If Mary was born without original sin, why then did Jesus say?

[johnshelby]

MrS:

If concupicence - the tendacy to sin - is part of mankind… and it appears that both had the tendacy to sin (or else they would not have),

perhaps they did have a “form” or original sin.

just thoughts prompted by your response…

immaculate conception does not eliminate the
susceptibility to sin… it simply means someone
was born or created without the stain of sin, not that
they remained sinless the rest of their lives… that is
two different issues…

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

MrS:

curious… why are you no longer Catholic. Giver has not said, but perhaps you will share with us…

Since you asked: I don’t believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (and actually never did). I don’t remember anyone ever teaching about it or explaining it when I was going to CCD. When I looked more closely into the evidence offered for this dogma by the RCC I found it to be unconvincing.

And once I found that I must assent to this teaching as it was defined as infallible to be held by all of the faithful, the conclusion of no longer being “Roman Catholic” became obvious. I also find the doctrine of Infallibility to be troublesome, but that’s another subject.

Perhaps I never received proper Catechesis. From some of the posts I have read on this site, that seems to be a common lament. I was raised Catholic, but there always seemed to be something lacking. Reading the Bible was not a regular part of my religious education growing up, we never read the Catechism, and no one in my family (or virtually anyone else that I knew) said the Rosary, actually I consider my experience as a Catholic to be very common (at least among the Catholics that I know). We always went to Mass but I hardly ever had the impression that it was anything more than ‘worship by rote’. Not trying to offend, but only relay my own experience.

I guess you could call me a Collapsed Catholic, but a born again Christian. I don’t doubt that there are Catholics that are saved. And I don’t read Jack Chick. I try to take in all the evidence that I can regarding the different positions between Protestants and Catholics.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[MrS]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since you asked: I don’t believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (and actually never did). I don’t remember anyone ever teaching about it or explaining it when I was going to CCD. When I looked more closely into the evidence offered for this dogma by the RCC I found it to be unconvincing.

And once I found that I must assent to this teaching as it was defined as infallible to be held by all of the faithful, the conclusion of no longer being “Roman Catholic” became obvious. I also find the doctrine of Infallibility to be troublesome, but that’s another subject.

Perhaps I never received proper Catechesis. From some of the posts I have read on this site, that seems to be a common lament. I was raised Catholic, but there always seemed to be something lacking. Reading the Bible was not a regular part of my religious education growing up, we never read the Catechism, and no one in my family (or virtually anyone else that I knew) said the Rosary, actually I consider my experience as a Catholic to be very common (at least among the Catholics that I know). We always went to Mass but I hardly ever had the impression that it was anything more than ‘worship by rote’. Not trying to offend, but only relay my own experience.

I guess you could call me a Collapsed Catholic, but a born again Christian. I don’t doubt that there are Catholics that are saved. And I don’t read Jack Chick. I try to take in all the evidence that I can regarding the different positions between Protestants and Catholics.

Peace to you,
Richard

Your post struck me two ways…
1} extremely honest… thank you
2} extremely common… we have our work cut out for us… “…but the laborers are few”

 

[thistle]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since you asked: I don’t believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (and actually never did). I don’t remember anyone ever teaching about it or explaining it when I was going to CCD. When I looked more closely into the evidence offered for this dogma by the RCC I found it to be unconvincing.

And once I found that I must assent to this teaching as it was defined as infallible to be held by all of the faithful, the conclusion of no longer being “Roman Catholic” became obvious. I also find the doctrine of Infallibility to be troublesome, but that’s another subject.

Perhaps I never received proper Catechesis. From some of the posts I have read on this site, that seems to be a common lament. I was raised Catholic, but there always seemed to be something lacking. Reading the Bible was not a regular part of my religious education growing up, we never read the Catechism, and no one in my family (or virtually anyone else that I knew) said the Rosary, actually I consider my experience as a Catholic to be very common (at least among the Catholics that I know). We always went to Mass but I hardly ever had the impression that it was anything more than ‘worship by rote’. Not trying to offend, but only relay my own experience.

I guess you could call me a Collapsed Catholic, but a born again Christian. I don’t doubt that there are Catholics that are saved. And I don’t read Jack Chick. I try to take in all the evidence that I can regarding the different positions between Protestants and Catholics.

Peace to you,
Richard

On earth Jesus raised people from the dead. Once in Heaven why is so hard to believe he wouldn’t do more for his mother and take her up body and soul to be with him?

