Mary did not have sin

[AmateurPianist]

History and the Bible say so, not I. However, the Church does not claim that it is the sole possessor of the truth and never did. That is an assumption non-Catholics make who don’t know better–not meaning that in a pejorative sense.

And so you say

that the organization that calls itself Catholic is the sole legitimate heir of the apostolic church that calls itself Catholic.

I am sort of waiting for proof that this is what God has revealed. If I went on folk’s say so, i could just as easily be a Mormon.

And this sort of begs the question on clarity of history and clarity of the Bible. As you know “the Bible says so” is dependent upon a certain unique interpretation of Matthew 16 amongst other passages. I certainly can find commentaries by very learned people that disagree. And as far as “history say so”…there are people very learned in history that post here that disagree.

The Church’s infallibility has nothing to do with the fallibility of its members. It’s infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit.

Again that is your claim. Since I don’t like taking people’s say so, am sort of waiting for proof this is what God has revealed.

Funny that you trust the Bible, then. If it is the word of God then it must be trusted, if not, no. Of course, the Bible doesn’t speak for itself it needs an infallible interpreter, which is what the Church is. Why? Because it was given that authority by Christ.

Again, this is your opinion that an infallible interpreter is needed … and that this infallible interpreter just happens to be the same organization to which you belong.

No. It’s organization ‘A’ writing and compiling its own witness and words which is entity ‘B’.

Organizations are inanimate and thus not able to write and compile. People do that.

It does because entity ‘A’ are persons and entity ‘B’ is an object. Authority does not lie in objects but in people. It’s why, although the USA has a constitution, it also has a supreme court which interprets it.

In this case entity ‘B’ is the written word of God. Are you claiming the written word of God has no authority in and of itself? If so, I respectfully disagree.

We have enough time and energy when the questions are so very important, yes?

True…but then you have the issue on whether an anonymous forum over the internet is really the right venue. Just thinking.

Deduce when the Church can speak with authority on matters of faith and morals and when it can’t and you’ll have answered your question.

Rather than rely on my own skills of deduction, I would rather look for what God has specifically revealed to man and what he has not.

Because Christ founded his Church, not churches,

That sound nice, but does not answer the question on whether this one church that Christ founded can exist in more than one organization. So I am looking for where God has revealed that it can not.

and prayed that we all be one. Whatever Christ wants, Christ gets.

That is an interesting concept…but (reality check) if you look at the history of the church and how it has behaved, you are forced to conclude (1) there are cases where man can exert free will and this thwart (at least for a time) Jesus from getting what he wants…or (2) Jesus doesn’t really care how the church behaves. Since I don’t believe #2, I am forced to believe #1…that our free will can at least for a period of time thwart Jesus from receiving what He wants. Now…we are not at the end of the age…so I do not discount the possibility of Jesus doing something at some point to unite all the organizations that we see today…if indeed organizational unity is what this passage is talking about.

But we do see the gifts in the Catholic Church. You simply haven’t been reading the right periodicals.

Really. Give me the names of somebody that can heal by command with 100% accuracy as the apostles did and I will research it out. Always willing to learn something you know.

As I stated before, the Bible is not a prooftext, but a witness. Witnesses don’t prove anything, they only testify to what they observe/know. The NT is not the sum of what we know about the early Church and its organization. We have the Church Fathers for that. You should read them.

Either the Bible is the written word of God or it is not. The church fathers, while nice, do not claim their writings to be the word of God.

Edwin is very knowledgeable, but he’s not the Holy Spirit nor did Christ give him any authority to speak for him (or me or you, either for that matter).

I just cited him to illustrate that people disagree with respect to history (as well as interpretation of the Bible). Which leads me to a dilemma that I see. If you want to claim that the Bible is not clear on the basis of multiple competing credible interpretations that exist concerning it, that is fine and to some extent I believe it. But then you can’t turn around and then say that (the church of Jesus Christ must exist in one and only one organization) is proved by your favorite prooftext du jour (Matthew 16) particularly when folks of good will disagree as to the interpretation of this one passage.

And you can not turn around and say that history is clear and proves your point when historians no more agree about history than Bible scholars agree about the interpretation of the Bible.

But all of this is sort of unrelated to the topic of this thread.

 

[Nicea325]

I am sort of waiting for proof that this is what God has revealed. If I went on folk’s say so, i could just as easily be a Mormon

.

Proof? Then give us the church Christ founded 2,000 years ago,if it is not the Catholic Church? I have plenty of proof it is not the church you attend or any Protestant church.

And this sort of begs the question on clarity of history and clarity of the Bible. As you know “the Bible says so” is dependent upon a certain unique interpretation of Matthew 16 amongst other passages. I certainly can find commentaries by very learned people that disagree. And as far as “history say so”…there are people very learned in history that post here that disagree.

