L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
So what of Jesus?The contradiction would be in scripture that says all have sinned and that there is not one who is good except the Father who is in Heaven. Thats the contradiction.God Bless
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You do not understand the Immaculate Conception. The truth is that Mary was cleansed at her conception, the mechanics of which no one can understand any more than they can understand the mechanics of how the sacrifice of Christ is from before the creation of the world. You do believe that don’t you? (Rev 8:8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.) If that verse is true then who are we to say how God has chosen to apply it to His people (like the Jews, of which Mary was one and who also was the very first believer in Christ even before He was born of her.).
Pax vobiscum,
M
mj330
Guest
“She still had free will if that is what you are asking.”
(I am a PR. who believes in the RC doctrine, BTW). I think that the difference between the PR and the RC doctrine lies in what happened as a result of the fall. The Pr. believe in total depravity of man, which necessarily leads to a sinful life, therefore if Mary was not touched by the stain of Original Sin, then, by Protestant (flawed) logic she would be incapable of sinning. This line of thinking places her on a divine level.
(I am a PR. who believes in the RC doctrine, BTW). I think that the difference between the PR and the RC doctrine lies in what happened as a result of the fall. The Pr. believe in total depravity of man, which necessarily leads to a sinful life, therefore if Mary was not touched by the stain of Original Sin, then, by Protestant (flawed) logic she would be incapable of sinning. This line of thinking places her on a divine level.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
If one is born and commits no sin[exception Jesus] it would make God a liar for no one could keep the law for there is not one who is good . Jesus said it and I believe it. God Bless
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Jesus is God in the Flesh.
God Bless
C
Church_Militant
Guest
But not if this was God’s own doing… The contradiction is when someone fails to interpet the Bible in the context of itself. If the sacrifice of Christ is timeless as the NT says it is then what’s the problem? (other than some folk’s incapacity to believe).The contradiction would be in scripture that says all have sinned and that there is not one who is good except the Father who is in Heaven. Thats the contradiction.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Church Militant:
God Bless
IF is a key word. BUT our God is not a God of confusion. His Word is clear.He does not contradict Himself.
God Bless
V
Veritas
Guest
“Those people” are not delineated, so I don’t know how you can refer to “those people”. Further, we know there are exceptions. Jesus, of course. Children below the age of reason, of course. Paul even refers to exceptions in the same epistle. In Romans 9:11, Jacob and Esau are identified as “having done neither any good or evil” when they were in the womb. So it seems to me that an interpretation of Rm 3:23 that allows for “no exception” is to (a) ignore scriptural evidence to the contrary, and (b) put one’s theology on a very precarious basis of a single sentence in isolation.
You’re mixing apples and oranges and grapefruits here. Rom 9:11 is a scriptural exception to your “no exceptions” interpretation of “all” in Rom 3:11. Furthermore, it seems to me you are confusing “have sinned” (a personal action) with the stain of original sin (roughly, an inherited problem). Aren’t both Rom 3:23 and Rom 9:11 talking about personal action? If so, saying Jacob “wasn’t born without sin” (inherited sin) is off point.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Jesus also said with God ALL things are possible
B
bogeyjlg
Guest
Mary was concieved without sin. However, she still needed to be saved.
Consider this:
A person is walking along a path and trips on a stone and falls in a mud puddle and is now filthy. Along comes One to lift the person out of the puddle and helps clean them up.
That person needed to be saved, right?
Another person is walking along the same path and is about to trip on the same stone when the One tells her to watch out for the stone. She stops and sees the stone and proceeds to go around the puddle without getting dirty.
She needed to be saved, right?
So it is with Mary.
What is sin? Sin is the abscense of grace. When we commit venial sin, we lessen the total grace we can hold within us. When we commit mortal sin we empty our soul of sanctifying grace.
Note the angels greeting: “Hail, full of grace.” If she is full of grace, where is the room for sin?
Mary is not divine. Her being sinless doesn’t make her divine. Unlike Christ who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit and is fully God and fully man, Mary was concieved of man and woman and spared from original sin by the grace of God.
Consider this:
A person is walking along a path and trips on a stone and falls in a mud puddle and is now filthy. Along comes One to lift the person out of the puddle and helps clean them up.
That person needed to be saved, right?
Another person is walking along the same path and is about to trip on the same stone when the One tells her to watch out for the stone. She stops and sees the stone and proceeds to go around the puddle without getting dirty.
She needed to be saved, right?
So it is with Mary.
What is sin? Sin is the abscense of grace. When we commit venial sin, we lessen the total grace we can hold within us. When we commit mortal sin we empty our soul of sanctifying grace.
Note the angels greeting: “Hail, full of grace.” If she is full of grace, where is the room for sin?
Mary is not divine. Her being sinless doesn’t make her divine. Unlike Christ who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit and is fully God and fully man, Mary was concieved of man and woman and spared from original sin by the grace of God.
