Mary is “blessed among women” – no doubt!
My problem is that if she could be 100% human and still without sin, then why can it not be the same way for all of us? I mean, it sould like you are saying she is made sinless without the need for Christ’s saving / sacrifical blood. If that is true, then why did Jesus have to die on a cross for the rest of us? Or in other words, it sounds like Jesus did not need to die for Mary - even though she is a human being created after the Fall.
I guess I just do not get why the “exception” is even “necessary” in the first place.
With regard to the main point of whether or not she knew, I would say no. I would even go so far as to say that I think she may even have had some doubts about Jesus himself - prior to the resurection. I say this based on John 7:5 where were are told that “even his own brothers did not believe in him.” Mary then comes with these same unbelieving brothers wanting to talk with Jesus in Matt 12:46-50 ( in a manner implying worry over him and what he was getting himself into ). Her presence at the foot of the cross with John also seem to imply that she - like the other 11 Disciples - still did not quite get the fact that he would really raise on the Third Day. Plus, if she really knew and understood everything, I would have expected her to be waiting at the tomb herself on Easter Sunday.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on this topic.
I will say that I do agree with your point that one should always look at who the letters are addressed to, but I am still more prone to thinking that Paul was telling the Romans that nobody, anywhere, is without sin, as it seems too awkward for it to be limited to just the Romans.
In any case, please don’t get me wrong, I do think Mary is “blessed among women” – no doubt!
My problem is that if she could be 100% human and still without sin, then why can it not be the same way for all of us? I mean, it sould like you are saying she is made sinless without the need for Christ’s saving / sacrifical blood. If that is true, then why did Jesus have to die on a cross for the rest of us? Or in other words, it sounds like Jesus did not need to die for Mary - even though she is a human being created after the Fall.
I guess I just do not get why the “exception” is even “necessary” in the first place.
With regard to the main point of whether or not she knew, I would say no. I would even go so far as to say that I think she may even have had some doubts about Jesus himself - prior to the resurection. I say this based on John 7:5 where were are told that “even his own brothers did not believe in him.” Mary then comes with these same unbelieving brothers wanting to talk with Jesus in Matt 12:46-50 ( in a manner implying worry over him and what he was getting himself into ). Her presence at the foot of the cross with John also seem to imply that she - like the other 11 Disciples - still did not quite get the fact that he would really raise on the Third Day. Plus, if she really knew and understood everything, I would have expected her to be waiting at the tomb herself on Easter Sunday.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on this topic.
R
rocketrob
Guest
TWG,
Like yourself, I was once a protestant married to a Catholic. About 10 years ago, I became a Catholic after much prayer, thought and research. So, I understand the emotion and difficulty that can arise when a protestant first looks at the Catholic teachings about Mary.
Believe it or not, the Catholic Church completely upholds, implements and teaches what is in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
Like yourself, I was once a protestant married to a Catholic. About 10 years ago, I became a Catholic after much prayer, thought and research. So, I understand the emotion and difficulty that can arise when a protestant first looks at the Catholic teachings about Mary.
Believe it or not, the Catholic Church completely upholds, implements and teaches what is in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
Therefore, while you may not find explicit Scriptural references supporting the Marian doctrines, neither will you find that any of these teachings contradict, or are contradicted by Scripture. The doctrines have been thoroughly vetted over the past 2,000 years and are consistent with the full body of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which cannot contradict each other. Anyone that thinks they’ve discovered a Scriptural contradiction either hasn’t read, or thoroughly understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches in these doctrines.
As already posted in this discussion, the Catholic Church teaches none of what you say here. God’s original plan was for us to live in communion with Him, without sin. Adam and Eve’s original sin made that impossible. From that point forward, the consequences of that sin made it necessary for Jesus to die for all of us…including Mary. Jesus is Mary’s savior, and the Catholic Church does not disagree with that. This is clearly stated in the Catechism references that I gave earlier in this post.
Again, there is no exception regarding the need for Mary to be redeemed by Jesus. But by being restored to the state that Eve was in when she committed the first sin, Mary is able to reverse the process, become the “New Eve,” and fulfill the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. The Catechism states one reason for this:
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail,
It’s good to be back. About your last post – yes, I’m aware that the Scripture Paul was referring to was the OT, as the NT was not yet in existence then. I didn’t mention this because I thought every Bible-literate person knows about it.
I’m not sure what is your position regarding Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16. Here is how I understand your point of view. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
- The word “Scripture” should not be taken literally to mean only the OT but should include both OT and NT.
- Paul was referring to the OT only when he used the word “Scripture.”
