Discussing Mary

[Miserissima]

You can’t “click” it yourself. Just present your arguments, and the Holy Spirit will do the “click”-ing.

Don’t forget, there are others that read this thread that do not post. Some of these will have the exact same questions as JA4. Address your posts to them, if you tire of addressing them to JA4.

Thanks you for the encouragement! I didn’t mean to sound as if I was trying to do the “click”-ing it myself.

MariaG;2682563]No Christian Church ever made an argument for SS for centuries, over 1500 years to be exact yet you think it is scriptural.

What does SS have to do with Mary?

You wanted verses and definitions about Mary and we gave them to you, which you have rejected. We also showed you what is implicit in scripture. It seems that you’re not accepting that Oral Tradition, as explicitly *endorsed *in the Bible, is acceptable. You want chapter and verse. We give them to you, and you sweep them aside. We explain our point to you through using sola scriptura, and you don’t accept it.

From CA Library Immaculate Conception and Assumption Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Now show me in this definition that she was without sin all her life?

Exactly where it says, "it [grace] extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."

From L’Osservatore Romano, 22 May 1996, John Paul II elucidates on the exact definition you quote:

“Grace, understood in the sense of “sanctifying grace” which produces personal holiness, brought about the new creation in Mary, making her fully conformed to God’s plan,” and, “Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence.” (Source.)

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2682957]Just curious. If it’s Scriptural, what does it matter when it began?

If it was scriptural we would see it in scripture. When its not, then we need to look eleswhwere in history.

But, to answer your question, I think it began shortly after it was clarified within the Church Hierarchy the True Nature(s) of Jesus. The whole hypostatic union and what-not. The Church could not clarify the status of Mary until She resolved Her understanding of Jesus.

This would place this 4-5th century. Would this be correct?

So, saints in heaven are not alive in Christ? Is that what you’re saying? Where does Scripture tell us that?

Would you not agree that just because someone may be alive somewhere that does not mean they can hear us?

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;2683085]As I said, my Church has in fact interpreted those scriptures.

Would you happen to know where i can this?

As for how I would know if my Church had not interpreted any other particular scripture verse, I humbly ask the Holy spirit to lead me to all truth. If that truth did not contradict the teachings of the Church which scripture tells me are the pillar and foundation of truth, I could be confident in my interpretation.

What would you say to another catholic (not a protestant)who comes to a different interpretation than you do and claims the Holy Spirit led them to this conclusion?

And you? How do you know your interpretation is correct?

I think there are a number of ways to determine this but keeping the context as the guiding principle, understanding what the words mean in the context and comparing passages and verses with other passages and verses if possible. Also consulting commentaries can also be a great help.

 

[justasking4]

Miserissima;2683245]Thanks you for the encouragement! I didn’t mean to sound as if I was trying to do the “click”-ing it myself.

You wanted verses and definitions about Mary and we gave them to you, which you have rejected. We also showed you what is implicit in scripture. It seems that you’re not accepting that Oral Tradition, as explicitly *endorsed *in the Bible, is acceptable. You want chapter and verse. We give them to you, and you sweep them aside. We explain our point to you through using sola scriptura, and you don’t accept it.

There are so many problems with implicit arguments. For one you have to do violence to the context and make the verses and passages say things it was never meant to do.
Let me ask you: don’t you find it a bit troubling that your church must base all these particular beliefs about Mary on “implicit” meanings?

Exactly where it says, "it [grace] extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."

From L’Osservatore Romano, 22 May 1996, John Paul II elucidates on the exact definition you quote:

“Grace, understood in the sense of “sanctifying grace” which produces personal holiness, brought about the new creation in Mary, making her fully conformed to God’s plan,” and, “Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence.”

How does the pope know this about Mary being "full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence."if its not even taught in scripture?
Think about what he is saying here. For centuries the catholic church was totallly unaware of this.

(Source.)

 

[NotWorthy]

If it was scriptural we would see it in scripture. When its not, then we need to look eleswhwere in history.

Uh… It’s sort of kind of hard to see things with blinders on.

This would place this 4-5th century. Would this be correct?

I would think so. But you couldn’t exactly call Mary, Mother of God, until you could resolve that Jesus was True God, True Man. The Church always understood that Mary was Jesus’ mother. They just weren’t sure how to clarify their image of Jesus.

Would you not agree that just because someone may be alive somewhere that does not mean they can hear us?

Normally, I would assume so. Common sense would back that up.

But the “cloud of witnesses” would blow that theory right out of the water.

BTW, I tried to PM you but you don’t accept PM’s. Any chance on changing that?

