Mary.

[jim1130]

kaizen:

The only passage in the Bible used by most anti-Catholics in denouncing Mary’s sinlessness is Romans 3:10-18. It’s as if they are saying that:

• Mary is not righteous (Romans 3:10)
• Mary has no understanding (Romans 3:11)
• Mary does not seek God (Romans 3:11)
• Mary had turned aside and has become worthless (Romans 3:12)
• Mary does not show kindness (Romans 3:12)
• Mary’s throat is like an open grave (Romans 3:13)
• Mary use her tongue to deceive (Romans 3:13)
• The venom of vipers is under Mary’s lips (Romans 3:13)
• Mary’s mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Romans 3:14)
• Mary’s feet are swift to shed blood (Romans 3:15)
• Ruin and misery is in Mary’s paths (Romans 3:16)
• Mary does not know the way of peace (Romans 3:17)
• Mary does not fear God (Romans 3:18)

The Bible doesn’t teach this things about Mary, but that is what anti-Catholics want us to believe. I don’t understand why they hate Mary so much… She is full of grace (Luke 1:28), she is blessed among women (Luke 1:42), and God has done GREAT THINGS FOR HER (Luke 1:49). What kind of proof do they need???

Non-Catholics also like to throw out that Christ often spoke to her using the term “Woman.” I was rudely dismissed recently on a non-Cahtolic site because of Luke 11:27-28 in which the woman says blessed is the body that birthed and nourished Jesus and Jesus told the woman blessed is the one who was obedient to God. Most non-Catholics use THAT verse as a sign that Christ is dismissing and, in a round aobut way, embarrassing Mary.

Do non-Catholics hate Mary? Disrespect Mary? Or just think of her as a clay vessel that God used then discarded? Does it ever occur to non-Catholics that Christ may not be too keen on their lack of respect toward Mary?

 

[BJRumph]

Thanks Hurst for your replies. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

Removes hope? Do you envy them? Is your chance of becoming sinless lessened by their having it?

No, it is not envy. It is a simple recognition that their acute lack of being in a sinful condition puts them into a realm that I cannot relate to as one who does experientially know sin. Even with the redemptive grace of Baptism, I am still a sinner, and in no way made immune to sin or placed into a position where I cannot sin (as the idea of Mary’s “Impeccible” condition asserts). As such, these exemplars of yours do not relate to my condition in a manner that makes any meaningful contribution to my Salvation. All that is being done is removing them further from their humanity, and therefore my own. That they are singular or special cases doesn’t help me, unless God choses to make me or you a special case like them. But I do not see that as being His purpose, nor is it desireable IMHO. As their circumstances are singularly different from the reality to which I am made manifest, then I cannot see how their immaculate condition has any bearing on my condition.

Actually, our hope for being made sinless is increased by what God did in them, and thus our hope is increased. For they ushered in the Savior who takes away our sins!

But see! Here you are denying the special significance that their conditions you grant them! The Gospel does not promise me that I was born sinless (either through Conception or in utero Grace), but that my sins will be forgiven and washed away; this is wholly different from the type of sinlessness you have shown for Mary or John, who you have shown to be free from both Original Sin and living sin. They will not be forgiven, for you have shown us that they needed no forgiveness! Again, the condition given them is wholly and theologically very distinct from yours or mine; and as such, the promise of the Gospel as it relates to us is likewise different from their, as it is for the Angels as well.

I don’t believe John was immaculately conceived, but only that he was born without OS and led a sinless life.

After reading the Dogmatic definition of the IC, what do you see as the fundamental difference between the IC and being conceived without stain of OS, and the possibility of living a life unstained by future Sin (the Impeccibility factor not expressly present in the actual Dogmatic definiton, even if it is found elsewhere in the overall document)? Other than the name (Mary or John), what difference is there?

But John’s sinlessness is not a major doctrinal point anyway. Mary’s is.

