Did Mary need a savior?

[Liraco]

She does not belong to any particular group of people that would be excluded from the “all” who have sinned.

What about being the mother of Jesus? One would think that the mother of the Messiah, the mother of God as a man, would be the one person who would be deserving of a special grace of God to be kept spotless. Not by anything she did or would do, mind you, but because it’s fitting for God to have been conceived in a spotless womb. She’s the new Ark of the covenant after all. So just like the old one needed the best of materials to be worthy of Him, so too does the new one need to be pure to be worthy.

Can you at least take that as a possibility?

You ask for “who”:
*An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).*

I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren’t defending these ideas because you want to defend Mary’s honor.

Well I DO want to defend Mary’s honor as your implications of her lack of virginity are not honoring her memory, and do remember that this is not just any woman but the one “full of grace” and “blessed among women”, mother of Jesus Christ. As Jesus told John, “behold your mother” we are all brothers in Christ, so she is our mother too. No one likes others talking bad about their mother, which is what you’re doing by saying she broke her vows of virginity. This isn’t some silly nonsense of “Church Authoritah” or blind obedience.

So why is it important that she stayed a virgin? Because she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity. The reason she was with Joseph was because it was necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Which is why she said Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34 (KJV).

Understand the situation: The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now do you see what the big deal is? Now do you see why it shouldn’t be taken so lightly as to say “so what if she wasn’t a virgin”?

 

[codebilly]

You sure that’s Mary? I’d be totally fine with it if that was the case, but you have to convince me. There’s a ton of things in this apocalyptic vision that don’t seem to readily correspond to anything that happened in Mary’s life.

You can’t be convinced until you first understand the identity of Mary, who the angel when greeting her says “Ave” i.e “Hail”, which means ALL BOW DOWN.

Until you join the communion of heaven, including angels, who respect and revere Mary, and bow down to her, then you will not be given any kind of knowledge about her.

Devotion to Mary is so sublime that it is reserved only for the humble.

In one of your previous posts you are so bold as to claim that Mary sinned. This is a very proud position to have. Such a position is purely speculative and arrogant.

So try to first be humble about your position with God versus Mary’s.

There is a reason that only Mary, St. John, and the other Marys were present at the foot of the cross. Only their love was great enough to be there.

None of us can even touch the sandal of St. Peter, who denied Him, let alone consider ourself to be above Mary!

 

[RosaryFan]

I guess most of you are working from the assumption that she never sinned. Let’s see what comes up.

My understanding is that God (who is not bound by time) took Jesus’ passion, death and ressurection and applied it to Our Blessed Mother at the moment of her conception, thereby saving her from original sin. So Jesus was her savior, but she received His saving graces before the fact. God can take things from one time period and apply them to another time period. Just as Jesus applied His sacrifice at the Last Supper, turning the bread and wine into His body and blood, which had not yet actually been sacrified. He reached into the future and made His sacrifice present to the apostles.

God also makes the sacrifice present for us at Mass every day. We are not simply remembering Jesus’ sacrifice - it is actually and literally brought into present day for us. Awesome to think about!!!

 

[mardukm]

You sure that’s Mary? I’d be totally fine with it if that was the case, but you have to convince me. There’s a ton of things in this apocalyptic vision that don’t seem to readily correspond to anything that happened in Mary’s life.

Don’t you know that after Mary gave birth to Jesus, she had to flee to the desert (Egypt) in order to avoid the Slaughter of the Innocents. You don’t think that the Slaughter of the Innocents counts as the dragon chasing after the woman? You really can’t see the parallel between this account in Revelation and the life of Mary and the baby Jesus?

Blessings

 

[mmmcounts]

What about being the mother of Jesus?

That’s cool, but it doesn’t cause sinlessness to be of a necessity for her. You should note that it isn’t presented that way in the corresponding papal bulls, either. That is to say, they are not presented in such a way that Mary is declared to be thus and such out of necessity- Mary is declared to be thus and such because (according to the Pope) it happens to be the truth.
Quick summary: I am in unison with every Pope ever in saying it wasn’t a necessity for Mary to be an ever-virgin, sinless, etc. The place where we disagree is the on how much truth there is to the stories.

Now do you see what the big deal is? Now do you see why it shouldn’t be taken so lightly as to say “so what if she wasn’t a virgin”?

