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

[mgrfin]

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.”

YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL? Please, tell us what the original said. In the original language, if you have it.

I am sure St. Jerome would love to hear what those words were.

What did it say, ‘Hail,"“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”" The Lord is with you.’

I am always amazed at our non-catholic brethren who say they regard Mary, the Mother of God, very highlly, but go to all extremes to tear her down. She is for them, according to the words of Paul, a stumbling block.

But, so are the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, and his commission to Peter, and the power to forgive sins, given to our first Bishops. And the words of James, 'faith, without good works, is dead".

Gaudete

peace

 

[Ginger2]

She (Virgin Mary) is for them, according to the words of Paul, a stumbling block.

Really!!! Where did Paul say that?

Or are you confusing Mary with Jesus again?

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).

I’ll give you a chance to edit your post before replying…

 

[mgrfin]

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”

You seem to hold some theory that if it isn’t in the Bible, God intended it that way. Of course, that is not logical. We don’t know that we have all that was written down.

That is why we have both sides of Revelation, what was written and what was unwritten. St. Luke wrote what he thought was important regarding the life of Jesus Christ. He included some instances of his conception, his birth, and information on his parents.

The Church has alway held up Mary in the greatest regard for a human, since Mary is the Mother of God. Anything you say to disparage her will never take away this title.

And with this title, it has been revealed to Christ’s Church that she is sinless, free from the stain of sin of our first parents. And like all the saints, she is an intercessor between ourselves and Jesus. As she told the waiters at the Wedding Feast, “Do whatever He tells you.”

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”.

Revelations: 12: 1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head, a crown of twelve stars."

Gaudete

 

[Ginger2]

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”.

Once again you are using a poor translation. According to the Catholic Church, Genesis 3:15 correctly reads:
“…he shall crush thy head, and thou shall lie in wait for his heel.”

 

[mgrfin]

Once again you are using a poor translation. According to the Catholic Church, Genesis 3:15 correctly reads:
“…he shall crush thy head, and thou shall lie in wait for his heel.”

Again, you are wrong to assume, Ginger.

I am using the Douay-Rheims translation, published 1609, which has been the Catholic version for centuries.

Do you happen to have the Original text of Genesis, too?

BTW, only the original text of Scripture is inspired by God. Without the original, you are going to have to rely on doubtful texts, or on the Roman Catholic Church, who will guarantee to you the right interpretation.

Gaudete

PS I am still waiting for those Originals.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

“Stumbling Block” is a good Pauline word. I am aware of the context in which Paul used it.

Mary is still a stumbling block for you. I use the word, with all intentions, of referring it to you. You can stop whistling now, and accept the Immaculate Conception as an honor God conferred on Mary the Mother of God.

Gaudete

 

[Ginger2]

Again, you are wrong to assume, Ginger.

I am using the Douay-Rheims translation, published 1609, which has been the Catholic version for centuries.

Sorry to disappoint you mgrfin, but you are using a poor translation that was revised by the Catholic Church.

Jeromes Vulgate is in error. Here is the link: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II

Here is an excerpt: "In realizing this revision, “the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

 

[Ginger2]

I am using the Douay-Rheims translation, published 1609, which has been the Catholic version for centuries.

It’s unfortunate the Catholic Church has been using a faulty translation for centuries.

Have a nice day mgrfin!

 

[mgrfin]

Sorry to disappoint you mgrfin, but you are using a poor translation that was revised by the Catholic Church.

Jeromes Vulgate is in error. Here is the link: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II

Here is an excerpt: "In realizing this revision, “the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

Jerome’s Vulgate was not in error. You cite does not say that.
I am still awaiting the Originals.

Gaudete

 

[JPatton]

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.”

I apologize for misquoting. Ok “hail favored one”.

 

[mgrfin]

It’s unfortunate the Catholic Church has been using a faulty translation for centuries.

Have a nice day mgrfin!

I am having a nice Gaudete Sunday, Ginger, thanks.

I have several bibles, some non-Catholic, and some Catholic versions - none of which purport to be ‘original’ or ‘translated from the original’.

Since ‘originals’ are not extant, we all have to do the best with what we have. The D-R is consistent with Catholic teaching and is not in error. The Church never said it was. The Vulgate of course is the center of Catholic (Latin) liturgy, and apparently will remain so in some places.

I stick with the D-R because it is the translation I grew up with, just as some favor the KJV.

