M
mlchance
Guest
It might due to point out that the idea that “If it’s not in the Bible it doesn’t count” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status
– Mark L. Chance.
M
mercygate
Guest
Kristina P.:
I believe the tradition (t) is that John was BORN without original sin, not CONCEIVED without it. The moment he “leapt” is the sign of that. Wish I could document that for you.
T
TamaraS
Guest
On being sinless-
Someone may have already said this, but look at Genesis 3:15-
“I will put emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
The woman referred to is Mary. Jesus is her offspring. It is usually the man that is referred to as having the offspring, not the woman. If this was about Adam and Eve then it would make more sense to say that the offspring was his, not hers. But this refers to Mary and Jesus- Jesus had to be the offspring of Mary since Joseph was his only foster father.
If there is emnity between the serpent and the woman and if the serpent is “all bad”, then the woman must be “all good”. I don’t think that Mary would stop being “all good” once she gave birth to Jesus. Obviously, in biblical history, when God used imperfect people, they always failed in some way. Even David who was “a man after his own heart” fell into sin eventually. So to get it right everything had to be perfect.
Someone may have already said this, but look at Genesis 3:15-
“I will put emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
The woman referred to is Mary. Jesus is her offspring. It is usually the man that is referred to as having the offspring, not the woman. If this was about Adam and Eve then it would make more sense to say that the offspring was his, not hers. But this refers to Mary and Jesus- Jesus had to be the offspring of Mary since Joseph was his only foster father.
If there is emnity between the serpent and the woman and if the serpent is “all bad”, then the woman must be “all good”. I don’t think that Mary would stop being “all good” once she gave birth to Jesus. Obviously, in biblical history, when God used imperfect people, they always failed in some way. Even David who was “a man after his own heart” fell into sin eventually. So to get it right everything had to be perfect.
M
MamaSusie
Guest
Tamara, my apologies. You were clear about the PVM. I was restating the parts that my husband gets hung up on in an effort to spend less time on the virginity of Mary up to the birth of Christ. The verse you mentioned does lend itself to a better understanding of our belief regarding her PV, and I will be sure to pass that on to him.
mlchance, we think alike. hehe That was the line I came up with. Then followed it up with “What it does say is scripture and…” and I had him read it to me. TRADITION! I don’t think he appreciated that moment nearly as much as I did.
mlchance, we think alike. hehe That was the line I came up with. Then followed it up with “What it does say is scripture and…” and I had him read it to me. TRADITION! I don’t think he appreciated that moment nearly as much as I did.
T
TamaraS
Guest
Oh hey, I forgot! Scott Hahn has a really good book called “Hail, Holy Queen”. He does an excellent job explaining the biblical basis for the Marian Doctrines. He is a convert, so I think he knows of the importance of defending and explaining Catholic doctrines from scripture.
Tamara
Tamara
M
MamaSusie
Guest
Thanks a bunch!
I have developed a question of my own:
If Mary was not held to human standards of grace, etc…then how do we use her in our argument that Christ had to come to a mere human for us to relate to Him? It’s always been a strong appeal to mankind that Christ came as a man, from a human, and endured the same trials and temptations that we do, and yet remained perfect. If Mary was in fact not “your average human,” but is/was supernatural in many spiritual senses, how can we align these two thoughts?
I have developed a question of my own:
If Mary was not held to human standards of grace, etc…then how do we use her in our argument that Christ had to come to a mere human for us to relate to Him? It’s always been a strong appeal to mankind that Christ came as a man, from a human, and endured the same trials and temptations that we do, and yet remained perfect. If Mary was in fact not “your average human,” but is/was supernatural in many spiritual senses, how can we align these two thoughts?
M
MariaG
Guest
Couple of things. I know others have said this, but it needs to be said again. Mary’s Immaculate conception points to the Holiness of Christ, not Mary. That’s why it is important.
Staying sinless? Christ refered to Mary as “woman” never by name. In Genesis, Eve was never called by name until AFTER she sinned. She was simply “woman” until then.
As for your latest question, I’ll have to think on it
God Bless,
Maria
Staying sinless? Christ refered to Mary as “woman” never by name. In Genesis, Eve was never called by name until AFTER she sinned. She was simply “woman” until then.
As for your latest question, I’ll have to think on it
God Bless,
Maria
K
Kristina_P
Guest
I’ll try to remember to ask someone at RCIA about that. It’s not an obstacle to my faith or anything, just totally out of the blue for me. I’d like to learn more about it.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Mary was held to the human standards of grace. She was rescued beforehand from original sin, but that was by the exact same grace that washes away the taint of original sin in baptism. Maybe you could say that she was baptized before being conceived? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I think it illustrates the point. She wasn’t free from temptation, but she was free (like a Christian after baptism) to really choose not to sin. For her, sinlessness was not impossible, because the taint of original sin, the insurmountable inclination toward sin, had been taken away by grace. Also, though she was tempted, I think God took special care to help her keep from sin.