What people? People living 2,000 years separated from Christ? What did the early church say and teach?

Again that is your claim. Since I don’t like taking people’s say so, am sort of waiting for proof this is what God has revealed.

Nope! It is not his/her claim,but the claim of Christ. Proof? You sure ask for a lot of proof and yet you provide none yourself. Show us where Christ left a fallible church,hence capable of giving us infallibe doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation?

Again, this is your opinion that an infallible interpreter is needed … and that this infallible interpreter just happens to be the same organization to which you belong.

And yet you provide your own opinion. Where did Christ give everyone the authority to interpret scripture with absolute certitude?

Organizations are inanimate and thus not able to write and compile. People do that.

The church Christ founded is inanimate? Perhaps the man-made church you attend is,but not the church Christ founded. Exactly! Those people who were guided by the Holy Spirit gave us the oral and written truth about God.

In this case entity ‘B’ is the written word of God. Are you claiming the written word of God has no authority in and of itself? If so, I respectfully disagree.

And the Word of God is not restricted solely to written words. Christ Church also has authority evidently because it is the authority which canonized the Bible. Did the Bible canonize itself or did God guide His church to do that function?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
Deduce when the Church can speak with authority on matters of faith and morals and when it can’t and you’ll have answered your question.

Rather than rely on my own skills of deduction, I would rather look for what God has specifically revealed to man and what he has not.

And why would God deny His church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
Because Christ founded his Church, not churches,

That sound nice, but does not answer the question on whether this one church that Christ founded can exist in more than one organization. So I am looking for where God has revealed that it can not.

And we Catholics are also looking for where God revealed thousands of different denominations teaching conflicting things,yet still claim the HS guides them into all truth? I did not know the HS is teaching different doctrines to every Joe and Jane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
But we do see the gifts in the Catholic Church. You simply haven’t been reading the right periodicals.

Really. Give me the names of somebody that can heal by command with 100% accuracy as the apostles did and I will research it out. Always willing to learn something you know.

Wow! You mean NO ONE has healed anyone since the Apostles?

Either the Bible is the written word of God or it is not. The church fathers, while nice, do not claim their writings to be the word of God.

And they never make such claims,but they sure lived a lot closer to the Apostles, then the founders of thousands of different churches.

I just cited him to illustrate that people disagree with respect to history (as well as interpretation of the Bible). Which leads me to a dilemma that I see. If you want to claim that the Bible is not clear on the basis of multiple competing credible interpretations that exist concerning it, that is fine and to some extent I believe it. But then you can’t turn around and then say that (the church of Jesus Christ must exist in one and only one organization) is proved by your favorite prooftext du jour (Matthew 16) particularly when folks of good will disagree as to the interpretation of this one passage.

And would you apply your own argument about other passages used against heretics to define doctrines (i.e., Trinity,Incarnation,etc). Either God teaches the TRUTH or versions of it. Did the church fathers ‘proof-text’ passages in order to gives us those doctrines? You cannot pick and choose what suits your own agenda.

And you can not turn around and say that history is clear and proves your point when historians no more agree about history than Bible scholars agree about the interpretation of the Bible.

And the scores of interpretations became a much bigger issue with the Protestant Reformation and every Joe and Jane who believes he or she is a theologian.

 

[Della]

And so you say

I am sort of waiting for proof that this is what God has revealed. If I went on folk’s say so, i could just as easily be a Mormon.

And this sort of begs the question on clarity of history and clarity of the Bible. As you know “the Bible says so” is dependent upon a certain unique interpretation of Matthew 16 amongst other passages. I certainly can find commentaries by very learned people that disagree. And as far as “history say so”…there are people very learned in history that post here that disagree.

Again that is your claim. Since I don’t like taking people’s say so, am sort of waiting for proof this is what God has revealed.

Again, this is your opinion that an infallible interpreter is needed … and that this infallible interpreter just happens to be the same organization to which you belong.

Organizations are inanimate and thus not able to write and compile. People do that.

In this case entity ‘B’ is the written word of God. Are you claiming the written word of God has no authority in and of itself? If so, I respectfully disagree.

True…but then you have the issue on whether an anonymous forum over the internet is really the right venue. Just thinking.

Rather than rely on my own skills of deduction, I would rather look for what God has specifically revealed to man and what he has not.

That sound nice, but does not answer the question on whether this one church that Christ founded can exist in more than one organization. So I am looking for where God has revealed that it can not.

That is an interesting concept…but (reality check) if you look at the history of the church and how it has behaved, you are forced to conclude (1) there are cases where man can exert free will and this thwart (at least for a time) Jesus from getting what he wants…or (2) Jesus doesn’t really care how the church behaves. Since I don’t believe #2, I am forced to believe #1…that our free will can at least for a period of time thwart Jesus from receiving what He wants. Now…we are not at the end of the age…so I do not discount the possibility of Jesus doing something at some point to unite all the organizations that we see today…if indeed organizational unity is what this passage is talking about.