Which brings us right back to the point; How can Mary’s sinlessness be a doctrinal point, if Johns, which is virtualy the same if not superior as Mary’s, is completely valueless in the economy of my salvation (as it becomes when made into Dogma)? Either the issue of a biblical character’s condition of sinlessness (outside of Christ) has theological importance in the economy of salvation, or it does not. I still cannot see how it can. As to your further point, none of them need be sinless, especially in the exceptional cases you ascribe for them, in order to be appropriate pointers to Christ.

But it is important that they both be sinless.

Why? THeir state of Grace with God has no more bearing on my salvation than yours, or even B16’s, does. Christ’s sinlessness, however, is wholly necessary to the salvation of everyone.

cont…

 

[svoboda]

If Mary could be conceived without original sin BEFORE Jesus’ sacrifice, what was the point of Jesus’ sacrifice and baptism?

If God can free a person from temptation to sin (presumably Mary didn’t sin because she did not have concupiscence?), then he could do this for everyone and none will go to hell.

 

[BJRumph]

You are mistaken. Christ did not need to suffer at all in order to establish belief in God’s generosity.

Actually, you have misunderstood the point. His sacrifice does not establish his generosity, or rather, it was not meant to be the establishment of his generosity. However, as is my point, it is a suitable expression of his generosity, and far more relevant to my own theological condition than a singular gift he gave to one other (or three in your book). His suffering was *not for the purpose of * showing us his generosity; however you cannot exctract the generous nature from that suffering without denying the totality of the reality of that suffering.

But perhaps your point is that you don’t see why we have to believe that now, as opposed to later…

Close; remove the temporal element and you got it: Why do we have to believe it at all? By reinserting the proper temporal element, it shows why it is more important to ask: Why do we have to believe it now, despite the fact that it was not, however popular, required doctrine for the last 1900 years. What theological reality was recognised that now necessitiates beleif in this doctrine? Not simply a doctrinal discipline, but an actual De Fide article of Faith required for full communion with the Body of Christ that was never required before, or has any theological (as opposed to rhetorical peity) requirement for that belief.

How about for the preservation of the Faith?

Again, while you did expound upon this idea, I am afraid I cannot see how this particular doctrine has any bearing on the health or safety of the Faith, which these doctrines do not add anything significant to, nor defend any christological theologies, nor can be demonstrated (so far) as having any theological value in the economy of the salvation of anyone other than those specific individuals it affects (mary and John), and even then is not a necessity for their salvation (as it was a superior gift of pre-emptive salvation offered to them; a gratuitous one, not a necessary one).

Please understand, I have far more trust in the Church than is apparently seen here. However, I am also in the process of becoming a Catholic, and so far, this is the weakest link in the Faith I am building/accepting. So far, it seems indefensible except to fall back on having to accept it wholly on the principle of Authority. I find this odd, as everything else can be supported through theological reasoning and preponderance of scriptural/traditional evidences. Without the theological element to sustain them as necessary dogma, as opposed to popular peity, then they appear as abberations to the deposit of faith, rather than as part of the continuous and consistent whole we had prior to their elevation to Dogma. As they stand now, they are vestigial appendages on the Faith; we accept them as being part of the whole, but do not perform any known function. They are not cancerous, so they do not detract from the faith; but their sole purpose for acceptance is, currently, simply an exersize in seeing the whole person, “warts and all” as they like to say in the local parishes. ie, rejecting them (at this point) is like trying to hide some personal feature you are not happy with but is nevertheless a part of your personal composition. Given the emotions most Catholics attatch to these two dogmas, this probably sounds too harsh. For that I apologize; it is not an attempt to prick anyones sensitivities, simply make sense and learn of something that is incongruous (though not necessarily incompatible) with the rest of the picture. A doctrine, especially a Dogma, must necessarily carry a Theological foundation or element to sustain itself as a thing of beleif, especially if it is to be a necessary belief that carries an impact upon the salvation of anyone, let alone everyone.

