Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Canto]

None of these quotes explicitly mention Mary.

St Ambrose in his Commentary on Psalm 118 for example actually wrote “lift me up not from Sarah, but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What the Church has perceived to be the work of God in salvation history.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I don’t recall Jesus explicitly telling his disciples: “I am God,” or “I am consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.” But he did tell them: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming” (Jn 16:12-13). Jesus only confirmed that he was the expected Messiah (Mt 16:15-17,20), not the second Person of the Triune God. The Jews had no idea that the Messiah would be a divine Person. It wasn’t until after Jesus had sent the Paraclete that the Messianic prophecies in the OT came to light and our Lord was perceived to be the divine Word made flesh as alluded to in the book of Wisdom and the Psalms. The Jews still interpret the OT according to Judaic tradition. Nor did Jesus explicitly manifest his divinity by performing miracles. Moses and the Apostles performed miracles, but they weren’t divine persons. Miracles can simply show that God is working through appointed human agents. The scribes and Pharisees believed that it was the devil who worked through Jesus, just as he had worked through the priests of Pharaoh against Moses.

Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Daniel 7:13-14: “There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven . . . He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

“Son of Man” was the primary title Jesus used for Himself – and this passage shows that this was a clear and strong claim of deity. And in Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, He also included the unmistakable phrase, “coming on the clouds of heaven” and applied it to Himself (Mark 14:62).

Mark14
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 2:11: “On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.”

Along with being led to the site where Jesus was born, these Magi were apparently informed by God about Jesus’ divine identity, and so they responded appropriately by worshiping Him.

Matthew 14:32-33: “And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”

In a Jewish culture, only the one true God can be worshiped; their actions show that they acknowledged Jesus as being divine. And Jesus didn’t correct them or say, “Don’t you realize that I’m just a mortal prophet? Stop worshiping me!” Rather, He accepted their worship, knowing He really was God in human flesh.

John 8:58-59: "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

This is a powerful double claim from Jesus: first, that He pre-existed His human birth and was actually alive and present (as God) before Abraham; second, that His title was “I am” – which was the same title used for Jehovah God in Exodus 3:14. His listeners again got the point, and picked up stones to execute Him!

There’s more.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God - the declaration of the Spirit to the Church. The written word (Sacred Scripture) confirms the truths that have been perceived by the faithful through the voice of the Spirit. Thus the unwritten word is living and dynamic, progressing through the course of time in the llife of the Church until the end of this age.

So, if we have the written word that “confirms the truths that have been perceived by the faithful through the voice of the Spirit.” Why do we need tradition?

]The Church has known this from the beginning. Both Scripture and the texts of the early Church Fathers bear witness to the establishment and importance of a central teaching authority in one visible universal Church by Christ.

I’m not familiar with the church fathers, but could you direct me to where scripture designates a central teaching authority?

“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”]Matthew 16, 18-19

Perhaps you should include vs.13-17

Matt 16
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Israel and the Church are corporate types of the new Eve. Mary is the personal new Eve, whose offspring is Jesus and all his disciples (Rev 12:17).

The disciples were not Mary’s offspring and the church is the body of Christ, often depicted as a woman.

Eph.4
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 155) and Irenaeus (A.D. 180) bear witness to this Marian tradition of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. And both ECFs bear testimony to the Church’s belief in Mary’s sinlessness on account of her significant role in the order of redemption.

This holds absolutely no creedence for me.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Richard Kastner,

You are so correct. The Bible has numerous documentations of the Deity of Christ. I always like to start with Exodus… the great I AM that I AM. From there, you can find other claims to the Deity of Christ. "And his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Prince of Peace. Good ol’ Isaiah spoke of it before the Messiah returned. I’ve lost count of the I AM verses. My personal favorite is John 10:30. “I and the Father are ONE”.

In His Amazing Grace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What we have here is a theological standoff: your understanding and interpretation of scripture, regarding Mary vs my understanding and interpretation of scripture, regarding Mary.

Neither you nor I are willing to say that we are 100% right!!! :yup:

I am. In fact I have many times.

Which means you and I have to figure out if Jesus did in fact leave you and I with a way to know, with certainty whether or not Jesus’ mother Mary was a sinner. Right?

If there is no way to know with certainty, then all you and I are offering is our subjective opinion regarding Jesus’ mother, which may or may not be correct, meaning that you probably shouldn’t say things like: “Therefore His mother Mary was a sinner” - as if it were a verifiable fact, just as I shouldn’t say, things like: Therefore His mother Mary was not a sinner. Right?

I keep telling you that Romans 8:3 tells us that Mary is a sinner. You just don’t want to hear it so you sluff it off and say we can’t be 100% sure. Jesus shared the same DNA that Mary had. He intimately shared her flesh that flesh in Rom.8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: is identified as sinful flesh. Story over Mary was a sinner.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Letter to the Epehesians…the mystery hidden for all ages…Hope you’re doing well Richard, may you remain in Christ.