It really isn’t a big deal, as far as any Bible character goes, anyway. There is nothing that necessitates any of this. You just happen to believe the stories are true. Nothing else falls apart if the stories aren’t entirely true. Aside from papal infallibility, but I thought that was silly to start with. Let’s put it this way: If the stories aren’t entirely true, the only things that change (concerning Mary) are the fact that she had sex, had other kids, and sinned. Nothing else changes. As far as Mary goes, it’s limited strictly to that. Does that make a little more sense?

One would think that the mother of the Messiah, the mother of God as a man, would be the one person who would be deserving of a special grace of God to be kept spotless. Not by anything she did or would do, mind you, but because it’s fitting for God to have been conceived in a spotless womb.

The story logic makes sense, but that’s not enough to demonstrate the historical truth of a story/legend. Take Betsy Ross, for example. She didn’t actually design the first American flag, but almost everyone thinks she did. The whole story has internal validity, but in reality the story is untrue. Internal validity is not enough to prove historical veracity. Just out of curiosity, do you know who actually did design the first American flag? It’s a hard fact to come up with because the myth is so widely believed. See if you can do it.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

It’s apocryphal according to everyone, James didn’t write it, the true date of it is a generation or two later than that, and I have zero confidence in any story found in that book. I won’t take any of it at face value unless confirmed by a much more reliable source.

Well I DO want to defend Mary’s honor as your implications of her lack of virginity are not honoring her memory

How is that “not honoring her memory?” I plan on getting married one day and losing my virginity, just like Mary did. I won’t be at all dishonored if that’s part of how people remember me.

No one likes others talking bad about their mother, which is what you’re doing by saying she broke her vows of virginity.

My mom’s a sinner. She needed a savior for that reason. And I know she had sex at least three times, because I have two siblings. I know she had sex a lot more times than that, though, and I’m sure she enjoyed it very much. The same kinds of things are true of your mother. I’m not talking bad about our mothers; I’m just saying things that are true.
But wait a minute…what’s this about Mary’s vows of virginity? Are you one of those “temple virgins” people? If so, there’s a thread I need to link you to.

This isn’t some silly nonsense of “Church Authoritah” or blind obedience.

In that case, you should have no problem with examining the sources of “infallible” doctrine in order to see if the premises are appropriate to the conclusions. Of course, you do run the risk of coming to the conclusion that certain doctrines were based on insufficient or nonexistent evidence. Is that a risk you’re willing to take? Better question: Is that a risk you’re permitted to take?

Are you really allowed to explore why you believe what you believe, or are you just supposed to know what you believe and be able to repeat those things on cue?

Just curious: Did the Southpark reference land at all? Did anyone get that?

So why is it important that she stayed a virgin? Because she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

Hmmm, probably not.

Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I’ll keep in mind how temple virgins were a thing that happened in Rome but not in Jerusalem. The former was interposed on the latter because it worked pretty well with the story. There was some of this kind of practice among the Essenes, but they were an explicitly non-Temple group. If you compare the Pharisees and Sadducees were the Catholic and Orthodox, the Essenes would have been a bit like the Emergent Church movement. A very pious and devout branch of the Emergent Church movement, but in many ways the separation between the groups was quite similar to that.

Most Catholics who know what they’re talking about go with the theory that says Mary took a personal vow of celibacy. The Temple Virgin theory is not a viable option. You should double-check with some Jews. They’ll tell you the same thing.

 

[mmmcounts]

You can’t be convinced until you first understand the identity of Mary, who the angel when greeting her says “Ave” i.e “Hail”, which means ALL BOW DOWN.

In Luke 1:28, the Greek word is Χαῖρε (2nd person, present tense, active voice). The full list of lexical translation options includes:

1. to rejoice, be glad 2) to rejoice exceedingly 3) to be well, thrive 4) in salutations, hail! 5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute.

Last I checked, Bible translators tended to equate the word προσκυνεω with either “worship” or “bow down” (often both- you frequently see this single Greek word translated as “worship and bow down” or “bow down in worship”).

Until you join the communion of heaven, including angels, who respect and revere Mary, and bow down to her, then you will not be given any kind of knowledge about her.

Says who? I know the angels fly around the Throne singing “Holy Holy is the Lord Almighty, the Earth is filled with His glory.” They cover their faces and worship Him. I’m not aware of any valid accounts pertaining to angels who worship Mary. I’m afraid I’m going to have to take exception to such assertions unless you can back it up.