 

[BJRumph]

From CM:

One reason that I personally believe that the Blessed Virgin was pre-emptively preserved from sin is the comparison to the purity and holiness of the Ark of the Covenant to Mary as the ark of the New Covenant.

While I understand the idea of typing Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is popular, and can be seen in allusions found in the Gospel of Luke; the fact is, the analogy does not necessitate an Immaculate Conception. Until the OT Ark was completed was it sanctified and made Holy. While it was an uncut tree, or even a pile of materials, or even half completed, it was not the Ark, and certainly could not be said to be “perfect” when it was still incomplete. Do we know how many particular items were rejected during the crafting due to inadequet craftsmanship or accidents of production? No. What about the shavings discarded when cutting the wood; were they holy as the Ark was? Not enough to garner mention, or was it because it was known that it would be the completed ark that would be made holy. Thus, you cannot use the OT Ark typology of Luke to insist that Mary, herself, had to be perfect at conception; though *it is * certainly a viable argument for the necessity of Mary’s purity before conceiving Christ (whose spirit filled the “mercy seat” of the new Ark, as it did the Old if one follows this typology).

I have other issues with taking this particular typing too far with regards to Mary, but the freewill issue is currently being debated elsewhere on the board, so I’ll leave it alone here

At any rate, as this thread seems to have died a natural death, I’ll leave it be, unless anyone can find me the answer. Here is what, when not trying to challenge others to find me the missing link, I have to say on the subject as far as my personal beliefs at this time are:

• Both dogmas in question (the IC and Assumption) are defined in a manner that shows them to be born of God’s Love, and are meant to be examples of the power of God’s role in the salvific process; therefore I do not find them to be incompatible to the Faith despite the lack of apparent positive reason for their inclusion as De Fide Dogma.
  *** Both dogmas are relatively new as required articles of faith, therefore, despite the antiquity of the doctrines themselves, there has been little time to fully realize the theological import or ramification of these two doctrines; therefore I must leave it in the realm of Hope that such inquiry will continue and that the future will provide an adequet theological frame to sustain and realize these dogmas appropriately. **
  *The nature of the doctrines, being the expression of the Grace of God, rather than the exaltation of an individual, is such that even if they are eventually found to be in error, and removed from the status of De Fide Dogma, that the error of disobedience is both more immediate and serious than the consequences of submitting to the doctrines in question if they are indeed found to be spurious.

While clearly not Ideal, from what I have seen in the examples of others, it is sufficient for where I am now on the Pilgrim Trail until God leads me further.

Inter arma caritas
Caritas numquam excidit

 

[Marilena]

A good book you can study is a book written by Father Oscar Lukefahr from the USA. It is called: Christ’s mother and ours.
You can obtain a free copy to study via mail, or online. Here is
the link:

amm.org/chss.htm

 

[deb1]

svoboda:

If Mary could be conceived without original sin BEFORE Jesus’ sacrifice, what was the point of Jesus’ sacrifice and baptism?

If God can free a person from temptation to sin (presumably Mary didn’t sin because she did not have concupiscence?), then he could do this for everyone and none will go to hell.

Mary was not just anyone. She was the bearer of God. Her womb held Jesus, our savior.

 

[deb1]

jim1130:

Non-Catholics also like to throw out that Christ often spoke to her using the term “Woman.” I was rudely dismissed recently on a non-Cahtolic site because of Luke 11:27-28 in which the woman says blessed is the body that birthed and nourished Jesus and Jesus told the woman blessed is the one who was obedient to God. Most non-Catholics use THAT verse as a sign that Christ is dismissing and, in a round aobut way, embarrassing Mary.

Do non-Catholics hate Mary? Disrespect Mary? Or just think of her as a clay vessel that God used then discarded? Does it ever occur to non-Catholics that Christ may not be too keen on their lack of respect toward Mary?

This argument that Jesus was speaking degradingly to Mary actually puts our Savior in a bad light. It makes him sound as if he is not obeying the very laws which he says elsewhere that he does obey!