I’m sorry Cop, you’re being a little too enigmatic. You will have to explain this. I am doing well and I hope you become “in Christ” if you are not already.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner,

You are so correct. The Bible has numerous documentations of the Deity of Christ. I always like to start with Exodus… the great I AM that I AM. From there, you can find other claims to the Deity of Christ. "And his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Prince of Peace. Good ol’ Isaiah spoke of it before the Messiah returned. I’ve lost count of the I AM verses. My personal favorite is John 10:30. “I and the Father are ONE”.

In His Amazing Grace

AMEN!!!

 

[joe370]

Richard…
I

keep telling you that Romans 8:3 tells us that Mary is a sinner.

And I keep telling you that it doesn’t. Should I take your word for it? Again, If there is no way to know with certainty, then all you and I are offering is our subjective opinion regarding Jesus’ mother, which may or may not be correct, meaning that you probably shouldn’t say things like: “Therefore His mother Mary was a sinner” - as if it were a verifiable fact, just as I shouldn’t say, things like: Therefore His mother Mary was not a sinner. Right?

Is there a way for us to know with certainty, outside your opinion and my opinion?

 

[ForeverGrace]

None of these quotes explicitly mention Mary.

Who do you think Pope Leo, Ambrose and Augustine were talking about? C’mon you can do better than say Mary’s name isn’t mentioned, so my quotes from them aren’t true.

Scripture says that ALL men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God and these popes and church fathers I have provided, believed that. Who do you think Jesus’ brothers came from?

I accept that this is the teaching of your church. But that doesn’t make it true. Scripture never tells us that Mary was sinless, just that she conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit and that she was a virgin which met the requirement from the Old Testament prophets.

I don’t come to Catholic Forums to harrass Catholics. To the contrary, I have enormous respect for people who love God. Sometimes I learn something when I come here and that’s a good thing. Other times, I think that some the claims can’t possibly be what they are purported to be. Either way, I respect Catholics and start looking for answers.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard…
I

And I keep telling you that it doesn’t. Should I take your word for it? Again, If there is no way to know with certainty, then all you and I are offering is our subjective opinion regarding Jesus’ mother, which may or may not be correct, meaning that you probably shouldn’t say things like: “Therefore His mother Mary was a sinner” - as if it were a verifiable fact, just as I shouldn’t say, things like: Therefore His mother Mary was not a sinner. Right?

Is there a way for us to know with certainty, outside your opinion and my opinion?

Rom.8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This is not subjective and it’s not my opinion. It is the word of God and that word says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.You can deny that it says this , but it does say it. His mother Mary was the flesh that He came in the likeness of and therefore she was a sinner.

 

[KathleenGee]

Scripture does not tell us that Mary is a sinner.

Our encounter with her is at the Fiat, her freely choosing to become the Mother of God. A sinner becoming the mother of God…a virgin birth?..

The passage you took from St. Leo the Great implied Mary full of grace…they are referring to the working of grace. St. Thomas of Aquinas did not want to delve into how Mary was conceived simply because at that juncture he did not want to take away from Christ.

It is all about context. The earliest Christians saw Mary as sinless…it is a tradition of faith that was lived out down through the ages. There was always a debate among theologians and scholars of where Mary was in the scope of things.

And note that each generation is given the reflections of those preceeding them.

Mary’s immaculate conception was debated for hundreds of years.

So you can’t say the Church rushed in as a Ship of Fools declaring Mary the Immaculate Conception in the 1850’s.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Gara3987,

LOL… Well if that is the case, and all have sinned, then that would mean that our Lord Jesus would have to fall under that all.

You can’t possibly mean what you said here. It’s the ultimate blasphemy against our Savior. For now, let’s set aside the church’s teaching and just go with the Bible. The Bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin so that he could enter the world without the stain of original sin. And then… we read from scripture that although Jesus was fully man and fully God, he never sinned. The scripture says that countless times. Paul says that all men (not the god-man) have sinned and come short of the glory of God. From Peter “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”. It’s clear that you should be able to see the difference between men and the god-man. Go and check my post that provides the beliefs of the Church Father, Augustine and Ambrose and then the views of other Popes who clearly state that all men have sinned. Scripture never tells us that Mary never sinned.

If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer. I know you love God and that’s all that really matters to me.

In His Amazing Grace…

 

[KathleenGee]

Forever Grace and Richard…if you want Christ centered studies on spirituality before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in the 1950’s, I would take a look at St. Catherine of Siena’s ‘The Dialogues’.

You have to also study and understand how Eucharistic faith is lived out, particularly by those of saints—many forms and charisms…but always the fruit of Christ.

www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

You can’t discuss Mary without a background on Catholic ascetism. The two go together…Bible and Church…not a bible alone.

Mary gave her body and blood to Jesus…and she is a creature like us. But she was sinless…Christ having to be conceived in a sinless tabernacle of Mary’s womb.

I must also say that you don’t know how much you are missing refusing the Eucharist, not wanting to learn about the lives of the saints, and such a grace it is in knowing Mary and having devotion to her. So much you are missing when you refuse Christ’s Church. There is so so much more to Christianity!!

 

[Canto]

I keep telling you that Romans 8:3 tells us that Mary is a sinner.