Now, you say that this does not mention directly faith. But what is the Bible all about? Is it not MAINLY about faith? The Bible talks about God, His revelation to man, how man should worship Him, His commandments to man, sin and its consequences, Christ’s sacrifice for man’s sin, salvation, eternal life, eternal damnation, and other things about religious beliefs and practices – in other words, matters of faith. Now, since Scripture is the Word of God and the Word of God is Truth, we can say, “All Scripture is useful for teaching THE TRUTH ON MATTERS OF FAITH.”
“By reading Scriptures of the OLD [and NEW] TESTAMENT(S) I might be taught, reproved, corrected, and instructed in justice, things I need to become perfect…” Yes, I believe so, because I trust St. Paul knows his theology and he was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he said that. Now, I would like to defend St. Paul because there are supposed to be holes in his statement. It is NOT true that the need for prayer, baptism, and “other things” are not found in the Bible. They are all there – and a whole lot more. God even reveals in His Word why he created us, what is our purpose in life, where we will end up, what we will be doing after this life. Yes, that book is not only wonderful, it is most fascinating! When you come to understand that book, you will also KNOW the origins of life. You will KNOW whether man evolved or not and when he first walked the earth. You will even KNOW whether there are other beings (aliens) in space. Yes, you will KNOW the answers to so many questions in life, questions that even the universal church could give only a lame, “We COULD HAVE descended from lower creatures….”
But – can we understand the Bible? The Bible says we can IF we have the Holy Spirit in us. We need God’s ministers to guide us in our study and to show us the scriptures that illuminate other scriptures – for God says in His Word: “No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). The Holy Spirit indeed guides God’s church to understand His Word. But what is the church? The word “church” is translated from the Greek, ekklesia, meaning, a calling out. The church therefore is the called out ones – those called by God, has responded to His call, and has received His Holy Spirit. No one can join God’s church. It is God who calls and makes one a part of His church. The Holy Spirit resides, not just in the ministers, but all those in God’s church. Without the Holy Spirit, one cannot belong to God. One cannot be a Christian. “Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9).
God bless.
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail,
On your reference to St. John’s Gospel, please notice that it says: “…many other things WHICH JESUS DID….” It does not say, “… things WE NEED TO DO,” or anything like that. It does make a difference.
On the subject of “Sacred Tradition”: Let’s ASSUME that the Catholic Church is the true church and that there were traditions handed down by the apostles and their successors by word of mouth alone. Now, since the same church also claims that the Bible is the Word of God, I will be faced with 2 sources of truth: 1) Tradition and 2) Bible. My dilemma would be: WHAT IF the doctrines contained in “Tradition” contradict the plain teachings in the Bible? Which would I follow? I would go for the Bible. Why? It is in writing; Jesus Christ Himself acknowledged the OT’s validity; and the early apostles wrote the NT. In short, it is SURE. With oral “Tradition,” we all know that unwritten information passed on to many generations is prone to corruption and therefore highly unreliable. And there’s one more thing, God says in His Word, “To this man will I look, to him that … TREMBLETH AT MY WORD” (Isa. 66:2). If I reject God’s commandments to follow the traditions of men, I don’t think I can say I tremble at His Words.
Incidentally, what I have pictured here has a parallel during the time of Christ. Christ acknowledged the Jews’ synagogue to be the house of worship and the scribes and Pharisees to be sitting in “Moses’ seat.” Yet He said this of them: “And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men… Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:7-9).
Lastly, are you implying that new truths will come out in addition to that written in the Bible? I’m afraid that’s not the stand of the RCC. What I know is that these “truths” from “Tradition” are parallel rather than in addition to, that in Scripture. If I’m not mistaken the RCC had already declared long ago that the Bible is complete and no new revelation are forthcoming. This was to counter the teachings of some groups then.
God bless.
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear Mailman - nice to see you back from wherever life took you.
I read your post and see we’re inagreement on a few things. I’m happy you consider yourself Bible “literate” whatever that may mean. It is nice to see folks revering God’s word.
I’m wondering how you KEEP the things of which the Bible speaks and in particular how do you do this: "54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6.
If God Himself says you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have life…but this is too Catholic for you? Or is there a different way you look at such things?
(But oh dear, we are getting off topic aren’t we?)
Peace,
Gail
I read your post and see we’re inagreement on a few things. I’m happy you consider yourself Bible “literate” whatever that may mean. It is nice to see folks revering God’s word.
I’m wondering how you KEEP the things of which the Bible speaks and in particular how do you do this: "54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6.
If God Himself says you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have life…but this is too Catholic for you? Or is there a different way you look at such things?
(But oh dear, we are getting off topic aren’t we?)
Peace,
Gail
G
GailMac
Guest
P.S. Dear Mailman do you think Mary knew she was sinless?
