Do you consider this a "proof" text against Mary's sinlessness

[flyersfan1088]

What I find most disconcerting is your initial claim that “no one of the ECFs rejected the IC; then, when queried, you change that to “not all one voice.” IMHO, that’s a deliberate deception.

Here’s a quote from one of your fellows on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203886&page=14 , post #205:

To which I responded that others, in addition to those three, rejected the IC as well.

It seems we understand language differently; to me, no one means no one.

Up to this point, you have taken correction well, Marco.
​

I guess I’ll have to repeat what i said in the other thread since you apparently didn’t see it. Re-read those three ECF quotes. NONE of them address the IC at all. Don’t believe me? Read them again. two of them speak of her at the crucifixion, and the other speaks of her approaching her grown son at Capernaum. These three events happened at least 45 years after the IC.
Please understand what you’re quoting before you try to use them to support your case. It makes you look very foolish.
Also, that’s the second reference you’ve made to “other” ECF. Who are they? Quotes please.​

 

[Metaron]

I guess I’ll have to repeat what i said in the other thread since you apparently didn’t see it. Re-read those three ECF quotes. NONE of them address the IC at all. Don’t believe me? Read them again. two of them speak of her at the crucifixion, and the other speaks of her approaching her grown son at Capernaum. These three events happened at least 45 years after the IC.
Please understand what you’re quoting before you try to use them to support your case. It makes you look very foolish.
Also, that’s the second reference you’ve made to “other” ECF. Who are they? Quotes please.

You can’t snow the snowman, Sandusky. Besides, why are you trying to convert us? By your view, we were already predestined to be Catholic anyway.

 

[SIA]

This is for Protestants and any Catholics who would like to chime in on the peculiarities of his comments. This morning I was listening to John MacArthur (God bless him ) again and he said the following, starting with a quote from Luke chapter 1, he said: "…verse 47, ‘and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.’ Mary is the savior of nobody. Mary needs a savior. And she says ‘God is my Savior. He is the One Who delivers me from sin.’ Mary while being the best of sinners, if there is such a thing, the noblest of young maidens, the most beautiful of virgins, Mary must have been the finest of young girls in every way, but Mary needed a Savior…she was a sinner."Full audio file here (this part is between 14:00-15:00).

So what do you think? Is this a “proof” text that Mary was a sinner as Mr. MacArthur has asserted?

I do believe that yes.

 

[PaulDupre]

What troubles me is the Protestant compulsion to discredit and dishonor the Mother of God. In Luke 1:48, under the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary proclaimed “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” I assume she meant all generations of faithful Christians.

Protestants, JWs, Mormons and the rest never call her blessed. All they do is demean her, dishonor her, discredit her and brand her a sinner.

Shame on you all! When you stand before Jesus and he asks you why you spent your life dissing His mother, what will you say?

May Jesus have mercy on you. You’re going to need it.

Paul

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Being a sinner and sinning are not the same thing.

All are born into a fallen state. But not all have actually engaged in a sinful act.

So the issue at hand is really, “Was Mary born without the stain of original sin?”

The verse we should be discussing is Gal 3:22

“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

Yes indeed - & perhaps parts of Job as well.​

 

[SIA]

What troubles me is the Protestant compulsion to discredit and dishonor the Mother of God. In Luke 1:48, under the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary proclaimed “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” I assume she meant all generations of faithful Christians.

Protestants, JWs, Mormons and the rest never call her blessed. All they do is demean her, dishonor her, discredit her and brand her a sinner.

Shame on you all! When you stand before Jesus and he asks you why you spent your life dissing His mother, what will you say?

May Jesus have mercy on you. You’re going to need it.

Paul

That was totally uncharitable and inappropriate. I have never heard any Protestant demean Mary. They simply do not adore her in the high regard that Catholics do, but they still acknowledge her. She is the foremost of all the saints, but she is not diety.

 

[sandusky]

Metaron:

ho, ho, this is funny. How does this say she wasn’t sinless? What is the arguement? Of course she needed a savior. All Catholics know that! She was saved-- before us and in a more perfect way that we were.

Other than your tradition, what support would you offer for that position?

 

[sandusky]

flyersfan1088:

I guess I’ll have to repeat what i said in the other thread since you apparently didn’t see it. Re-read those three ECF quotes. NONE of them address the IC at all.

Don’t believe me? Read them again. two of them speak of her at the crucifixion, and the other speaks of her approaching her grown son at Capernaum. These three events happened at least 45 years after the IC.

Please understand what you’re quoting before you try to use them to support your case. It makes you look very foolish.