Really. Give me the names of somebody that can heal by command with 100% accuracy as the apostles did and I will research it out. Always willing to learn something you know.

Either the Bible is the written word of God or it is not. The church fathers, while nice, do not claim their writings to be the word of God.

I just cited him to illustrate that people disagree with respect to history (as well as interpretation of the Bible). Which leads me to a dilemma that I see. If you want to claim that the Bible is not clear on the basis of multiple competing credible interpretations that exist concerning it, that is fine and to some extent I believe it. But then you can’t turn around and then say that (the church of Jesus Christ must exist in one and only one organization) is proved by your favorite prooftext du jour (Matthew 16) particularly when folks of good will disagree as to the interpretation of this one passage.

And you can not turn around and say that history is clear and proves your point when historians no more agree about history than Bible scholars agree about the interpretation of the Bible.

But all of this is sort of unrelated to the topic of this thread.

I would never ask anyone to take my word alone for anything–I’m not that smart nor authoritative and cannot/would not claim to be. I have not asked you to do so.

I am also well aware there are differing interpretations about everything in the world, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be any right interpretation. Men will say whatever they please to believe whatever they please. I am saying that the Church’s claims about its authority isn’t confined to the Bible, but can be discerned by anyone who wishes by simply looking at the facts, not interpretations or opinions.

And it’s relevant to the topic because authority and who has it matters. It’s the very crux of the matters. All pronouncements about Mary or any other doctrine/dogma hinge on the Church’s authority. If you cannot/will not accept the Church authority because you will not/cannot trust anything that anyone says as definitive then you’ll never resolve it. I chose to believe the Church because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being true. I came to that conclusion after wrestling over these very questions. If you do not care to do that or you feel you already have the answers, then nothing I can say will make any difference. I’ve told you what I know and shared my witness. I cannot convince you nor is that my job. All I know is buzzing around the issue of authority will get you nowhere. You have to settle one place or the other or believe that Jesus never founded a Church, never gave us anything to go on except our own lights, and had no plan for humankind, and I cannot accept any of those possibilities.

 

[AmateurPianist]

All pronouncements about Mary or any other doctrine/dogma hinge on the Church’s authority.

Actually in my mind it hinges on the question on whether God has revealed that the church must exist in one and only one organization and that God has revealed what that organization is (as I said here). If the answer to this is affirmative, then the authority issue sort of follows.

The key phrase being what has God revealed to mankind.

If you cannot/will not accept the Church authority because you will not/cannot trust anything that anyone says as definitive then you’ll never resolve it. I chose to believe the Church because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being true. I came to that conclusion after wrestling over these very questions. If you do not care to do that or you feel you already have the answers, then nothing I can say will make any difference. I’ve told you what I know and shared my witness. I cannot convince you nor is that my job. All I know is buzzing around the issue of authority will get you nowhere.

Actually all that I am doing is obeying the Scripture in my Sig. God’s word is specific that I am not to take anything just on somebody’s say so. Otherwise I could easily become a Mormon. So I have to ask the question when anything new (to me) is proposed as to what God has specifically revealed because everything else in the end is just opinion.

You have to settle one place or the other or believe that Jesus never founded a Church, never gave us anything to go on except our own lights, and had no plan for humankind, and I cannot accept any of those possibilities.

Now I can think of a few more logical possibilities here.

 

[Dokimas]

Are there any exceptions to the word ‘All’?
What about Jesus Christ? Did He in His humanity ever sin?
What about babies and those with a mental retardation who have no reasoning power? Have they sinned? Have children below the age of reason sinned? Have comatose and senile people sinned? As you can see, there are exceptions.

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, “Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord”.

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb”.

Do these verses sound as if Zachary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist have sinned?

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since I have shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD?Are there any exceptions to the word ‘All’?
What about Jesus Christ? Did He in His humanity ever sin?
What about babies and those with a mental retardation who have no reasoning power? Have they sinned? Have children below the age of reason sinned? Have comatose and senile people sinned? As you can see, there are exceptions.

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, “Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord”.

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb”.

Do these verses sound as if Zachary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist have sinned?

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since I have shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD? CATHLOIC TREASER CHEST

Ac 13:22 "And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’

Pulling verses out I found this one. Does this tell us David did not sin? Does this tell us everything David did was in the will of God?

 

[Dokimas]

This is the whole problem with quoting Romans 3:23 out of context: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5181478. St. Paul is discussing the differences between the Jewish and Gentile believer and stating the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile because both groups are sinners. He never meant to comment on the sinlessness of Mary or Jesus or anyone else in particular. He was speaking in general terms on another topic altogether.