In one of your previous posts you are so bold as to claim that Mary sinned. This is a very proud position to have. Such a position is purely speculative and arrogant.

It’s not proud at all, and it’s a position that’s quite normative. Exceedingly unusual circumstances and uncommonly reliable evidence of them are justifiably required in order to unseat such a position. I’m not being unreasonable here.

None of us can even touch the sandal of St. Peter, who denied Him, let alone consider ourself to be above Mary!

I’m not above Mary. I never said I was sinless. Don’t you think that’s kind of a straw man?

And what’s the deal with the Peter comment? Why wouldn’t I be able to touch his sandal? Not that I’d really want to; it’s probably really old and smelly and has crud all over it. Aside from that, though, what would stop me?

 

[mardukm]

Most Catholics who know what they’re talking about go with the theory that says Mary took a personal vow of celibacy. The Temple Virgin theory is not a viable option. You should double-check with some Jews. They’ll tell you the same thing.

I think you spend most of your time debating with Latin Catholics. Eastern and Oriental Catholics, as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Traditionally believe that Mary was a “Temple Virgin.” She was dedicated by her parents, Sts. Joachim and Anne, to God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[codebilly]

Last I checked, Bible translators tended to equate the word προσκυνεω with either “worship” or “bow down” (often both- you frequently see this single Greek word translated as “worship and bow down” or “bow down in worship”).

The angel was in awe of Mary which is why he greets here saying she is full of Grace. For centuries and from the very beginning of Christian thought Ave or Hail has been interpreted as a salutation of awe and reverence.

Therefore the translation together is “Worship Mary Full of Grace”. A salutation has never been construed to mean a “command”, hence the angel is offering reverence in his salutation.

Says who? I know the angels fly around the Throne singing “Holy Holy is the Lord Almighty, the Earth is filled with His glory.” They cover their faces and worship Him. I’m not aware of any valid accounts pertaining to angels who worship Mary. I’m afraid I’m going to have to take exception to such assertions unless you can back it up.

The bible says so. As I mentioned, a salutation is not a command and no one has ever suggested otherwise. “Hail Caesar” meant not only a greeting and salutation but also a proclamation of bowing down to him while greeting him.

So it is a known fact that the bible has the angel proclaiming a greeting and salutation of servitude and reverence to Mary.

And what’s the deal with the Peter comment? Why wouldn’t I be able to touch his sandal? Not that I’d really want to; it’s probably really old and smelly and has crud all over it. Aside from that, though, what would stop me?

Humility vs. pride. Try to understand that mental speculation on the meaning of scriptures can result in prideful interpretation and a “I must be correct” spirit. This is reason why the Church takes from theologians and saints, instead of every religious and lay person who comments on the scripture. I think you would agree that the Holy Scripture and Life of Jesus speaks at many many levels. I think you would also agree that the Holy Spirit illumines the seeker according to their capacity and their progress on the path. Even if one is " saved" as meant in the protestant sense, it does not mean that the saved person has full knowledge of scriptures or God. Also all are not called to be preachers.

Therefore we have to be humble.

And True Humility is learned by Our Lord’s Life as realized in the treasure of our saints.

St. Teresa the Little Flower says:

*Ah! they little know the true Flower of the field. Did they know Him they would understand better Our Lord’s reproach to Martha. Our Beloved needs neither our brilliant deeds nor our beautiful thoughts. Were He in search of lofty ideas, has He not His Angels, whose knowledge infinitely surpasses that of the greatest genius of earth?

Neither intellect nor other talents has He come to seek among us … He has become the Flower of the field to show how much He loves simplicity.The Lily of the valley asks but a single dewdrop, which for one night shall rest in its cup, hidden from all human eyes. But when the shadows shall begin to fade, when the Flower of the field shall have become the Sun of Justice, then the dewdrop – the humble sharer of His exile –will rise up to Him as love’s vapour. He will shed on her a ray of His light, and before the whole court of Heaven she will shine eternally like a precious pearl, a dazzling mirror of the Divine Sun*

 

[Liraco]

Well at least here’s one thing I can clear even if you say it isn’t the case. You seem to think having sex is sinning. Your mother had at least 3 children, that does not automatically make her or your father a sinner for those actions.

