Immaculate Conception and assumption

[Mannyfit75]

i honestly don’t see a problem with Mary being a sinner having any impact on the purity of Christ. Did not Jesus allow Himself to be in the company of sinners and touched them with His hands?

He was in the company of sinners. But did you noticed this is what he said. “17 Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners…”

He also told a woman. “Go forth and sin no more.”

When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?

He made them clean just as he indeeded. Likewise, in order to come into this world. God had to come to a virgin. A woman, Mary. She had to be sinless because is bear the Son of God.

Did not Jesus also become “sin on our behalf” and become unholy by it?
I think we would agree that these things did not make Him unholy or unclean. Through all this He still was the sinless and holy Son of God untainted by sin.

The point is God demands us to be Holy. Jesus said, be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. I think the idea that Mary was a sinful prior to Jesus Christ birth and thereafter would lessen her to be called Blessed amongst woman. Gabriel in fact told Mary that she is Full of Grace, or Gratia Plena in Latin. Kecharitomene, one who is filled with grace. Mary is also obedient to God’s will. She in fact said, “My soul magnified the greatness of the Lord…My spirit rejoices in God my savior…”

She was a righteous Jewish woman. Always faithful to God even faithful to be with him. She was even there at the foot of the cross with Jesus while the other Apostles left except John left.

 

[justasking4]

There are many footnotes found in bibles, some bibles have no footnotes, some bibles have lots of footnotes…

Everything written regarding scripture passages is not footnoted. So it is not necessary for the typology [foreshadowings of Christ] to be footnoted.

Do you fail to see a foreshadowing of Jesus in Aaron’s levitical priesthood? What of Melchesidek and the offerings of bread and wine? Do you fail to see the foreshadowing? Abraham’s ner offering of Isaac [his only son]? The manna from heaven?

 

[YADA]

Yes

 

[NotWorthy]

You fail to see even the fore shadowing of Jesus in Melchesidek?

Offerings of bead and wine…even the New Testament declares that Jesus is a priest on the order of Melchesidek…

To expand on your point of Melchezidek, did Jesus offer just bread and wine at the Last Supper? No, of course not. That shtick had already been done by the good Melchezidek. No, Jesus would have to do more… that’s why He offered His Body and His Blood. That’s why the words are not symbolic.

 

[Good_Fella]

The problem is that those who want to claim these doctrines are in scripture refuse or ignore this continually. I have yet to see either from you or anyone a exposition of the passages used to demonstrate that it does teach the catholic position. No defense from catholics at all.

Obviously you haven’t been paying attention to Catholics.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[YADA]

To expand on your point of Melchezidek, did Jesus offer just bread and wine at the Last Supper? No, of course not. That shtick had already been done by the good Melchezidek. No, Jesus would have to do more… that’s why He offered His Body and His Blood. That’s why the words are not symbolic.

I would not use the term shtick…and I am not the one here who needs to be instructed on the Eucharist…just4asking states that he fails to recognize the forshadowing of Christ in the Hebrew texts…Jesus in a priest, the bread and wine offering, the manna these are all imperfect offerings that are made perfect in Jesus…the True Manna…

It is sad that the scripture is devoid of meaning for misslollypops, just4asking ad others…the richness of scriptures is a well spring of information and discovery…God’s love letters to us…

 

[LSK]

I also think it is sad that so many of our seperated brothers and sisters fail to realize that because The Holy Mother Church cannonized Holy Scripture in the first place it is her domain to provide interpretation. The richness and fullness of Dei Verbum is continual, just as the richness and fullness of the True Church existed before the cannonization of Holy Scripture. Those who limit their love for Christ to what they refer to as The Bible limit their experience as Christians. We, as Catholics are not children of books, we are children of The Word.

Therefore, as the Church as provided us with an explanation for The Immaculate Conception (Genesis refering to The Woman as having emnity between her and satan, the angel refering to her as ‘full of grace’) so does Sacred Tradition provide us with an explanation as to why she would be assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

 

[bengal_fan]

Hahn is doing exactly the kind of reading into the text wiht the lenses of later traditions that I am talkign about. The basic catholic apologetic of Mary’s sinlessness and continued virginity lies on two items:The forst is anunderstanding of kexaritomena as “Full of Grace”. It is a fairly common word in koine and means favored one, and is often used in a way that we would understand as “lucky” The koine phrase for “full of grace” is actually plara karitos and is used twice, once in reference to Jesus and once to Stephen, and so even the concept of full of grace meaning free from sin has no basis in the biblical text.