CCC 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

 

[Giver]

javelin:

I think this is wrong, but these are my own thoughts and may be wrong, too.

Adam and Eve were not born with Original Sin, as their actual sin was was started Original Sin.

AFAIK, they were also free from concupicence, which I believe is more than just “the tendency to sin”. Concupicence may be a result of Original Sin, not the cause. The sin of Adam and Eve removed from them the Sanctifying Grace which God had blessed them with from birth. Because of that sin, all their descendants were not able to receive that Grace through propagation, as God had initially desired. Lost, also, was the freedom from concupiscence that God had blessed them with. Concupiscence is defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as:
We can see from the Genesis account that a change came in Adam and Eve after the Fall – namely, their desire to hide themselves because they were naked. So although the sexual appetite is probably the most powerful of the lower appetites, Adam and Eve did not seem influenced by it until after the fall. It can be concluded, then, that they were free of concupiscence prior to the fall, but not afterwards. Since it appears to be an aspect of human nature (even Jesus was tempted by Satan using food - a base appetite), I think God must have specifically given Adam and Eve the gift of freedom from concupiscence, which they lost when they fell from Grace.

I’m certainly willing to entertain others’ thoughts on this, though. I am no expert…

Peace,
javelin

According to Scripture, Adam & Eve were not born they were created.

 

[MrS]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since you asked: I don’t believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (and actually never did). I don’t remember anyone ever teaching about it or explaining it when I was going to CCD. When I looked more closely into the evidence offered for this dogma by the RCC I found it to be unconvincing.

I often wondered at this special grace too. But when I realized that Truth and Reason go hand in hand… and that if I could only believe that which I could prove… I was headed for trouble.

Upon “revisiting” the Assumption, I had to apply reason:
1] Mary was born without original sin
2] Death, decay, concupisence etc are products of original sin
3] the doctrine states “…at the end of her earthly life”
4] the early Church’s reverence/protection of the the remains of the martyres/saints … yet nothing for the Mother of their Lord
5] the description in Revelation of the Women clothed with sun
6] she was set apart… all generations will call her Blessed
7] the scriptures the Transfiguration… dead saints in their earthly bodies.

anyway… nothing was unreasonable, that is, outside of the power of God. So I accept the Assumption as both reasonable and True. If the Church gets it right on all the other issues… I will “give-them-the benefit-of-any-doubt” ( :yup: ) on Mary.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

thistle:

On earth Jesus raised people from the dead. Once in Heaven why is so hard to believe he wouldn’t do more for his mother and take her up body and soul to be with him?

CCC 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

Why stop with Mary?
Didn’t Jesus love St. Joseph too?
What about His brothers and sisters (or cousins, if you like)?

The question is not what Jesus could, would, or should do, but what He did do and has done.

The Catechism is not evidence, it is the conclusion of the RCC after having looked at the evidence. I have also looked at the evidence and am unconvinced.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Giver:

According to Scripture, Adam & Eve were not born they were created.

Exactly

 

[javelin]

Giver:

According to Scripture, Adam & Eve were not born they were created.

Quite true. My bad. Does that impact this discussion?

Is that your only reaction to all the posts here in response to your original question?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

MrS:

I often wondered at this special grace too. But when I realized that Truth and Reason go hand in hand… and that if I could only believe that which I could prove… I was headed for trouble.

Upon “revisiting” the Assumption, I had to apply reason:
1] Mary was born without original sin
2] Death, decay, concupisence etc are products of original sin
3] the doctrine states “…at the end of her earthly life”
4] the early Church’s reverence/protection of the the remains of the martyres/saints … yet nothing for the Mother of their Lord
5] the description in Revelation of the Women clothed with sun
6] she was set apart… all generations will call her Blessed
7] the scriptures the Transfiguration… dead saints in their earthly bodies.

anyway… nothing was unreasonable, that is, outside of the power of God. So I accept the Assumption as both reasonable and True. If the Church gets it right on all the other issues… I will “give-them-the benefit-of-any-doubt” ( :yup: ) on Mary.

I’m not inclined to grant your first premise (#1).
No problem with #2.
#5 - not sure what you mean - valid interpretations the woman in Rev. 12 also include the Church and Israel.
#6 - while true, does not lead necessarily to Bodily Assumption.

“If the Church gets it right on all the other issues…”
Again, not convinced of premise.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[javelin]

Della:

John the Baptist wasn’t immaculately conceived but he was born without the stain of original sin on his soul, which is what the Scripture verses cited in your post mean. The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays: Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist because Jesus, being of divine origin cannot have original sin on his soul, Mary, having been immaculately conceived was born without sin, and John the Baptist, who did not have the stain of original sin although he was not immaculately conceived.