Romans 3:23 all have sinned ~ really, without even one single exception?
Romans 3:10 None is righteous, no, not one ~ not even Zachariah and Joseph?
Romans 3:11 there is no one who seeks God ~ not even Paul himself?
Romans 5:19 many were made sinners ~ but didn’t he just say all not many?

1 Corinthians 15:22 as in Adam all die ~ even Enoch and Elijah who were taken to heaven?

John 13:35 all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another ~ so if I love one another every single person bar none will know I’m a Christian?

 

[ForeverGrace]

KathleenGee,

I don’t think I said anything about a ship of fools. I would never insult Catholics with that kind of metaphor. It’s inexcusable in my mind.

I take issue with your statement regarding what the early Christians believed. You have no way to document that. It’s also contrary to what I believe good Catholics of that time would say. The church did not teach the immaculate concept or the sinlessness of Mary until Pope Pious IX, so if the early Christians believed that, they would have been in opposition to earlier Popes and their teachings, yes?

Yes…scripture does tell us that Mary was a sinner, because she belongs to the human race and we have all sinned. The fact that she did bear Jesus without the stain of original sin was an intervention by the Holy Spirit so that the Messiah could come to grant us salvation. She had other children after Jesus, and we don’t read anything about any other miraculous pregnancies.

I appreciate your devotion to your church and I do not have any cause to be ugly with you. I believe that in essentials we should have unity, in secondary issues we should show grace and that’s it’s best to be silent where the Bible is silent.

 

[Canto]

The church did not teach the immaculate concept or the sinlessness of Mary until Pope Pious IX

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was already being celebrated long before the ex Cathedra statement.

Hippolytus said that Mary was exempt from “putridity and corruption.” Origen called her the “immaculate of the immaculate.” Ephraem said there is “no stain in thy Mother.” Ambrose said “free from every stain of sin.” Augustine said we must except Mary “when it touches the subject of sins.” etc, etc.

Which Bible verse, Pope or Father, specifically says MARY has sinned?

How can someone already full of God’s grace have sinned?
Chaire Kecharitomene

 

[E.E.N.S]

Even Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception:

"
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.”
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

 

[joe370]

Hey ForeverGrace, thank you for the copy/paste. Of course this is same type of language used in Romans 3 and, as always, the complete context is necessary to make an informed determination. The context regarding Gelasius is clear: to refute Pelagianism which stated that original sin did not taint human nature. You did not provide the full context regarding Honorius so I cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not he meant to convey that Jesus’ mother was a sinner.

As I have illustrate on this thread, “all,” in Romans 3, doesn’t always mean “all,” according to scripture and the same logic can be applied to Leo and Honorius. If they meant to convey that Jesus’ mother was to be included, as a sinner, then it seems that Leo and Honorius contradicted certain ECF’s such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine etc. (many more) - who clearly believed that Mary was sinless. I really doubt it.

Leo I - Sermon on the birth of Jesus:

“There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all…”

This is all about as convincing as, “all have sinned…” Exceptions regarding “all” can be made as scripture clearly illustrates, and again, if Leo meant to include Mary, then all those early church fathers, much closer to the apostolic age that were involved in the codification of the bible, were evidently wrong about Mary’s sinlessness. Nah…:nope:

Ambrose commenting on Luke 1:35:

“For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty.”

Either you are missing the intended context or Ambrose is a hypocrite:

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

Augustine:

"Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he * says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” *

Either you are missing the intended context or Augustine is a hypocrite:

“We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”

Gelasius I:

“Accordingly whatever those parents produced of their stock, is indeed the work of God, according to the institution of nature, but not without the contagion of that evil which they derived through their own transgression.”

Launoy also cites Gelasius “Lib. contra Pelagium,” which I found elsewhere cited as as “dicta adv. Pelag. haeresin.,” which in any event means it is a work against the Pelagians. It states:

“It belongs alone to the immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all.”

The purpose was to refute Pelagianism which stated that original sin did not taint human nature. Context is everything.

Roman Clergy, post Honorius I (John IV before his reign):

"And in the first place, it is blasphemous folly to say that man is without sin, which none can be, but only the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who was conceived and born without sin; for all other men, being born in original sin, are known to bear the mark of Adam’s transgression, even whilst they are without actual sin, according to the saying of the prophet, “For behold, I was conceived in iniquity; and in sin did my mother give birth to me.”

Need the full context. From this I am to disbelieve the consensus regarding Mary’s sinlessness?

 

[joe370]

Rom.8: 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

This is not subjective and it’s not my opinion. It is the word of God and that word says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.You can deny that it says this , but it does say it. His mother Mary was the flesh that He came in the likeness of and therefore she was a sinner.

I’ll give it one more shot:

If it’s not just your opinion, then it must be verifiable fact. Is it verifiable fact?

It’s your interpretation of Romans 8:3, and I do not even know of any other protestants that agree with you regarding your subjective take on that particular verse, not that that would matter for it would merely be their subjective interpretation/opinion and not verifiable fact!

Richard, by saying, “This is not subjective and it’s not my opinion. It is the word of God…” - you are essentially telling me that my subjective opinion, regarding the same verse, is 100 % wrong! You are calling my interpretation of the word of God wrong and your interpretation of the word of God - right. How can you deny that simple logic???