The Second is the assertation that Jesus’ siblings, at least six of whom are mentioned in the NT, were not Mary’s kids. Beyond the fact that there is no need for this stretch unless you come to the text with a preconception (hah!) of Mary’s Virginity, there is no evidence at all for it. They are seen treating Mary as their mother, which would be unusual (shockingly so) for stepchildren to do after their father had died, and there is no evidence from the Lukan Narrative regarding other childen or previous marriage.

Also, Matt 1:25 absolutely implies that they had intercourse after Jesus was born.

You say look to other tradition, older than your own. If you read what those fathers complained about and fought for in the forst few centuries after Christ, you will see that they kept having to fight people who invented stuff about Jesus or God in order to change the message fo the Gospel. When you look to extra biblical sources of theat time period, that is what you are going to run into.

any responses to this? i had asked this to read “Hail Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn and here was the response.

 

[Good_Fella]

any responses to this? i had asked this to read “Hail Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn and here was the response.

The Church Fathers also had to contend with heretics who rejected our Marian doctrines. Mary was invoked as Mother of the Church, Mother of God, Mediatrix, the new Eve, ever-Virgin, and sinless by the Church Fathers before the canon of Scripture in A.D. 382. Christians prayed to Mary for her patronage and intercession as early as the first century, so they had believed in her Assumption by then. The frescoes in the Roman catacombs tell us as much about Marian devotion in the early Church as any written document could. And let us keep in mind that our Marian doctrines sprang from Sacred Tradition just as the Bible did. Without Sacred Tradition there would be no Scripture, and Scripture could not be infallible unless Sacred Tradition - the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation - were infallible.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

---

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[bengal_fan]

The Church Fathers also had to contend with heretics who rejected our Marian doctrines. Mary was invoked as Mother of the Church, Mother of God, Mediatrix, the new Eve, ever-Virgin, and sinless by the Church Fathers before the canon of Scripture in A.D. 382. Christians prayed to Mary for her patronage and intercession as early as the first century, so they had believed in her Assumption by then. The frescoes in the Roman catacombs tell us as much about Marian devotion in the early Church as any written document could. And let us keep in mind that our Marian doctrines sprang from Sacred Tradition just as the Bible did. Without Sacred Tradition there would be no Scripture, and Scripture could not be infallible unless Sacred Tradition - the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation - were infallible.

can you give citings for these statements? who said these things and where before 382 a.d.?

 

[guanophore]

i don’t reject all catholic teachings.

This what is so puzzling, ja4. You pick and choose which of the Apostolic Teachings you want to accept, and reject others, when all of them come from the same source. Either the source is flawed, or it is not.

What i reject is the claim that it cannot err or has never erred.

Let’s be clear,shall we? Infallibility is limited to the Teaching of faith and morals. It does not mean the teachers never have personal sin, or that they never make mistakes.

They do shed light though on what knowledgable catholic scholars think though. They do carry weight.

Yes, I am not saying that footnotes and commentaries should not be read. I think the non-canonical early fathers should be read for the same reason. However, your complaint is that the Marian doctrines are not Apostolic teaching. How will the footnotes of a Catholic Bible help with that?

Maybe. However i’m finding that i do have some agreement with what they write. From what i have read they do a better job with the contexts etc than what i have seen here.

Although there may be some scriptural scholarship here, this is not a forum for that. Apologetics is for defending the doctrines of the faith. I don’t think there is any amount of biblical scholarship that can help you in this area, since you reject Sacred Tradition, from which the Bible sprang, and from which the doctrines of the Church sprang.

Do you deny that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, our great high priest, and the Bread of Life?

no

I am glad we are in agreement about something! The contents of the Ark (the 10 commandments, Aaron’s rod, and Manna) to us prefigure Christ.

i can see that as being valid.