Ok, I missed something fairly significant along the way, then. What is the difference between “immaculately conceived” and “born without the stain of Original Sin”?

Peace,
javelin

 

[thistle]

Richard_Hurtz:

Why stop with Mary?
Didn’t Jesus love St. Joseph too?
What about His brothers and sisters (or cousins, if you like)?

The question is not what Jesus could, would, or should do, but what He did do and has done.

The Catechism is not evidence, it is the conclusion of the RCC after having looked at the evidence. I have also looked at the evidence and am unconvinced.

Blessings,
Richard

I think I place more credibility in the Church for interpreting scripture and apostolic tradition than a lapsed catholic.
By the way there is no such thing as a born again Christian. Once you are baptised in Christ that is when you are born again in Christ. You can’t be born again born again!!

 

[johnshelby]

javelin:

Ok, I missed something fairly significant along the way, then. What is the difference between “immaculately conceived” and “born without the stain of Original Sin”?

Peace,
javelin

you are right… they are the same…

 

[MrS]

thistle:

I think I place more credibility in the Church for interpreting scripture and apostolic tradition than a lapsed catholic.
By the way there is no such thing as a born again Christian. Once you are baptised in Christ that is when you are born again in Christ. You can’t be born again born again!!

kinda like telling Christ He didn’t do it right the first time huh?

actually many of the B/A Christians do not accept Baptism as a sacrament… only an ordinance, so they really are not knowingly insulting the Lord.

but that would lead to another thread on why they can’t do anything for the Lord, in grace, until they accept the Lord… they need to to something “on their own” power first… hence ordinance, not sacrament…

As for Mary… had She been born with original sin, the Jews would have recourse to say that Jesus too must have inheirited original sin from His Mother. He did not, because it was not there to inherit.

 

[Eireann]

MrS:

wow… first the priesthood, and now Mary.

I wish you had a copy of the Catechism so you could read what the True Church teaches on these subjects.

No excuses------- Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[bones_IV]

Richard_Hurtz:

Why stop with Mary?
Didn’t Jesus love St. Joseph too?
What about His brothers and sisters (or cousins, if you like)?

The question is not what Jesus could, would, or should do, but what He did do and has done.

The Catechism is not evidence, it is the conclusion of the RCC after having looked at the evidence. I have also looked at the evidence and am unconvinced.

Blessings,
Richard

Try Revelations 12.

 

[MrS]

Eireann:

No excuses------- Catechism of the Catholic Church

good…,.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

thistle:

I think I place more credibility in the Church for interpreting scripture and apostolic tradition than a lapsed catholic.

I think you do, too.

thistle:

By the way there is no such thing as a born again Christian. Once you are baptised in Christ that is when you are born again in Christ. You can’t be born again born again!!

I agree. We’re born again once.

Peace,
Richard

 

[javelin]

javelin:

Della:

John the Baptist wasn’t immaculately conceived but he was born without the stain of original sin on his soul, which is what the Scripture verses cited in your post mean. The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays: Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist because Jesus, being of divine origin cannot have original sin on his soul, Mary, having been immaculately conceived was born without sin, and John the Baptist, who did not have the stain of original sin although he was not immaculately conceived.

Ok, I missed something fairly significant along the way, then. What is the difference between “immaculately conceived” and “born without the stain of Original Sin”?

Peace,
javelin

Oh, wait – a little slow upstairs in the morning. I think I got it now:

“Immaculately Conceived” = preserved from Original Sin from the moment of conception

“Born without Original Sin” = Cleansed from Original Sin in the womb sometime prior to birth, but after conception.

Still, the difference here does not bear on the discussion, since Jesus specifically said “born of a woman”, at which point both John the Baptist and Mary were in the state of Sanctifying Grace.

It does impact my original description, however, so thank you. John was not immaculately conceived.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

MrS:

As for Mary… had She been born with original sin, the Jews would have recourse to say that Jesus too must have inheirited original sin from His Mother.

Someone in another thread had said they looked high and low and could not find the doctrine of Original Sin in Jewish Law or writings. They believed it to be a novel Christian doctrine. I don’t know.

If that is the case, then the Jews wouldn’t have had anything negative to say about it either way.

Do you know for a fact that the Jews believed in Original Sin? Do you have documentation that I could see?

Thanks.

Peace,
javelin