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail,
You are right. Mary did not say when she was saved. But then you come around and make a wild guess that she must have been saved during conception. Of all the possibilities it had to be during her conception. Why is that? Is it not because of the teaching on “original sin?” Mary had to be sinless so that this “original sin” would not be transmitted to Jesus. But is there any truth to the “original sin” doctrine? If this doctrine is erroneous, you would make another error trying to fit this error in.
Here is one reason why I believe the original sin doctrine is erroneous. We all know that no sinner can enter the Kingdom of God – that man must be completely free from sin (pure, sinless) before he can enter the kingdom. Now, here is what Jesus said:
“Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mat. 18:3).
So, then, if little children can enter the kingdom, then little children are without sin. So then the original sin doctrine must be erroreous. But let’s just say they have this original sin. The only way a sin can be forgiven is when a person repents of the sin and accepts Christ’s sacrifice. But how could a child repent?
God bless.
M
Mailman
Guest
Hi Gail, I’ll keep this short since we are indeed off topic. You’re right. We must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life, that’s what Jesus said. And we must do that. It’s not just the Catholics who keep the passover, you know. It’s just that you do it more often. Others do it once a year to commemorate the Lord’s death.
God bless.
G
GailMac
Guest
TWG asks:
“My problem is that if she could be 100% human and still without sin, then why can it not be the same way for all of us?” What a great question! It is meant to be for us as it is for her. Look at her as a model of what God means for all of us. Only she actually lived it! We proclaim her greatness for all of humanity to see!
That is one of the problems that results from discrediting Marian stuff. In so doing, the person skews his or her view of the ultimate goal of salvation. The saved are in Heaven; eventually our souls will be united with our bodies - the resurrection of the dead! That is God’s will for everyone yet not everyone gets there. Human will gets in the way. Mary’s human will was preserved from sin and so her “yes” could be in the fullest sense. If there had been sin in her thoughts she wouldn’t have been able to assent in the way she did. What she did was for all of humanity, the then living, those who had already fallen asleep and all those yet to be born. Nothing like it was ever before nor would it ever happen again. She, the first saved said yes to the First Born! He was with her for nine months in her womb. What wonders the Lord worked for her we cannot fully know in this life, yet we can glimpse it. “For He Who is mighty has done great things for me, and Holy is His Name!” Humility. Her flesh was imbued with the Divine nature in a most intimate way. So, back to the OP’s question, yes she knew, but kept all these things within her heart. Sweet heart of Mary, be my Salvation!
Peace,
Gail
“My problem is that if she could be 100% human and still without sin, then why can it not be the same way for all of us?” What a great question! It is meant to be for us as it is for her. Look at her as a model of what God means for all of us. Only she actually lived it! We proclaim her greatness for all of humanity to see!
That is one of the problems that results from discrediting Marian stuff. In so doing, the person skews his or her view of the ultimate goal of salvation. The saved are in Heaven; eventually our souls will be united with our bodies - the resurrection of the dead! That is God’s will for everyone yet not everyone gets there. Human will gets in the way. Mary’s human will was preserved from sin and so her “yes” could be in the fullest sense. If there had been sin in her thoughts she wouldn’t have been able to assent in the way she did. What she did was for all of humanity, the then living, those who had already fallen asleep and all those yet to be born. Nothing like it was ever before nor would it ever happen again. She, the first saved said yes to the First Born! He was with her for nine months in her womb. What wonders the Lord worked for her we cannot fully know in this life, yet we can glimpse it. “For He Who is mighty has done great things for me, and Holy is His Name!” Humility. Her flesh was imbued with the Divine nature in a most intimate way. So, back to the OP’s question, yes she knew, but kept all these things within her heart. Sweet heart of Mary, be my Salvation!
Peace,
Gail
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail,
I think I’ve made my position clear on this matter. Anyway here’s what I believe.
I believe Mary did not know she was sinless BUT – only at the time she was conceived and during her childhood days before she came of age. How could she know she was sinless, she was still a child? She had no sin as a child, not even an “original sin.” But when she came of age, she did sin for, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
God bless.