The New American Bible, which I have is a more modern translation, is approved but ‘derided’ by traditional Catholics for incidental reasons. The revised Psalter of 1991, (which is the center of the Divine Office), was rejected by John Paul II.

In 1997 the revised text of the Psalter and NT was disallowed by Vatican officials. There is a 2001 version was approved for ligurgical use.

I like the latin Vulgate for (my) liturgical use.

So, as far as I know, the D-R is still the accepted text, and is certainly not in error on matters of faith and morals.

Who guarantees the veracity of your bible? Where are those originals?

Enjoy Gaudete!

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

As a Catholic, I clarified for you what I meant by no objections and certainly wrote too quickly when talking with a Protestant…

What do you mean, ”As a Catholic” you clarified what you meant. Does no one have a different meaning for a Catholic than it does for others?

MarcoPolo:

The degree any of these men objected to the notion of a sinless Mary is weak.

Nevertheless, they did object.

 

[sandusky]

flyersfan1088:

I never said she sinned later on.

OK; I don’t understand, then, why you are complaining against my using your post in which you cite 3 ECFs who said Mary was not sinless; it’s clear from those statements that those you cited were espousing, not an immaculate conception, but a non-immaculate one.

You never asked me anything. I wasn’t the one talking about Mary as the second Eve.

Sure I asked you a question, on this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203886&page=15 ), post #222.

And in your post, from which my question to you originated, was this:

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Nevertheless, they did object.

Let’s say their objection was vehement. What does that suggest to you?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Why are These type of sermons given to christians outside the Catholic faith? I dont understand, to distort the faith of christians By using our Savior Jesus Mother the blessed Virgin Mary. Mary should be the topic of uniting Christians together not dividing. For one thing would God send his Son Jesus to be born from a sinnful vessel (womb)? Mary plays no role in seperating Christians, She has given us Salvation (please dont take that quote out of context) and her lasts words in scripture are "do whatever he (Jesus) tells you, (yes; Mary speaks in the sacred scriptures). Isaiah the prophet speaks well of the blessed virgin Mary sinlessness. We know from Genesis that a woman has pains when giving birth from the first Eve’s original sin. Listen to Isaiah 66:7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child.v.8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? v.9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the Lord: Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. v.10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her:Exult, exult with her… See also Isaiah 54:1,= (Galatians 4:27) Isaiah 62:5, I’ll conclude with Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

 

[flyersfan1088]

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

Still waiting for those other ECF. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a looong time.

 

[flyersfan1088]

OK; I don’t understand, then, why you are complaining against my using your post in which you cite 3 ECFs who said Mary was not sinless; it’s clear from those statements that those you cited were espousing, not an immaculate conception, but a non-immaculate one.

You do understand what the word conception means, right? I just want to make sure we’re speaking the same language. For hopefully the last time I will say AGAIN those 3 quotes are not talking about conception, but events later in her life. Read them again if you must. You’re building an arguement based on your own misreading of a quote.

 

[sandusky]

flyersfan1088:

Still waiting for those other ECF. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a looong time.

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.

S. Lewis Johnson, records that Anselm held that Mary was born with original sin, (S. Lewis Johnson, “Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism” in John Armstrong, ed., Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 121.

flyersfan1088:

You do understand what the word conception means, right? I just want to make sure we’re speaking the same language. For hopefully the last time I will say AGAIN those 3 quotes are not talking about conception, but events later in her life. Read them again if you must. You’re building an arguement based on your own misreading of a quote.

You’re quibbling, flyersfan, simply quibbling. From the CCC, para 508,** From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.**Intrinsic to the dogma of the IC is Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

Stop quibbling about those men; though they didn’t use the words IC, they did use the
words “she sinned.”

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Let’s say their objection was vehement. What does that suggest to you?

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.

 

[flyersfan1088]

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.

S. Lewis Johnson, records that Anselm held that Mary was born with original sin, (S. Lewis Johnson, “Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism” in John Armstrong, ed., Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 121.

You’re quibbling, flyersfan, simply quibbling. From the CCC, para 508,** From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life**.Intrinsic to the dogma of the IC is Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

Stop quibbling about those men; though they didn’t use the words IC, they did use the
words “she sinned.”

Both of your sources are faulty. To use your words “I’m not surprised” Neither the Greek or Latin Fathers explicitly teach the IC?!?! Wrong! Quotes have been posted. Also, with no quotes posted it can’t be taken seriously. I haven’t answered the second eve question because I wasn’t the one talking about it. It was referenced in a quote I posted to prove another point. I am not here to prove Mary as the second eve.