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

[Mannyfit75]

You still haven’t my question flyersfan; I’m not surprised; however, here’s a teaser from Ludwid Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Ill., Tan Book Publishers, 1974), 201, 203:"…individual Greek Fathers (e.g., Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity…Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicityly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”J.N.D. Kelly also notes that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hilary did as well, (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 493, 496.

Note the ECF which you refer too said that Mary suffered from venial personal faults. Though none of them** is explicit that these fault are sins**. Doubt my friend is not sin, unless it is act upon. Tim Staples made a point. I presume you got this information from Lidwigg Ott’s books.

I would like to quote Origen if he truly believe that Mary sin. Let us take a look at one of the quotes he said concerning Mary:

“Every incorrupt and virgin soul, having conceived by the Holy Spirit in order to give birth to the will of the Father, is a mother of Jesus.” (Origen, Fragments on Matthew 281, quoted in Gambero, 76).

Origen however, taught that Mary was not holy from the beginning, and that she was scandalized and had vanity within her (Homily on Luke 17, 6-7). But this was because he was speaking in the Greek context of sanctification. Origen, faithful to the more ancient Alexandrian tradition, tends to emphasize the Virgin’s holiness and virtues, always in the context of her condition as one still making progress (Gambero, 78).

However, Origen still believed that Mary **was all-holy **(Homily 7 in Lucam) and she was holy before the Annunciation (Homily 6 in Lucam). While reading Origen, we must also keep in mind that the **East did not have the developed concept of original sin and grace **(as seen later, for example in St. Augustine), and thus, this affected his teaching. However, it did not keep Origen from saying Mary was a symbol of Christian life.

The dogma developed more after the Council of Nicaea. We have St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century saying,

“He (Christ) took it (His body) from a pure and unstained Virgin, who had not known man.” (On the Incarnation of the Word 8)

Athanasius also believed that Mary is a model of perfection. He states,

“The Holy Scriptures, which instructs us, and the life of Mary, Mother of God, suffice as an ideal of perfection and the form of the heavenly life.” (De Virginitate, 255)

It has been claimed that Cyril of Alexandria for example, believed that Mary had personal faults (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, p. 203). Though this is true, he still believed that Mary was uncommonly holy (Adversus Nestorii blasphemies, lib. 1, cap. I). And the belief that Mary did contact original sin and was delivered of its stain only at the moment of the Annunciation never gained any measure of wide acceptance among the better authors (Carol, 1:352).

Most of these I gather from Catholic Apologetic website which I taken verbatim.

You can read the article of you like.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm

 

[sandusky]

mgrfin:

No, not all popes are infallible. As a matter of fact, no pope is infallible. Popes speak infallibly extremely rarely.

Unless, he is speaking ‘ex cathedra’, that he intends to define a dogma as a matter of faith, and that it is a matter of faith and morals.

That’s the Church’s “Catch-22,” if you will, and it shows the circularity, and internal impregnability of her self-proclaimed authority.

Leo I had no idea about this “papal infallibility” business at the time that he was the pope; but, I’m certain that the intent of Leo’s teaching was exactly as he stated the teaching; namely, that no one, except Christ, was sinless; therefore, I take Leo’s teaching as a dogma, and, I would add, one that is clearly stated in scripture.

 

[sandusky]

Note the ECF which you refer too said that Mary suffered from venial personal faults. Though none of them** is explicit that these fault are sins**. Doubt my friend is not sin, unless it is act upon. Tim Staples made a point. I presume you got this information from Lidwigg Ott’s books.

And you contend that protestants treat sin lightly, but, I suppose since its Mary, we should give it a nod, and a wink.

Some of the Fathers said she was “ambitious,” and “vain.”

 

[mgrfin]

You’re amusing, and you’re misrepresenting, and twisting what I’ve said (that’s seems to be typical Catholic behavior on this forum).

I’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was a sinner, and you’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and sinless; I’ve denied neither side—it’s history, and points out the evolution of the doctrine of the IC, as the Catholic Juniper Carol states:”Theologically, we must face up to an evolution,…From the extant philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the patristic West.”

Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 147.IMHO, you who arguing against this are deliberately trying to deceive.

The Father’s that I’ve offered, taught that Mary did sin, and they taught that on the basis of the testimony of God in scripture concerning the fallen state of all people—except for Christ.

Those that you’ve offered are “teaching” (I wouldn’t call that), from their own pious imaginings.

My case is what it is; the earliest of the Fathers adhered to the testimony, and did not except Mary from the sinfulness of all humanity; your case relies on what I consider to be, flights of fancy from later Fathers.

The farther one gets from the church in the time of the apostles, the “flightier” the fancies become, IMHO.

Is this Franciscan, Fr. Carol, infallible? He seems to carry a lot of weight with you.

You seem to be missing the point. You prefer to argue ‘how many angels can stand on the head of the pin’, then to accept the fact that this is a defined doctrine of the faith.

That means, some where in the period of Revelation in the Church’s history this was, in germ, thought, taught, and believed. Origen is not the Church, whether he taught it or didn’t. I don’t image him actually teaching it, preaching and explaining it, that Mary sinned. It seems a little far-fetched. What kind of sermon would that be?

And he might get stoned for doing so.

peace

PS I don’t think anyone is twisting what you are saying, and that it is a practice on this site. Non-Catholics get away with a lot more than Catholics do, let me assure you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

And you contend that protestants treat sin lightly, but, I suppose since its Mary, we should give it a nod, and a wink.

Well, the basis for assuming that Mary sin is based from Roman’s concerning all have sin and come short of God’s glory. But Scripture is not explicit about personal sin committed by Mary. We see obedience of Mary to the Word of God. That is pretty much clear in Scripture.

Whether or not I contend that Protestants treat sin lightly depends if they believe in OSAS. But that is a different matter that can be discussed on another thread.

 

[mgrfin]

That’s the Church’s “Catch-22,” if you will, and it shows the circularity, and internal impregnability of her self-proclaimed authority.

Leo I had no idea about this “papal infallibility” business at the time that he was the pope; but, I’m certain that the intent of Leo’s teaching was exactly as he stated the teaching; namely, that no one, except Christ, was sinless; therefore, I take Leo’s teaching as a dogma, and, I would add, one that is clearly stated in scripture.

You don’t know much about Leo the Great then, if you believe that he knew very little of this 'papal infallibility business". Up to his time, he may have been the strongest pope, outside of those who were put to death.

BTW, St. Peter knew all about infallibility. I am sure Peter passed it on to Linus, Cletus, Xstus, et. al. After all, the commission came to him directly, unless of course you have something to offer to the contrary.

peace

 

[Metaron]

You’re amusing, and you’re misrepresenting, and twisting what I’ve said (that’s seems to be typical Catholic behavior on this forum).

And you said I was generalizing.

I’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was a sinner, and you’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and sinless; I’ve denied neither side…

You implied your fathers were somehow better than mine.

The Father’s that I’ve offered, taught that Mary did sin, and they taught that on the basis of the testimony of God in scripture concerning the fallen state of all people—except for Christ.

Not necessarily. The Original Sin doctrine had not fully developed, thus blurring the whole who-is-sinless/who-is-not deal. We Catholics fully acknowledge that doctrines develop over time and understanding. This completely conforms with our viewpoint.

Those that you’ve offered are “teaching” (I wouldn’t call that), from their own pious imaginings.

You say this only because they disagree with you.

My case is what it is; the earliest of the Fathers adhered to the testimony, and did not except Mary from the sinfulness of all humanity; your case relies on what I consider to be, flights of fancy from later Fathers.

Think what you may; this discussion boils down to none other than the differing views of Protestants and Catholic Church over what is the nature of Authority.

The farther one gets from the church in the time of the apostles, the “flightier” the fancies become, IMHO.

That’s because Protestants detest the view that the Church has any authority.

 

[mgrfin]

And you contend that protestants treat sin lightly, but, I suppose since its Mary, we should give it a nod, and a wink.

Some of the Fathers said she was “ambitious,” and “vain.”