She was most definitely human, though, and passed on her humanity to Jesus. Jesus was also conceived without the taint of original sin, but it doesn’t take away from His humanity. To say that it did would be a heresy that no Protestant I know of holds to. I hope I understood your question here.
H
hurst
Guest
Kristina P.:
Yes, it is also the end result of the process of sanctification. So it is both the start and completion. We must persevere in it to remain holy and be saved. (Most of us, though forgiven and possessing sanctifying grace, struggle with numerous venial sins and faults, and are liable to the penalties and consequences of our past sins.)
Being fully sanctified does not mean locked in a state of being unable to sin. That won’t happen until heaven.
Kristina P.:
Another who was born (not conceived) without sin is the prophet Jeremias:
Jeremias 1:4 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. 6 And I said: Ah, ah, ah, Lord God: behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child.
If John the Baptist was greater than Jeremias, then it only follows that he was also sanctified, and not generically filled with the Holy Spirit (as might be said of King Saul).
Kristina P.:
But suffice it to say that the Church has a feast day on his nativity, and it is one of the oldest in the Church:
The commemoration of his Nativity is one of the oldest feasts, if not the oldest feast, introduced into both the Greek and Latin liturgies to honour a saint. But why is the feast proper, as it were, of St. John on the day of his nativity, whereas with other saints it is the day of their death? Because it was meant that the birth of him who, unlike the rest, was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”, should be signalized as a day of triumph.
newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm
Also, the Summa mentions this. It is certain that he was holy from the moment of his birth. And it is certain that he died a martyr.
hurst
Sanctified means freed from both original sin and actual sin. It is what happens during baptism: we receive sanctifying grace.
Yes, it is also the end result of the process of sanctification. So it is both the start and completion. We must persevere in it to remain holy and be saved. (Most of us, though forgiven and possessing sanctifying grace, struggle with numerous venial sins and faults, and are liable to the penalties and consequences of our past sins.)
Being fully sanctified does not mean locked in a state of being unable to sin. That won’t happen until heaven.
Kristina P.:
No. He was conceived in original sin. But he was born without original sin. I also believe he remained sinless his entire life. Keep in mind he came in the spirit and power of Elias (Lk 1:17). Now Elias was taken up into heaven. If John the Baptist was greater than Elias, it is not hard to conclude that he remained sanctified.
Another who was born (not conceived) without sin is the prophet Jeremias:
Jeremias 1:4 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. 6 And I said: Ah, ah, ah, Lord God: behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child.
If John the Baptist was greater than Jeremias, then it only follows that he was also sanctified, and not generically filled with the Holy Spirit (as might be said of King Saul).
Kristina P.:
Well, I have to look into the dogma aspect more deeply.
But suffice it to say that the Church has a feast day on his nativity, and it is one of the oldest in the Church:
The commemoration of his Nativity is one of the oldest feasts, if not the oldest feast, introduced into both the Greek and Latin liturgies to honour a saint. But why is the feast proper, as it were, of St. John on the day of his nativity, whereas with other saints it is the day of their death? Because it was meant that the birth of him who, unlike the rest, was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”, should be signalized as a day of triumph.
newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm
Also, the Summa mentions this. It is certain that he was holy from the moment of his birth. And it is certain that he died a martyr.
hurst
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Thank you for explaining this so succinctly and clearly. It makes a lot more sense now.
L
LSK
Guest
see what Della and Kristn said…it is an excellent explanation…and for heaven’s sake, don’t ever think Catholics do not believe the Word Incarnate…we are children of the Word Incarnate!The Sacred Scriptures say that there is not one who is good except my Father in heaven. Why are Jesus Words not believed?God Bless
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Kristina P.:
God Bless
Mans standard of goodness and Gods standard of goodness are two different things.Gods standard of goodness is judged by His law(10 commandments).There is no one who kept the Law except Jesus Christ. That makes everyone a sinner including Mary.
God Bless
M
MamaSusie
Guest
I just got off the phone with my mother…a devout Catholic and former nun. Did you know that we don’t KNOW for sure that Mary was assumed or that she remained a virign, that it’s “just what we believe?” Did you know that the assumption isn’t in the Bible? Did you know that whatever you believe is ok as long as you’re a good person? Did you know that if you’re of another religion, you see THAT religion’s deity when you die? Or at least that’s what “They” say. Also, “Fr. Matt says everything in Revelations has already happened,” and the schmism that is the SSPX church is really still Catholic because they’re just doing what Catholics did for thousands of years. Not wanting to change doesn’t make them NOT Catholic. There is no right and wrong, and even if we think we know it, we don’t really know it until the end.