A
adstrinity
Guest
AND THIS IS SO PERFECT!!! AND YET SOME MAY QUESTION IT!!
:crying: THIS IS IT!!! THIS IS IT ~EXACTLY~!!!
N
neophyte
Guest
In the first section of Romans, Paul is responding to those who would claim that Jews are without sin merely because they are descendants of Abraham and keep the Law. Verse 23 is a direct quote from Psalm 14, in which David is bemoaning his treatment at the hands of Jewish keepers of the Law who are most definitely sinners.
He refers to them as fools: fools say there is no God, fools are corrupt, fools do not seek God, no fool does what is right. Then he contrasts fools with the people of God, the righteous with whom God dwells. So quite clearly neither David nor Paul can have meant here what you think they meant.
The problem in all of this is that you’re leaning on your own understanding, which is not what the Bible tells us to do.
Jesus gave the authority to teach in His name to the Aposostles (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16), with Peter having the preeminent position among them (Matthew 16:17-19), and promised that the Holy Spirit would protect them from ever teaching error (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17-19; Luke 21:33). Jesus further promised that the fruit that the Apostles bore (i.e., the Bishops they appointed and the Church that He built on them(Ephesians 2:19-22)) would remain faithful (John 15:16). The Apostles in turn taught (again, without error) that they had the authority to pass that office on to their successors. Based on the word of Christ, we can know that the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in union with the sucessor to St. Peter, are protected by God from ever teaching false doctrine as being infallibly true and binding on all believers.
The structure is:
- The historical evidence shows that Jesus said the Apostles had the authority to teach in his name, and that they would teach binding and infallible doctrine.
- The historical evidence shows that the Apostles taught that this authority was to be passed on to their successors.
- The historical evidence shows that their successors taught, as binding doctrine, that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
- The historical evidence shows that their successors taught, as binding doctrine, the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Lisa,
Original sin was NOT removed in Mary, it was excluded. Removed means that it was there and then God removed it. That’s not what happened. It was never there to begin with:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
"". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded."
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well said neophyte!
T
tuopaolo
Guest
First as I noted above, original sin was NOT removed from Mary; it was excluded.
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
"". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded."
Second, it is the common teaching in Catholic Tradition that Mary was impeccable, incapable of sinning:
"Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of his human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.
“Concretely this quality may be identified with perseverance in grace as regards grave sin, and confirmation in grace for lesser sins. In either case, however, her incapacity for sin differed radically from that of Christ. Where his was based on the fact that he is a divine person, hers was an added prerogative. It was absolutely necessary that he could not sin, since God is sinless. It was a free gift of God’s mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor.” (pp. 159-160 of The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John A Hardon, SJ)
A
adstrinity
Guest
Could also be Moses & Elijah…or Peter & Paul…we wont know for a while.
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
OK, so this shows by ignorance: I understand that Mary was conceived without sin, but does that preclude that she committed sin after Jesus was born? I re-read the Catholic Answers articles on Mary and on Grace & Salvation, and I read CCC 721-726–I understand that Catholics believe that Mary received and maintained sanctifying grace from the moment of her conception, but as I understand it one does not lose sanctifying grace because of venial sins.
Is it possible that Mary committed occasional venial sin, but sought the forgiveness of God? Christ’s rebuke of Mary at Cana has always struck me as difficult–perhaps Mary expected Christ to perform a miracle soley for the benefit of their friends. This could be seen as a selfish act, though mitigated since it was motivated by love and concern for friends. Did she commit a venial sin here?
But I may be misunderstanding sanctifying grace and sin here???
Is it possible that Mary committed occasional venial sin, but sought the forgiveness of God? Christ’s rebuke of Mary at Cana has always struck me as difficult–perhaps Mary expected Christ to perform a miracle soley for the benefit of their friends. This could be seen as a selfish act, though mitigated since it was motivated by love and concern for friends. Did she commit a venial sin here?
But I may be misunderstanding sanctifying grace and sin here???
T
tuopaolo
Guest
No. Mary was free from all sin including venial sin her whole entire life from conception until her assumption.
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
Vox Borealis:
Nope. God’s act of preserving Mary from the grip of original sin makes her free from the grip of sin period. An enmity is not some mere conflicts that go on and off. An enmity is total enstrangement. Those on enmity do not know each other. Thus, Mary does not know the work of the Father of sin.
“I will put an enmity between you and the woman.”
Nope. God’s act of preserving Mary from the grip of original sin makes her free from the grip of sin period. An enmity is not some mere conflicts that go on and off. An enmity is total enstrangement. Those on enmity do not know each other. Thus, Mary does not know the work of the Father of sin.
M
mj330
Guest
Thanks for clearing it up for me, tuopaolo.
- Status