Ambitious? What? She wanted to be the Mother of God?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

That’s the Church’s “Catch-22,” if you will, and it shows the circularity, and internal impregnability of her self-proclaimed authority.

Leo I had no idea about this “papal infallibility” business at the time that he was the pope; but, I’m certain that the intent of Leo’s teaching was exactly as he stated the teaching; namely, that no one, except Christ, was sinless; therefore, I take Leo’s teaching as a dogma, and, I would add, one that is clearly stated in scripture.

We seem to be going around and around, that these Church father said this, and that. And Leo… Please provide a link for Leo’s statement, and links for the statements of the Fathers that you keep referring to, so all of us may be in the loop.

Thanks.

peace

 

[Metaron]

That’s the Church’s “Catch-22,” if you will, and it shows the circularity, and internal impregnability of her self-proclaimed authority.

Leo I had no idea about this “papal infallibility” business at the time that he was the pope; but, I’m certain that the intent of Leo’s teaching was exactly as he stated the teaching; namely, that no one, except Christ, was sinless; therefore, I take Leo’s teaching as a dogma, and, I would add, one that is clearly stated in scripture.

It’s too bad, for your point of view, that Peter infallibly settled the dispute at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. After he made a ruling, all sides shut up. Peter was excercising his infallibility.

 

[sandusky]

Mannyfit75:

Well, the basis for assuming that Mary sin is based from Roman’s concerning all have sin and come short of God’s glory. But Scripture is not explicit about personal sin committed by Mary. We see obedience of Mary to the Word of God. That is pretty much clear in Scripture.

Scripture makes an explicit statement about everyone’s sin, Manny, and according to some of the Father’s, even Mary’s

mgrfin:

You seem to be missing the point. You prefer to argue ‘how many angels can stand on the head of the pin’, then to accept the fact that this is a defined doctrine of the faith.

I’ve never argued that the Marian doctrines are not defined doctrines of your church.

mgrfin:

That means, some where in the period of Revelation in the Church’s history this was, in germ, thought, taught, and believed.

Revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle; your church teaches that as well. So I would not agree that it was in germ thought during the period of revelation, or it would be recorded; most of this with Mary appeared later in the church’s history, rather than earlier.

mgrfin:

We seem to be going around and around, that these Church father said this, and that. And Leo… Please provide a link for Leo’s statement, and links for the statements of the Fathers that you keep referring to, so all of us may be in the loop.

I’ve listed the books in which you’ll find them; I’ve not looked for them on the net.

We are definitely going around, and around; in fact, we’ve reached ad nauseam, IMHO.

You believe what you believe concerning Mary, and I believe what I believe concerning Mary.

 

[sandusky]

Metaron:

And you said I was generalizing.

I don’t believe I’ve used that word on this thread; what I said was, you’re misrepresenting, and twisting what I’ve said.

Metaron:

You implied your fathers were somehow better than mine.

Not somehow, but specifically they adhere to the teaching of scripture concerning the fallen state of man, whereas those you quote stray from scripture, and engage in pious imaginings.

Metaron:

Not necessarily. The Original Sin doctrine had not fully developed, thus blurring the whole who-is-sinless/who-is-not deal. We Catholics fully acknowledge that doctrines develop over time and understanding.

The original sin doctrine is clearly stated in scripture; I don’t see how any development of it is necessary. Your council of Trent states it simply, and clearly, using Rom 5:12; however, they too, except Mary from the teaching in Romans. Other than that, they got it right.

Metaron:

You say this only because they disagree with you.

Don’t be silly; I say it because they disagree with God, and His testimony.

Metaron:

Think what you may; this discussion boils down to none other than the differing views of Protestants and Catholic Church over what is the nature of Authority.

You’re right about that.

Metaron:

That’s because Protestants detest the view that the Church has any authority.

The church does have an authority over it—Christ, who speaks to the church through His scripture.

 

[Metaron]

I don’t believe I’ve used that word on this thread; what I said was, you’re misrepresenting, and twisting what I’ve said.

No misrepresentation intended.

Not somehow, but specifically they adhere to the teaching of scripture concerning the fallen state of man, whereas those you quote stray from scripture, and engage in pious imaginings.