Oy. Does anyone have any education or conviction anymore? I really expected more from her. I love her to death, but it hurts me that she believes these things. I mean, if anyone that’s a good person can go to heaven, then Chrst died in vain. How do you relive the sacrifice with him each day at mass, if you don’t really have any respect for the original sacrifice and its necessity? I mean, that’s not even a Christian perspective IMO, let alone a Catholic Christian perspective. I just don’t understand how you can grow up in, be trained in it, etc…and possess beliefs that are flat out anti-christian, admittedly or not.
I’m floored. I understand my husband not getting it, but this just really makes me sad.
Oy. Does anyone have any education or conviction anymore? I really expected more from her. I love her to death, but it hurts me that she believes these things. I mean, if anyone that’s a good person can go to heaven, then Chrst died in vain. How do you relive the sacrifice with him each day at mass, if you don’t really have any respect for the original sacrifice and its necessity? I mean, that’s not even a Christian perspective IMO, let alone a Catholic Christian perspective. I just don’t understand how you can grow up in, be trained in it, etc…and possess beliefs that are flat out anti-christian, admittedly or not.
I’m floored. I understand my husband not getting it, but this just really makes me sad.
M
MamaSusie
Guest
I think I’ll get some of the books you recommended for my husband for HER as well. She loves to read.
S
Sherlock
Guest
It has been the constant teaching of the Church, for starters, and perfectly in keeping for Mary’s chosen role. Look, Protestants don’t understand the idea of “consecration” very well, if at all—that’s probably why he doesn’t think it matters. But it matters to God—once God has consecrated something, it isn’t used for ordinary things anymore. The Ark of the Covenant was not used for hauling grain around in whenever it was handy. The Ten Commandments, before they were broken, were not used as a door stop or a whetstone.
As for “all have sinned”…ask your husband if a baptized baby has sinned. What about a baptized person born severly mentally retarded? Your husband can surely see that this “all have sinned” was meant generally, not absolutely.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Wow. There are some highly heretical views in there, and I wonder how much of that she actually got from her priest. What he said about Revelation could have been orthodox. As far as I know, it’s valid to interpret many of the events in that book as already having happened. Of course, to say that the Great Judgment or something like that has already occurred is absurd, but I doubt he said anything like that.
Question: How does one become a former nun?
M
MamaSusie
Guest
hahaha…excellent question. She left the convent, then later married my father, and had 5 children.
T
trustmc
Guest
Others on this thread have made some very sound arguements for Mary’s sinlessness, so I’ll concentrate on Mary’s perpetual virginity and why this is important for our understanding of who Christ is.
First let’s look at scripture. Ezekiel 44:1-2 is a passage often referred to by the early Fathers that prophesizes how Christ’s birth could nonetheless preserve the integrity of Mary’s womb. Regarding the newly built Temple, it reads: “Then He [the Lord] brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.’”
The parallel imagery here is quite telling. God passes through the eastern gate of the Temple, so no other man is worthy to pass through it thereafter. Jesus, being both fully divine and fully human, passes through Mary’s birth canal, so too no other man is worthy to pass through it thereafter. That Mary’s virginity was kept intact after Christ’s birth is predicated on Christ actually having been born by natural means. If Christ merely “materialized” outside the womb and did not enter the world through the “gate” of Mary’s loins, then there would have been no reason for Mary’s virginity to have been preserved from a subsequent entrance by even her lawful husband, Joseph.
The teaching of Mary’s perpetual viriginity reenforces two truths about Christ. First, that he was fully human, having been born of a woman; and second, that he was fully divine as indicated by that no man was worhty to enter the “gate” to Mary’s womb following his passage. Without the dogma of Mary’s ever-virginity, the Church’s teaching on the Incarnation would collapse.
Mike
T
trustmc
Guest
There is no scripture that records Christ saying that. The closest we see Christ saying anything like that was during the episode with the adulteress where, addressing the crowd, Christ said, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.” Mary was not in the crowd at the time, which is a good thing, since had she been there she could have casted the first stone at the adulteress!
Seriously though, it was St. Paul who said in Rom 3:23 “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” However, he was speaking generally here about the condition of man, not universally. Had he meant this verse to be absolute, he would have implicated Christ as a sinner. Since we know this was not his intent, we can surmise that the verse leaves enough room for an exception for not only Christ, but Mary as well.
Mike
- Status