I’m not sure of your point. Are you saying Mary was IC’d, but sinned later on; is that your point?

flyersfan1088:

Also, that’s the second reference you’ve made to “other” ECF. Who are they? Quotes please.

On the thread I’ve referenced, I asked you to explain to me how 1 Cor 15:22 presents Mary as the “second Eve.” You’ve ignored that question; give me an answer to that, and I’ll cite others who said Mary was not sinless.

 

[sandusky]

PaulDupre:

What troubles me is the Protestant compulsion to discredit and dishonor the Mother of God. In Luke 1:48, under the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary proclaimed “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” I assume she meant all generations of faithful Christians.

Protestants, JWs, Mormons and the rest never call her blessed. All they do is demean her, dishonor her, discredit her and brand her a sinner.

Shame on you all! When you stand before Jesus and he asks you why you spent your life dissing His mother, what will you say?

May Jesus have mercy on you. You’re going to need it.

That’s an inaccurate caricature, Paul.

You’ve yet to answer the question I put to you earlier on the thread. I’ll ask it again, other than from your tradition, what proof do you offer to support your claim that God, from the moment of conception, preserved Mary from the stain of original sin?

 

[flyersfan1088]

I’m not sure of your point. Are you saying Mary was IC’d, but sinned later on; is that your point?

On the thread I’ve referenced, I asked you to explain to me how 1 Cor 15:22 presents Mary as the “second Eve.” You’ve ignored that question; give me an answer to that, and I’ll cite others who said Mary was not sinless.

1. I never said she sinned later on.
2. You never asked me anything. I wasn’t the one talking about Mary as the second Eve. So quit dodging the question and provide the other ECF who said Mary was not sinless.

 

[mgrfin]

How?

Original sin is not an act, it is a state of being.

The only time original sin involved the act of doing something was was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

From that point on mankind suffered a separation from God. It is thru Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that we have been reconciled back to God.

As you said Jesus died for past present and future sins. All are concluded under sin so that they might receive this gift.

If not, then of what use is the cross to these people?

Original sin is a curse brought on by Adam and Eve. But, for those of us who love the Lord it is a Blessing.

Original sin is not a curse.

Sins after Baptism, what we call mortal sin are forgiven through the merits of the Death and Resurrerction of Jesus. But forgiveness of these sins require our cooperation with actual grace, and movement to a real act of sorrow on our part.

Original sin affected everybody, up to a point…

The point is the Virgin Mary.

Mary was free from the stain of original sin, from the first instant of her conception.

That is a defined doctrine of our Faith.

It is a useless exercise arguing with a Roman Catholic on this doctrine, since we know what it is, what it means, and nothing is going to change it. Tenets of the faith are those things we shed our blood over, and become martyrs. Same applies to the Real Presence, and to the Sacrament of Penance, and to the sacrifice contained in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Infallibility of Peter’s successor on earth, and our doctrine on grace, and justification, and salvation outside of the Catholic Church - there is none.

peace

ps: I made an error on a previous post regarding Paul and David. I was in a hurry to run to the Kings hockey, and I did not edit it properly. It is now edited. Thanks for that.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Edited:

Maybe our understanding of Scripture from Romans needs a little updating. Did Paul intend to include the Virgin Mary? Why should he cloud the issue of all men sinning by excluding the Virgin Mary in his text. He wasn’t talking of the Virgin, and as far as we know he never spoke of Mary.

Of course he never wrote about her, but family roots were important, and known. He knew of Jesus, and he knew of his parents. Necessarily, he knew the whole lineage of Christ. He knew it was necessary for the Messiah to come from the root of Jesse, and be of the house of David.

Protestants have this problem. If it aint in the bible, they won’t believe it. But that aint our problem. You don’t believe in a lot of things that are in the Scriptures; why should you believe in something that is more personal, more familiar to our Saviour?

You say: “Every other person in the Bible who experienced some sort of special birth had the circumstances spelled out.” Well, if they weren’t spelt out you, you wouldn’t know about it. How about Moses, and the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel?
Circumstances of their parents are not there, and for some their own birth is not mentioned. We have Melchisedech, a priest who offered bread and wine, yet we know nothing of his lineage.

It is a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith that Mary was born free from the stain of original sin. The Unwritten revealed Word of God is enough for us.

Gen 3:15: “And I will put enemities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”.

These words don’t refer to Eve. Eve never crushed the head of Satan. Those words refer to the new Eve, Mary Immaculate.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

That was totally uncharitable and inappropriate. I have never heard any Protestant demean Mary. They simply do not adore her in the high regard that Catholics do, but they still acknowledge her. She is the foremost of all the saints, but she is not diety.