R
rocketrob
Guest
This is not a correct interpretation of the referenced scripture passage. The entire passage, along with the related passages of Mk 9:33-37 and Lk 9:46-48, is talking about the need for humility after an argument had arisen among the disciples about who would be greatest in heaven: “At the time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who is the greatest in heaven?’ And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, 'Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 18:1-4)
The doctrine of original sin, which is not a uniquely Catholic doctrine, is directly supported by scripture: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…” (Rom 5:12)
Now, once again, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary did not need the saving graces of Christ’s work on the cross. Rather, it specifically states that she did need Christ as her Savior: “…she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’” Mary’s “unique holiness…comes wholly from Christ.” (Catechism Article 492)
rocketrob
M
Mailman
Guest
Thanks for pointing that out. I should not have used that verse only. You are right. It was in the context of a dispute among the disciples on who was the greatest that Jesus made that statement (Matt. 18:3; Mark 9:37) and considering the context, we could not conclude from Jesus’ statement that little children have no sin. However, it was not in that context alone that I based my conclusion from. Notice that the second time Jesus brought the subject up (Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13), it was for an entirely different reason. The subject discussed then was about how the commandment on adultery should be understood – a subject about sin. From that context, when Jesus said of little children, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” He was referring more to our being free from any sin before we can enter the kingdom rather than to just being humble. When we consider the latter case, we would more likely conclude that on both occasions Jesus did not only mean being humble, but being entirely free from sin. Also, it should not just be these 2 texts that we must consider. We should understand these verses in light of what the Bible teaches, as a whole, about man, sin and salvation. In other words, we must take the whole Bible in its entire context, getting all of the Scriptures on these subjects before making our conclusion on whether man has “original sin” or not. I did not want to go into such lengthy discussion and opted to use that one text alone, but I must admit it is not the proper way to understand a Bible doctrine. By the way, thanks for supplying the text from the CCC that explains the official position of the Catholic Church with regards to Mary’s need for a Savior. I believe any discussion should start from a referenced official source material (whether Bible or the CCC) so only that official text could be commented upon.
God bless.
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear Mailman - Let me get this right so we can be clear in our discussions - you don’t believe in original sin and you also believe Mary had personal sin? Am I correct?
Peace,
Gail
Peace,
Gail
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail, Yes that’s right. I don’t believe in original sin and I believe Mary had personal sin - that sometime in her life she committed sin.
God bless.
G
GailMac
Guest
Dear Mailman - Well, I’m glad we cleared that up! Can I get your spin on what happened in Genesis then?
Peace,
Gail
Peace,
Gail
M
Mailman
Guest
Dear Gail,
Thanks for asking. But I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from making derogatory remarks or using belittling words. We both claim to be followers of Christ and I don’t think God will be pleased with our throwing slights at each other, especially so when we are discussing about His revelation. “Come now, and let us reason together…” (Isa. 1:18). That’s how God pleaded with His people and that’s how we should approach our differences. And the way He wants us to do that is, “with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15), or as the modern rendering has it, “with gentleness and respect” (GNB).
About your question on Genesis, here’s how I understand it. Genesis tells us of humanity’s first sin committed by our first parents. Since it does not say whether this “original” sin is passed on to the children or not, we have to go elsewhere in the Bible to find out. The texts that talk about the sin of Adam are in the NT:
Rom 5:12 - 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 5:14-15 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead….
Rom 5:19 - For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
In the above texts, there is nothing said about Adam’s sin being passed on to his children. Verse 12 says, “all HAVE sinned.” It does not say all have borne the sin of Adam but that all “have” sinned [gone the way of Adam] – that is, doing things that amount to sin. This text is supported by verse 14 because there it says there were others who had not sinned as bad as Adam. If the sin of Adam had been passed on to his children, then all would have carried at least the same gravity of the sin of Adam. But it says others “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”
Verse 19 may seem like Adam’s sin was passed on to his children because it says many “WERE MADE” sinners by one man’s disobedience, but if we read further on and consider the last phrase (and also consider the context on which this statement was made), we could not make that conclusion. The second phrase makes a comparison of the first: “SO by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Now, if we inherited Adam’s sin and so become sinners without doing any evil deed (the “original sin” doctrine), could we say we also inherited Jesus’ obedience and so we become righteous without doing anything good? Of course, not. We have to be the one to DO something to become righteous. In the same way, we have to be the one to DO something to become sinners.
The “original sin” teaching actually makes God appear unfair because it implies that we pay for the sin of our parents. It’s like saying that our parents ate of the forbidden fruit but we got its bad effect, or as the ancient Israelites put it: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge (become dull).” But God rebuked the Israelites for this saying because it is not true. The prophet Ezekiel says:
“And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What is the meaning? That you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land of Israel, saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel” (Eze. 18:1-3).
And why did God forbid Israel to use the proverb? He says: “… the soul that sinneth, the same shall die” (v. 4). Only the one who commits the sin shall be guilty of that sin and pay its penalty. God elaborates this principle on the next 15 verses and gives the reason why: “And you say: Why hath not the son borne the iniquity of his father? Verily, because the son hath wrought judgment and justice, hath kept all my commandments, and done them, living, he shall live” (v. 19). When a son is righteous, he will not have the same fate as his wicked father – a fate resulting from sin.
In closing, God summed up His way of justice this way:
“The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (v. 20).
Code:
(To be continued-- on my second post)God bless.
- Status