This is what we mean when we say we see something implicit in scripture. Like all the Marian doctrines, we look at the identity of Christ, and work back from that. When we see that Christ is the fulfillment of the law, our great high priest, and the Bread of Life, and all these elements of His identity were present in the Ark, we realize that while the OT Ark carried the pre-figures of Christ, Mary carried Him in all His fullness. This is why we think of her as the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[guanophore]

i honestly don’t see a problem with Mary being a sinner having any impact on the purity of Christ. Did not Jesus allow Himself to be in the company of sinners and touched them with His hands?
When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?

I understand what you are saying here. God could have chosen to incarnate Christ in any way He chose. However, he chose to use her body from which to create the Body for the second person of the Trinity. I suppose He could have taken flesh from her flesh even though it was tainted. However, the Church teaches us that this is not how it happened. The Church was fighting heresies, and wanted it to be clear that Jesus was not just plopped into his mother’s womb and “passed through” her, so it was clarified that she conceived Him and He grew in her womb just like all human children grow in the womb. This being the case, her contribution to His form had to be sinless. This doctrine is derived from what we know about Christ.

When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?

I think there is a difference between touching and associating with sinners, and taking flesh into himself from a source tainted by original sin.

Did not Jesus also become “sin on our behalf” and become unholy by it?

No. Jesus became our sin offering, but He did not become unholy by it. This is another Protestant error. I believed this myself for many years until I was properly catechized.

 

[Good_Fella]

can you give citings for these statements? who said these things and where before 382 a.d.?

Marian Dogma #1

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first fruits; Who bore a body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the MOTHER OF GOD in the fullness of time soujourning among the race for the remission of sins; who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of the Godhead.”
Alexander of Alexandria, ‘Epistle to Alexander, 12’ (A.D. 324)

Mary is also invoked as Mother of God by Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘Catechetical Lectures, X:19’ (A.D. 350), Athanasias, ‘Orations lll, 14’ (A.D. 362), Gregory of Nyssa, ‘On Virginity, 14’ (A.D. 370), Epiphanius, ‘The man well-anchored, 75’ (A.D. 374), and Ambrose, ‘Virginity ll:6’ (A.D.378).

Marian Dogma #2:

“Therefore, let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his Essence, deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary EVER-VIRGIN; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which he assumed.”
Athanasius, ‘Orations Against the Arians, ll:70’ (A.D. 362)

Mary is invoked as Ever-Virgin also by Tertullian, ‘On Monogamy, 8’ (A.D. 213), Origen, ‘Commentary on John 1:6’ (A.D. 232), John Chrysostom, ‘Gospel of Matthew, V:5’ (A.D. 370), Gregory of Nyssa, ‘On Virginity, 13’ (A.D. 371), Epiphanius, ‘Well Anchored Man, 120’ (A.D. 374), and Basil, ‘Homily in Sanctum Christi’ (ante A.D. 379).

Marian Dogma # 3

“This virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, IMMACULATE OF THE IMMACULATE, one of the one.”
Origen, ‘Homily 1’ (A.D. 244)

“Thou alone and thy mother in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
Ephraem, ‘Nisibene Hymns, 27:8’ (A.D. 370)

Other Church Fathers who speak of Mary’s Immaculate Conception before A.D. 382 are Hyppolytus, ‘Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me’ (ante A.D. 235), Ephraim, ‘Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23’ (A.D. 370), and Athanasius, ‘Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216’ (ante A.D. 373).

Marian Dogma #4:

There exists documentation that implicitly shows the Church believed in the Assumption of Mary before A.D. 382, in my view, including the documents referring to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The Church believes that Mary was assumed into heaven because she was preserved free from original sin from the moment of her conception, and thus she was spared the “curse of Eve” which entails bodily corruption in the grave. Here is further implicit evidence that the Church Fathers believed in Mary’s Assumption before the canon of Scripture. The early Church regarded Mary as a powerful intercessor, so it could not have been believed that she was entombed, especially when her tomb in the valley of Josaphat was empty (and still is):

“If the holy virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her did light come into the world.”
Epiphanius, ‘Panarion, 78:23’ (A.D. 377)

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying His Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve (the New Eve). As the human race was subjected to death through a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies’, V:19, 1 (A.D. 180)

Irenaeus may not have believed that the New Eve would suffer the same fate as the former Eve, since Mary was viewed as saving us from death by her perfect obedience to God’s will, undoing what Eve brought to mankind by her disobedience. (There is the empty tomb.)