I don’t think that nonCatholics hate Mary. Among many- not all-there is the belief that she could have been any woman-me for instance. That there was nothing particularly special about her beyond her bearing of our Lord. There seems to be the belief that God used her as a human incubator.

I am sure not all Protestants think this way but a lot do.

 

[jim1130]

deb1:

This argument that Jesus was speaking degradingly to Mary actually puts our Savior in a bad light. It makes him sound as if he is not obeying the very laws which he says elsewhere that he does obey!

I don’t think that nonCatholics hate Mary. Among many- not all-there is the belief that she could have been any woman-me for instance. That there was nothing particularly special about her beyond her bearing of our Lord. There seems to be the belief that God used her as a human incubator.

I am sure not all Protestants think this way but a lot do.

Thank you for your response. I know many non-Catholics do not view the IC as a reality, but then when I try to explain that sin cannot be before God, any sin, which means that Mary had to be sinless, I am scoffed at.

As I try to understand the non-Catholic position, I begin to wonder if their faith is more reality-based, i.e. it has to be provable, concrete, verifiable evidence, then faith-based. For example, non-Catholics completely deny the Real Presence (they say Jesus spoke figuratively in all 4 Gospels of it) and no amount of discussion can convince them otherwise. They talk about dissecting the Eucharist, are we cannibals, etc. The more I try to explain the more frustrated and angry I become. And I hate being laughed at and dismissed by them as I explain.

 

[freesoulhope]

deb1:

Mary was not just anyone. She was the bearer of God. Her womb held Jesus, our savior.

From my understanding.
Adam and eve where perfect and with out sin. However, this did not stop them from commiting Sin. Mary was born in the same state as Eve before Eve sinned. Mary was perfectly full of grace, being born with out the stain of are first parents. This doesnt neccerary mean that she was incapable of sinning, but through the grace and love of god she didn’t. Eve helped to bring deaf in to the world, so i guess it would be fitting for mary to bring life in to this world “jesus Christ”. There for God made made her full of grace, she was born with out the stain of original sin. ( The stains of are first parents is not the same as commiting sin, even though we share the same fallen state). The idea that this is unfair, is not true. To think that it is, is to fall under the illusion of the devil. We have life through jesus Christ, God wants us to love him through Christ are lord. We can only be with God if we love him, we have to freely choose. Gods love for us covers are sins. Mary loved God, and allthough she was full of grace, she made a “choice” to love God. She was not a robot programed to do Gods errens. God made us with free will and free thought.

Adam and eve chose not to love God, they disobeyed him, unfortunatly the human race where in the reproductive care of adam and eve. There for we share in thier sin, not willingly by choice, but by inheritence of adam and eves fallen state. But That doesnt stop us from being with god, we have to freely choose whether we want God in are lives or not, rather then him forcing his will upon us.

Thats the mercy of God, and hell is to be with out him, since the gifts of happyness and joy and love are from God, and out outside of him these things Dont exist. The only thing that exists is God because he is “existence” he is ultimate reality. He is the limits, but he him self is not bound by any limits. Any thing else, is the things that he creates.

Original sin only effects us because we allow it to. Yes we are born with a horrid stain, but god wants us to be cleaned through jesus, because thats his will. Thats how he wants us to come back to him, through the love of jesus Christ. thats why he is called the “son of God” because “jesus” is who the father wants us to be like. Jesus is the model son.

As for sin, we commit sin because we want to sin, If original sin was are down fall we would have been detroyed a long time ago. So being born with the sin of your parents and commiting sin is two different things. We choose not to be with God. But you can Choose to be with him through Christ and his church, the holy roman Catholic church, founded on peter the rock.

 

[freesoulhope]

please ignore above message, it has fualty logic, it is wrong. and doesnt hold true to the teachinmgs of Christ.

 

[hurst]

BJRumph:

No, it is not envy. It is a simple recognition that their acute lack of being in a sinful condition puts them into a realm that I cannot relate to as one who does experientially know sin.

You could relate to them if you recall the time in your life after your baptism and before you ever sinned.