 

[MariaG]

Would you happen to know where i can this?

The interpretation of these would be known as the teaching of the Immaculate conception.

You will find it here in the Catechism numbers 490 - 493. I only highlighted the footnotes that are for scripture as I know that is all that I found important when in your shoes.

The Immaculate Conception
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137 493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

132 LG 56.
133 Lk 1:28.
134 Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
136 LG 53, 56.
137 Cf. Eph 1:3-4.
138 LG 56.

What would you say to another catholic (not a protestant)who comes to a different interpretation than you do and claims the Holy Spirit led them to this conclusion?

I would ask them why. If I found after sufficient study that their interpretation is possible and not in contradiction of the teaching of the Catholic Church, I would probably ask my priest or Ask the Apologist here in these forums

But as of yet, 7 years now, this has yet to occur and not from lack of discussions. Conversely, this was a frequent occurance while in the Protestant Churches. Different pastors, all good Spirit filled men who had completely opposite interpretations of scripture.

I think there are a number of ways to determine this but keeping the context as the guiding principle, understanding what the words mean in the context and comparing passages and verses with other passages and verses if possible. Also consulting commentaries can also be a great help.

Commentaries are only as useful as the person commentating. Frequently those commentaries completly contradict the earliest Christian writings or fail to mention things like the Real Presence of Christ which was a frequent topic in the first 3 centuries yet never mentioned in some commentaries about John 6.

Fortunately, I realized that the truth was not dependent on how good my study skills are or my dicernment skills were but that Christ left me not only the Holy Spirit for personal guidance, but left me a Church also

God Bless,
Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

Does anyone know what the best part of this thread is?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Does anyone know what the best part of this thread is?

Um…that the prots are wrong, they know they’re wrong, and they won’t admit it, but instead talk circles around themselves?

 

[MariaG]

Does anyone know what the best part of this thread is?

That Justaskin4 is actually quoting the Catechism of the Catholic church and asking for where things are found in Catholic teachings?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Or that. That works too.

 

[NotWorthy]

Does anyone know what the best part of this thread is?

No Silly People! That I get to read Zemi’s Signature every time I enter this thread. I love that Signature!

“I never said it would be easy.
I just said it would be worth it”

I’m sorry, I just thought we all needed a break. Remember, Justasking4 is a Christian like us!!!

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2682370]How in the world is the anti-sola Scriptura argument being used to refute the scriptures?

What i’m finding with some that they will try to refute me by claiming that sola scriptura is false and thereby i am wrong and they are right.

Is that what you think we are doing, refuting the Scriptures?!?!?

There is much in catholic doctrines that take the scriptures out of context and try to make it say and teach things it does not.

 

[justasking4]

How about, “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”?

This wont’ work. For one no apostle ever said many of the things that the catholic church says about Mary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4:

There is much in catholic doctrines that take the scriptures out of context and try to make it say and teach things it does not.

Same can be said to Protestants. They take** out of context so much that not all of them are in agreement** in doctrinal issues.

I hardly find anything in Catholic doctrine that take Scripture out of Context, my friend.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2693257]Same can be said to Protestants. They take** out of context so much that not all of them are in agreement** in doctrinal issues.

i agree.

I hardly find anything in Catholic doctrine that take Scripture out of Context, my friend.

Are you sure you want to go with this? If so, it seems you are saying there are some things the catholic church has taken out of context. Would i be correct in understanding you in this way?

 

[NotWorthy]

What i’m finding with some that they will try to refute me by claiming that sola scriptura is false and thereby i am wrong and they are right.

If the teaching that the Scriptures are the only Truth, and the only Truth is taught in Scriptures, then it is a false doctrine.

For Scriptures teach that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

There is much in catholic doctrines that take the scriptures out of context and try to make it say and teach things it does not.

There is much in Catholic interpretation of Scriptures that you disagree with, and hence you conclude that the Church is wrong.

Such is life!

 

[NotWorthy]

This wont’ work. For one no apostle ever said many of the things that the catholic church says about Mary.

Who said the Apostles were the only ones with this authority? Where in Scripture does it say this?

 

[Axion]

This wont’ work. For one no apostle ever said many of the things that the catholic church says about Mary.

You mean you know everything that every single Apostle ever taught!

 

[justasking4]

Who said the Apostles were the only ones with this authority? Where in Scripture does it say this?

Who else besides them did Christ use to write inspired-inerrant scripture?

Do you consider the pope to have greater authority than the apostles?

 

[justasking4]

You mean you know everything that every single Apostle ever taught!

Yes. You can find it in the NT.