Anyway, at least in my mind we’ve all shown that Mary DID need a savior which satisfies the original purpose of the thread.

That’s cool, but it doesn’t cause sinlessness to be of a necessity for her. Mary is declared [not] to be thus and such out of necessity.
Quick summary: I am in unison with every Pope ever in saying it wasn’t a necessity for Mary to be an ever-virgin, sinless, etc.

You’re right that it’s not necessary just like it wasn’t necessary for Jesus to die for us or for God to even create us. We merely believe that it’s so because it’s proper for her to be full of grace just as the angel says to her.

And what’s the deal with the Peter comment? Why wouldn’t I be able to touch his sandal? Not that I’d really want to; it’s probably really old and smelly and has crud all over it. Aside from that, though, what would stop me?

If this doesn’t show a lack of respect, I don’t know what does. As was just pointed out, the subject of Peter and Mary is one of humility. What did you understand it to be?

Since you seem so learned in history I would recommend you keep looking into it to learn the truth, which you indicate you’re open to. It’s obvious nothing I say will change your mind as you had your mind set and “hardened” since the beginning. I hope at least someone learned the real stance on Virgin needing a savior.

God bless you, counts, I’ll be praying for you.

 

[Zooey]

Rev. 12:5: And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all nations with an iron scepter.

You sure that’s Mary? I’d be totally fine with it if that was the case, but you have to convince me. There’s a ton of things in this apocalyptic vision that don’t seem to readily correspond to anything that happened in Mary’s life.

So…You know of a half a hundred or so other women whose son will rule all nations???
Take all the time you need to come up with, say, :compcoff:five or six names to share with us…:coffeeread::juggle:

 

[Liraco]

One last thing (cuz I can’t add to my previous post anymore).

Why did Jesus entrust Mary to the disciple instead of to one of her many children which you seem almost sure she had? If she had more family to rely on, THEY would take care of her, not the disciple.

 

[steve_b]

You sure that’s Mary? I’d be totally fine with it if that was the case, but you have to convince me. There’s a ton of things in this apocalyptic vision that don’t seem to readily correspond to anything that happened in Mary’s life.

(emphasis mine)

Rev 12:1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. (she is not only important but has honor and authority)
Rev 12:2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. (pregnant with whom?)
Rev 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.
Rev 12:4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. (Jesus said He SAW Satan fall from heaven) The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.(Herod slaughtered every child 2 and younger in order to try and kill Jesus)
Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. (any doubts who her child is? Who sits at the right hand of the Father?)
Rev 12:6 The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. (back to Mary’s flight to Egypt after she was warned by the angel)
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. (back to the time Satan was going to be thrown out of heaven)
Rev 12:8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.( yep)
Rev 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (the one who would cause the fall of humanity and the need for a savior)
Rev 12:10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. (Satan is gone from heaven, but Jesus needs to be born now and do His work on earth))
Rev 12:11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.(those who followed Jesus even to their own death overvame Satan by the sacrifice of Jesus)
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Gen 3:15 our salvation proclaimed, the protoevangelium, Mary and the Messiah fortold)
Rev 12:13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. (what male child is so important to Satan? And what woman gave birth to Him? )
Rev 12:14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach.(back to the flight to Egypt)
Rev 12:15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent.
Rev 12:16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. (Mary and Joseph and Jesus stayed away from their homland until it was perfectly safe to return. Herod’s death)
Rev 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.(her offspring are considered all those who keep the commandments of God and give testemony to her son Jesus. Gee, who is this woman?)

 

[mmmcounts]

Therefore the translation together is “Worship Mary Full of Grace”. A salutation has never been construed to mean a “command”, hence the angel is offering reverence in his salutation.

I don’t think you fully understand. I gave you the five acceptable options for translation of this word from the Greek lexicon. “Worship” is not one of them. Can you just accept that and move on?

 

[fellowChristian]

This helped me…

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

 

[Liraco]

mmmcounts, how about answering to what is being said instead of deflecting focus to something almost meaningless to the discussion?

It’s not much of a “discussion” if you’re going to ignore what people are answering to your claims. Read for example what Steve B responded.

 

[codebilly]

I don’t think you fully understand. I gave you the five acceptable options for translation of this word from the Greek lexicon. “Worship” is not one of them. Can you just accept that and move on?

Well “Hail”, meaning all bow down is.