We do not ‘adore’ Mary. We venerate her, just as we do the other saints.

Adoration is limited to God alone.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

That was totally uncharitable and inappropriate. I have never heard any Protestant demean Mary. They simply do not adore her in the high regard that Catholics do, but they still acknowledge her. She is the foremost of all the saints, but she is not diety.

Please…we do not adore Mary. We venerate her. Adoration is limited to God only.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

That is a serious question! Who is the fulfillment of Eve?

Go to Gen 3:15 for the answer.

peace

 

[MarcoPolo]

To which I responded that others, in addition to those three, rejected the IC as well.

As a Catholic, I clarified for you what I meant by no objections and certainly wrote too quickly when talking with a Protestant. There is no need to cry deception. I openly stated in this thread to you what I meant when you questioned me. If you wish to judge me for deception, that is your affair.

Now let’s address your citation. Take Origen for instance.

Origen said,
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” (Homily 1, A.D. 244)
Take Basil for another. Here’s how he phrases that “doubt” you tell me is his denial of an Immaculate Conception:
“the Blessed Virgin while standing by the cross, and observing every detail, after the message of Gabriel, and the ineffable knowledge of the Divine Conception, after that wondrous manifestation of miracles, was troubled in mind” (Epistle ad Optimum)Makes me think of when Jesus was “troubled” in Mark 14:33.

And St. Thomas Aquinas considers a fair understanding of St. Chrysostom’s words “meaning that our Lord corrected in her, not the inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself, but that which might be in the thoughts of others.” Granted the plain meaning of his words are that Mary had pride. But what also reinforces Aquinas’ reading of Chrysostom is Chrysostom’s own Divine Liturgy, which includes the priest saying: “Calling to remembrance our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady the Birthgiver of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the saints…” The degree any of these men objected to the notion of a sinless Mary is weak. And compared to the multitude of ECFs who supported such an idea, you can see why the understanding of that Tradition unfolded throughout the centuries for the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Ginger2]

You say: “Every other person in the Bible who experienced **some sort of special birth **had the circumstances spelled out.” Well, if they weren’t spelt out you, you wouldn’t know about it.

Exactly!!!

How about Moses, and the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel?

The circumstances around Moses’ birth are clearly spelled out in detail. I am wondering what exactly do you think the Catholic Church claims was special about his conception?

…the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel? Circumstances of their parents are not there,

Isaiah the son of Amoz (Isa 1)
Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, (Eze 1)
Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah (Jer 1)

What special circumstances are you claiming about their births?

Catholics claim the circumstances surrounding Mary’s birth were special. These circumstances are not recorded in the Scriptures.

You seem to be trying to prove that many others had special circumstances concerning their births that are not in the Scriptures.

Please explain the special circumstances surrounding the births of these prophets, and how you know since “it ain’t in the Bible”

 

[Ginger2]

Yes indeed - & perhaps parts of Job as well.​

Which parts of Job?

 

[JPatton]

This is for Protestants and any Catholics who would like to chime in on the peculiarities of his comments. This morning I was listening to John MacArthur (God bless him ) again and he said the following, starting with a quote from Luke chapter 1, he said: "…verse 47, ‘and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.’ Mary is the savior of nobody. Mary needs a savior. And she says ‘God is my Savior. He is the One Who delivers me from sin.’ Mary while being the best of sinners, if there is such a thing, the noblest of young maidens, the most beautiful of virgins, Mary must have been the finest of young girls in every way, but Mary needed a Savior…she was a sinner."Full audio file here (this part is between 14:00-15:00).

So what do you think? Is this a “proof” text that Mary was a sinner as Mr. MacArthur has asserted?

Evangelicals I know say this is proof. They would say since Mary said “God my saviour” that is clearly proof she sinned because she needed a saviour. She said it her self. They consider these words crystal clear but don’t believe “my flesh is true food…my blood is true drink…” ??? They don’t consider that all generations will call her blessed and that Gabriel say “full of grace”. Full of grace and still a sinner? mmmm?

Mary needed a saviour for sure. She was saved from sin at birth.

God Bless All,
Jamie

 

[Ginger2]

They don’t consider that …Gabriel say “full of grace”. Full of grace and still a sinner? mmmm?

Gabriel did not say “full of grace” The word “full” is not in the original text.

There is only one verse in Scripture that uses the phrase “full of grace”: John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The word used in Luke is the same as the one in Eph 1:6 “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”