Again, this is your opinion. And mine is an opinion too.

The original sin doctrine is clearly stated in scripture; I don’t see how any development of it is necessary.

It did develop, as can be shown by the difference in the Original Sin views of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Don’t be silly; I say it because they disagree with God, and His testimony.

So you have the authority of God now? Are you claiming you have infallibly stated this as God’s representative on Earth? I thought you were less childish than that…

You’re right about that.
The church does have an authority over it—Christ, who speaks to the church through His scripture.

You’ve totally lost me on this. I thought this was an area of fundamental disagreement.

We cannot agree, so let us part ways.

 

[mgrfin]

You believe what you believe concerning Mary, and I believe what I believe concerning Mary.

So what do you believe about Mary?

Do you believe that she was a sinful Virgin, whom God used to be the Mother of God?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The church does have an authority over it—Christ, who speaks to the church through His scripture.

Let me quote to you from another thread regarding this Sola Scriptura that you seem to think is so certain, which I wrote today:

Quote me:
You set your premise as: The Bible is the most verified and the most verifiable book in man’s history. Sounds ok. Most people will nod their heads in agreement with your premise.
However, when we look to verify to see that your thesis falls apart. Let’s examine:

First, the Bible contains more than one book. There are 46 books in the OT, and 27 books in the NT. But, here is where things get a bit mushy, and your opening statement begins to fall apart. There are different canons: canons for the Jews, for Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac and Ethiopian canons.

So, your theorem is wrong. You can’t even come up with one list of books acceptable to all. So your case cannot move on. But, we will just move it, just out of sympathy.

Now, we have Apocrypha. There are Anglican apocrypha, and there are Lutheran apocrypha, which are different. So lack of agreements gives us a mess. No help for the masses.

Your case is really over, counselor, but I will move it on. Authorship: Who wrote these books anyway? Scientific evidence proves an array of differences of opinion. Take just the Pauline Epistles. Well, we’ll accept that Paul wrote Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. That is 3 out of 14. We don’t know who wrote the rest. These 11, very important Epistles, they are of unknown authorship. These should be considered inspired, if Paul did not write then?

If you are a lawyer, you are now done. But let’s move on, just to satisfy the gallery.

We don’t have the originals of ANY of these books. We have pieces, literally pieces, of manuscripts. We have some redactions. We have later translations, and some reported to be copies. Should these, from available evidence be considered to be inspired? Not in any court of law I know of! If you are in court, you would not get away with presenting a copy, something with unproven authorship.

Now let’s add one further nail to your coffin, Translation: now we have arrived at the Tower of Babel. There are thousands of translations. You should stake your eternal salvation on forced or unforced errors of translations. Like Luther in Romans 3:28. He translated it as “For we account a man to be justified by faith ONLY, without the works of the Law”. His whole religion was based on this intentional error. (And thousands more.) We are not saved by faith only.

Divine authorship. These books – or rather the original of these books – if we had them – are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Who says so? The Bible? ? We won’t accept it for the Bible. Well, now, we have a case of ‘he said, she said”, or at best, circuitous reasoning. Only the originals are inspired (none of which we have), and the Bible says so – not just improbable, but impossible to prove your case. You won’t allow that for Tradition, even though it is verifiyable in your Bible and historicall Consider your theorem proven false. There is no agreement about anything relating to the Bible. Number of books, Authorship, Translation, Apocrypha, Inspiration, Confirmation.

Failing your case, a better case can be made for Tradition over Scripture. But include them both: you then have true Divine Revelation. Verified and Verifyable
Unquote me
peace

 

[Delphinus85]

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?

No. It means God is Mary’s saviour as he is our saviour, but in a different way. He saved her frm Sin and in her freedom she never committed sin. She was preserved from original sin, and freed to live a sinless life as we all are. She just simply chose to stay sinless, were we have not.

 

[mgrfin]

The church does have an authority over it—Christ, who speaks to the church through His scripture.

So you little protestant church in Southern California (I’m in Long Beach) is infallible. It was founded by Jesus Christ, and Christ speaks to your little Church through Scripture.

