R
RobGentner
Guest
**Originally Posted by SIA
**
Originally Posted by SIA
Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is. **
- Mary could not be the mother of God. God always was and has no beginning. Mary had a natural birth as a natural human.**
** I am amazed that you would even attempt to explain to SIA. **We are correct in saying “Jesus is God,” right? We could go into more detail and explain that He is the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate as a man, but “Jesus is God” is a true statement by itself, yes?
**
Originally Posted by SIA
Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is. **
Mary is mother of God in the same sense. Of course she is not the origin of the Trinity, nor even of the Son, but she conceived, carried, and gave birth to a man who was truly God. She is mother of the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate, or (as with Jesus above), “mother of God” for short.
That ancient doctrine about Mary has never meant that she is greater than God or the origin of the Trinity. It was defined in order to safeguard the union of the Divine and human in Jesus, by proclaiming that God can truly be said to have been born to a human woman.
St. Thomas was entitled to his opinion at the time, but the judgments of even the most saintly theologian are not held to be infallible.
SIA is using a non-scriptual source to disprove what he wants disproved, but won’t acknowledge it to prove Mary was sinless. How double standard is that? You can’t agrue with this type of individual. He will only attack your reasoning over and over again! There are people who want to learn and they come for that. There are people whow ant to treach and are not catholic teachers but still come to try and do that. Then there are the ones who come to argue.
God was and is Mary’s savior, **for if she was immaculately **conceived it can only have been by His direct action.
Dogma of Faith: SHE WAS !
It’s not as though we’re saying the IC is some great credit to Mary, any more than any of us had anything to do with our own conceptions.AMEN!
Scripture identifies no other children of Mary. Brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned, yes, but we know from the usage of the time that they could have been more distant relatives. Nor are we ever told anything like “And Joseph knew Mary his wife and she brought forth a second child.” That the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus could be children of Mary and Joseph is a **reasonable ** ** I think not! **assumption, but it remains an assumption. The same gospel that names four brothers of the Lord repeats the names of two of them (including the unusual form “Joses”) as sons of a different Mary who was present at the Crucifixion.
By the second century, Mary’s perpetual virginity was already being proclaimed and no one wrote against it for centuries, despite the Scriptural mention of Jesus’ possible siblings. Perhaps they knew something we don’t? Would the students of St. James of Jerusalem so quickly forget, if their teacher had been known to be Mary’s son?
That’s true. Enoch, Elijah, and maaaybe Moses (not directly but by way of Jude’s reference to a non-Scriptural work on Moses’ assumption). On the other hand, Mary was likely alive when much of the New Testament was written, and even when she did die, her Assumption would have been one miracle among many occurring in the early Church, and not one particularly central to the message. Even in the Catholic Church, the Assumption only became the fourth Marian dogma a little over fifty years ago, by popular demand.Or God’s plan???
Only if you have a highly exaggerated idea of “the Mary of the Catholic Church.”
Usagi
******
hat