“With the Mediator you are the MEDIATRIX OF THE WORLD.”
Ephraem (A.D. 373)

Not unless she were alive body and soul in heaven together with her divine Son.

“Recalling these and other circumstances and IMPLORING THE VIRGIN MARY TO BRING ASSISTANCE, since she too was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to fasting and sleeping on the ground.”
Gregory of Nazianzen, ‘Oration, 24:11’ (A.D. 379)

Catholics do not implore who they believe are dead! :nope:

“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in our necessity, but deliver us from danger, O you alone pure and alone blessed.”
‘Sub tuum Praesidium’ (c. A.D. 250) (An extant Marian prayer)

The Catholic Church was the Early Church! :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Obviously you haven’t been paying attention to Catholics.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

The problem is i have.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i honestly don’t see a problem with Mary being a sinner having any impact on the purity of Christ. Did not Jesus allow Himself to be in the company of sinners and touched them with His hands?
When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?
guanophore
I understand what you are saying here. God could have chosen to incarnate Christ in any way He chose. However, he chose to use her body from which to create the Body for the second person of the Trinity. I suppose He could have taken flesh from her flesh even though it was tainted. However, the Church teaches us that this is not how it happened. The Church was fighting heresies, and wanted it to be clear that Jesus was not just plopped into his mother’s womb and “passed through” her, so it was clarified that she conceived Him and He grew in her womb just like all human children grow in the womb. This being the case, her contribution to His form had to be sinless. This doctrine is derived from what we know about Christ.

Do you believe then that sin has some physical properties in a human body?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When He did so, did it make Him unclean and unholy?
guanophore
I think there is a difference between touching and associating with sinners, and taking flesh into himself from a source tainted by original sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did not Jesus also become “sin on our behalf” and become unholy by it?
guanophore
No. Jesus became our sin offering, but He did not become unholy by it. This is another Protestant error. I believed this myself for many years until I was properly catechized.

How do you interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21?

 

[NotWorthy]

I would not use the term shtick…and I am not the one here who needs to be instructed on the Eucharist…just4asking states that he fails to recognize the forshadowing of Christ in the Hebrew texts…Jesus in a priest, the bread and wine offering, the manna these are all imperfect offerings that are made perfect in Jesus…the True Manna…

It is sad that the scripture is devoid of meaning for misslollypops, just4asking ad others…the richness of scriptures is a well spring of information and discovery…God’s love letters to us…

Sometimes our points aren’t just for the person “quoted”. Sometimes they are for everyone else that is also reading. “Shtick” doesn’t seem to be inappropriate, especially when I’m claiming that Jesus is doing much more than that.

But that’s beside the point. I hope I didn’t offend, for I don’t like doing that shtick!

 

[YADA]

Sometimes our points aren’t just for the person “quoted”. Sometimes they are for everyone else that is also reading. “Shtick” doesn’t seem to be inappropriate, especially when I’m claiming that Jesus is doing much more than that.

But that’s beside the point. I hope I didn’t offend, for I don’t like doing that shtick!

I understand, I thought that you believed I did not understand the Eucharist…

I was not offended - just wanted you to understand that I “get it”

Sometimes it is hard to write accurately and concisely in these posts…I try to always accurately portray authentic catholic faith/belief…it is hard not to use the ‘short cuts’ of language…and other faux paux [sp?]

 

[guanophore]

The problem is i have.

I have a rapid and ready solution for that, ja4. STOP! Don’t listen to Catholics anymore! resign from the forum, and don’t come back again. This will immediately solve this problem. Surely by now your realize that we are intractibly attached to our unscriptural “speculations of men” and that you will not be able to change our minds?

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe then that sin has some physical properties in a human body?

Yes. At the least, physical death.

How do you interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21?

2 Cor 5:21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I am sure this is a mystery beyond me, but I know now that I was erroneously instructed that God turned His back on Jesus, and that “why have you forsaken me” did not mean that Jesus was somehow separated from His Divine Nature.

 

[bengal_fan]

Marian Dogma #1…

Marian Dogma #2…

Marian Dogma # 3…

Marian Dogma #4…

Good Fella,
thanks