There is only One Human that the Bible says had no sin, that was the God/Man Jesus. That Romans 3 verse does not include Jesus because it says that sinners fall short of the glory of God; Jesus is the glory of God so it could NOT refer to Him. IMO, it does refer to every other adult that has their ‘faculties’.

 

[Dokimas]

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Infallible declaration on the immaculate conception of Mary.

Mary did not need to be sinless to bear Jesus. The Bible says Jesus lives in us. I can’t speak for you, but I still fail (sin).

 

[Dokimas]

It seems to me that if this is being put forth as dogma that must be believed, that the burden of proof rests on those putting this forth as dogma as to where God has definitely revealed this as truth.

Until then, I will continue to believe that this is a nice little story, but in the end probably another Christian urban legend.

There’s three things about Mary that you seem to be putting together. The OP is about Mary not sinning. The other two are the virgin conception and birth of Jesus from Mary and Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The only one I believe is the one stated in the Bible: is the virgin conception and birth of Jesus from the womb of Mary.

 

[Nicea325]

There is only One Human that the Bible says had no sin, that was the God/Man Jesus. That Romans 3 verse does not include Jesus because it says that sinners fall short of the glory of God; Jesus is the glory of God so it could NOT refer to Him. IMO, it does refer to every other adult that has their ‘faculties’.

So God is not capable of sparing Mary from original sin? I cannot believe at the amounts of limits so many place on God without even seeing it.

 

[LionHeart777]

Pehaps a discussion on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant would be fruitful? I believe it is relevent to the conversation.

 

[Dokimas]

So God is not capable of sparing Mary from original sin? I cannot believe at the amounts of limits so many place on God without even seeing it.

My dear Nicea, you are reading into what I said something not there. I did NOT say God could not spare Mary from original sin. I said He did not NEED to nor, IMO, need to have her sinless. She is not the ark, that too, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Pehaps a discussion on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant would be fruitful? I believe it is relevent to the conversation.

It is only relevant if it’s true. IMO, I doubt it. The whole of the Tabernacle represented Jesus, IMO. Therefore, Jesus, alone had to be sinless.

 

[Nicea325]

My dear Nicea, you are reading into what I said something not there. I did NOT say God could not spare Mary from original sin. I said He did not NEED to nor, IMO, need to have her sinless. She is not the ark, that too, IMO.

He did not need to not IMO need to have her sinless? Says who? You? Advocates of Mary having original sin? No offense,but who are you to determine or know what God NEEDS to do or NOT do? God is perfect,so why is it so difficult to comprehend God’s vessel (Mary the new ark) needed to be perfect as well.

 

[Nicea325]

It is only relevant if it’s true. IMO, I doubt it. The whole of the Tabernacle represented Jesus, IMO. Therefore, Jesus, alone had to be sinless.

But oh it is very relevant to the discussion. God who is perfect wanted a sinner to carry and conceive His perfect Son? Now that is hard to believe,simply because man’s own pride prevents him or her from accepting God’s plan.

 

[Dokimas]

He did not need to not IMO need to have her sinless? Says who? You? Advocates of Mary having original sin? No offense,but who are you to determine or know what God NEEDS to do or NOT do? God is perfect,so why is it so difficult to comprehend God’s vessel (Mary the new ark) needed to be perfect as well.

I’m a nobody.

What makes YOU say God needed Mary to be sinless?

 

[Dokimas]

But oh it is very relevant to the discussion. God who is perfect wanted a sinner to carry and conceive His perfect Son? Now that is hard to believe,simply because man’s own pride prevents him or her from accepting God’s plan.

What???

 

[AmateurPianist]

No offense,but who are you to determine or know what God NEEDS to do or NOT do? God is perfect,so why is it so difficult to comprehend God’s vessel (Mary the new ark) needed to be perfect as well.

Is it just me, or are these two sentences

No offense,but who are you to determine or know what God NEEDS to do or NOT do?

and

God is perfect,so why is it so difficult to comprehend God’s vessel (Mary the new ark) needed to be perfect as well.

really contradictory.

 

[Dokimas]

Is it just me, or are these two sentences

and

really contradictory.

Sorry to say I didn’t read it carefully the first two times I read it. However, now that you mention it, I think you may have a point. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m a nobody.

What makes YOU say God needed Mary to be sinless?

I did not say it or declare it…did I? Read early church history. And why would God need a sinner to conceive His perfect Son?

 

[Nicea325]

Is it just me, or are these two sentences

and

really contradictory.

Contradictory? To you it might be. Now want to see what really is contradictory:

God = PERFECT
Jesus = PERFECT

Yet God had a SINNER conceive PERFECTION?

Is it me or is that belief ABSURD and contradictory?