Christ never wrote a word that would be considered part of Scripture.

And you and your congregation, infallibly interprete your fallible copy of Sacred Scripture.

It is interesting that we are discussing Tradition, namely, God’s unwritten Word of God, and you pick and choose the Scriptural passages on your own and tell us what they mean.

Passages regarding the Sacrament of Penance, and the Holy Eucharist, and the founding of the Church upon Peter, and you have the infallibility given to you to interprete them differently than we do?

I’d like the address of this church of yours in Southern California, to visit it some day. It must be some place.

peace

 

[sandusky]

Let me quote to you from another thread regarding this Sola Scriptura that you seem to think is so certain, which I wrote today:

Quote me:
You set your premise as: The Bible is the most verified and the most verifiable book in man’s history. Sounds ok. Most people will nod their heads in agreement with your premise.
However, when we look to verify to see that your thesis falls apart. Let’s examine:

First, the Bible contains more than one book. There are 46 books in the OT, and 27 books in the NT. But, here is where things get a bit mushy, and your opening statement begins to fall apart. There are different canons: canons for the Jews, for Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac and Ethiopian canons.

So, your theorem is wrong. You can’t even come up with one list of books acceptable to all. So your case cannot move on. But, we will just move it, just out of sympathy.

Now, we have Apocrypha. There are Anglican apocrypha, and there are Lutheran apocrypha, which are different. So lack of agreements gives us a mess. No help for the masses.

Your case is really over, counselor, but I will move it on. Authorship: Who wrote these books anyway? Scientific evidence proves an array of differences of opinion. Take just the Pauline Epistles. Well, we’ll accept that Paul wrote Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. That is 3 out of 14. We don’t know who wrote the rest. These 11, very important Epistles, they are of unknown authorship. These should be considered inspired, if Paul did not write then?

If you are a lawyer, you are now done. But let’s move on, just to satisfy the gallery.

We don’t have the originals of ANY of these books. We have pieces, literally pieces, of manuscripts. We have some redactions. We have later translations, and some reported to be copies. Should these, from available evidence be considered to be inspired? Not in any court of law I know of! If you are in court, you would not get away with presenting a copy, something with unproven authorship.

Now let’s add one further nail to your coffin, Translation: now we have arrived at the Tower of Babel. There are thousands of translations. You should stake your eternal salvation on forced or unforced errors of translations. Like Luther in Romans 3:28. He translated it as “For we account a man to be justified by faith ONLY, without the works of the Law”. His whole religion was based on this intentional error. (And thousands more.) We are not saved by faith only.

Divine authorship. These books – or rather the original of these books – if we had them – are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Who says so? The Bible? ? We won’t accept it for the Bible. Well, now, we have a case of ‘he said, she said”, or at best, circuitous reasoning. Only the originals are inspired (none of which we have), and the Bible says so – not just improbable, but impossible to prove your case. You won’t allow that for Tradition, even though it is verifiyable in your Bible and historicall Consider your theorem proven false. There is no agreement about anything relating to the Bible. Number of books, Authorship, Translation, Apocrypha, Inspiration, Confirmation.

Failing your case, a better case can be made for Tradition over Scripture. But include them both: you then have true Divine Revelation. Verified and Verifyable
Unquote me
peace

Sola Ecclesia

 

[sandusky]

Metaron:

So you have the authority of God now?

Every believer does.

Metaron:

Are you claiming you have infallibly stated this as God’s representative on Earth?

Anyone claiming to be infallible is a deceiver, and is himself, deceived.

Metaron:

I thought you were less childish than that…

Now that you’ve read my last answer, what do you think?

Metaron:

You’ve totally lost me on this. I thought this was an area of fundamental disagreement.

Obviously there’s much you don’t understand.

Metaron:

We cannot agree, so let us part ways.

:tiphat:

 

[MarcoPolo]

What their words tell me is that those men had a biblical anthropology, reasoned from the scripture: all those born of a woman, with Jesus the only stated exception, sinned in Adam, and are, therefore, sinners.

Fascinating. So do you understand WHY most ECFs DID teach that Mary was sinless?