 

[codebilly]

I don’t think you fully understand. I gave you the five acceptable options for translation of this word from the Greek lexicon. “Worship” is not one of them. Can you just accept that and move on?

Also, I think you need to understand your ancient Greek a lot better before you go forth and snapshot something out of a Lexicon and make an assumption on the meaning of a word.

Chaire, Kecharitomene … ok

You may find it interesting to verify that in the Septuagint (Greek literation of the OT) uses the formula ‘Chaire’ wherein it’s use always appears in a context where Zion is invited to the messianic joy in the perspective of the future (Joel 2:21-23; Zp 3:14; Zc 9:9; cf. Lm. 4:21).

But more importantly, the Angel uses the words Chaire, Kecharitomene which is utterly amazing.

You will find that the word Kecharitomene is related to charito whose etymological tree includes:

Caress (Eng) - To Embrace
Cherish (eng) - Take care of, hold dear
Charity (eng) - Love
Cara (Irish) a friend
Caraim (Irish) to Love
Caru (Welsh) to Love
Caresse (fr) Cherishing, Hug,
Carezza (it) a caress, endearment,
caritia (Latin) Dearness
Carus (Latin) Dear, Worthy , Beloved

And in sanskrit
cAru (Sanskrit) Beloved, lovely

The Cologne Digital sanskrit Lexicon has
cAru - agreeable , approved , esteemed , beloved , endeared, and related to the Latin Carus

These are all related to the root QAR / CHR …

If you understood how this word was used in ancient times, you would have more humility and reverence, just as God’s angel did.

I maintain, my definition “all bow down” as the correct interpretation of Chaire, Kecharitomene because if you REALLY study the etymology, the salutation even contains treasure.

 

[Unwanted]

Originally Posted by mmmcounts
I guess most of you are working from the assumption that she never sinned.

I am sorry, but does Sacred Tradition ignore Scripture?

Rom. iii. 10, 23; v. 12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Psa. li. 5.

And this Sacred Tradition fails to meet the criteriea for True Dogma and Tradition. The semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus

1. Not a unamious idea by the early church fathers

renæus (d. 202), who first suggested the fruitful parallel of Eve as the mother of disobedience, and Mary as the mother of obedience (not justified by the true Scripture parallel between Adam and Christ), and thus prepared the way for a false Mariology, does yet not hesitate to charge Mary with ‘unseasonable haste’ or ‘urgency,’ which the Lord had to rebuke at the wedding of Cana

• see Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7:

Dominus, repellens intempestivam festinationem, dixit: ‘Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier!’

We can add to the list:

Chrysostom, at the close of the fourth century - Chrys. Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VIII. p. 122

Tertullian - De carne Christi, c. 7

As just two more sources.

Pelagius, a condemed heretic, is the first to espose the idea of the complete sinlesness of Mary.

Bernard of Clairvaux

urged against it that it was not sanctioned by the Roman Church. He rejected the opinion of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as contrary to tradition and derogatory to the dignity of Christ, the only sinless being, and asked the Canons of Lyons the pertinent question, 'Whence they discovered such a hidden fact? On the same ground they might appoint festivals for the conception of the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of Mary, and so on without end.

• Ep. 174, p. 334 sq

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ.

The above quote is actually the idea put forth by Perrone, when pressed as to the rational for his dogma.

intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu, Salvatoris humani generis.’

Fianlly, the method about which this ‘doctrine’ was declared argues against it.

Now it must have been revealed to the mind of Pius IX., or not. If not, he had no right, in the absence of Scripture proof, and the express dissent of the Fathers and the greatest schoolmen, to declare the Immaculate Conception a divinely revealed fact and doctrine. If it was revealed to him, he had no need of first consulting all the Bishops of the Roman Church, and waiting several years for their opinion on the subject. Or if this consultation was the necessary medium of such revelation, then he is not in himself infallible, and has no authority to define and proclaim any dogma of faith without the advice and consent of the universal Episcopate.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Mike-

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Randy Carson;5300361:

Mike-

Wow…thanks for this Randy. This is an issue I have been struggling with greatly, particularly when that particularly verse is thrown back at me.

Much food for thought. God bless.

 

[Unwanted]

Both of those exceptions are stated in the Bible - where is the exception of Mary mentioned?

And as to the rest of my post, any one else have comments?