BJRumph:

Even with the redemptive grace of Baptism, I am still a sinner, and in no way made immune to sin or placed into a position where I cannot sin (as the idea of Mary’s “Impeccible” condition asserts).

Only Christ was “unable” to sin, because He had the beatific vision even while on earth. Mary could have sinned, but chose to remain preserved in God’s grace.

Our becoming immune to sin will only be realized in the glory of heaven.

What you need to realize is that there is truly hope that you can stop all of your mortal sins, and most of your venial ones, if you really want to, by asking for help.

BJRumph:

As such, these exemplars of yours do not relate to my condition in a manner that makes any meaningful contribution to my Salvation.

What is “meaningful” to you? Doesn’t it show how a person who is not sinning and who is not God, might live? Isn’t it an example for you?

BJRumph:

All that is being done is removing them further from their humanity, and therefore my own.

Why do you think this way. Shouldn’t you rather think that it is sin that removes us from our humanity? God created Adam and Eve without sin. That is what it means to be human. We were made to be without sin, to be united to God, to obey and serve God on earth.

BJRumph:

As their circumstances are singularly different from the reality to which I am made manifest, then I cannot see how their immaculate condition has any bearing on my condition.

If you were trapped in a mine, would you be saying that about the rescuers above?

hurst

 

[hurst]

BJRumph:

hurst:

Actually, our hope for being made sinless is increased by what God did in them, and thus our hope is increased. For they ushered in the Savior who takes away our sins!

But see! Here you are denying the special significance that their conditions you grant them! The Gospel does not promise me that I was born sinless (either through Conception or in utero Grace), but that my sins will be forgiven and washed away;

Even on earth children rejoice to be picked on a team that has the best players.

God came to earth to reconcile the world to himself and welcome us into His Kingdom. He’s got the Blessed Virgin Mary on His team! He’s got John the Baptist, Isaias, Elias, Abraham, Noah, Daniel, Job, and more! They were heroes! How can you possibly ask what relevance their greatness has?! If that isn’t envy for not being “great” yourself, then what is it? Ignorance? Look closely at the roots of your concern, and tell me what your heart is really saying…

BJRumph:

this is wholly different from the type of sinlessness you have shown for Mary or John, who you have shown to be free from both Original Sin and living sin. They will not be forgiven, for you have shown us that they needed no forgiveness!

But they still needed the grace of God to be in and maintain that state.

BJRumph:

Again, the condition given them is wholly and theologically very distinct from yours or mine; and as such, the promise of the Gospel as it relates to us is likewise different from their, as it is for the Angels as well.

Perhaps you have the Gospel message wrong? The Gospel is about the Kingdom, and how it is being given to us. It is the same promise to them as to us. We must live in His grace in order to enter it, whether or not we were born in sin.

BJRumph:

After reading the Dogmatic definition of the IC, what do you see as the fundamental difference between the IC and being conceived without stain of OS, and the possibility of living a life unstained by future Sin (the Impeccibility factor not expressly present in the actual Dogmatic definiton, even if it is found elsewhere in the overall document)? Other than the name (Mary or John), what difference is there?

John was conceived in sin, Mary was not. Both were born without sin. Conceived does not mean born.

Mary was greeted by an angel as being “full of grace”, John was filled with the Spirit.

Mary was “blessed among women”, John was “the greatest of the prophets”.

Mary carried our Redeemer, John announced Him.

Mary is superior to John, though John is superior to many.

hurst

 

[hurst]

BJRumph:

hurst:

But John’s sinlessness is not a major doctrinal point anyway. Mary’s is.

Which brings us right back to the point; How can Mary’s sinlessness be a doctrinal point, if Johns, which is virtualy the same if not superior as Mary’s, is completely valueless in the economy of my salvation (as it becomes when made into Dogma)?

Ok, I see your point: if this issue was important for Mary, then why not also for John?

First of all, the Church does consider John’s sanctity to be important. That is why the Church had a Liturgucal Feast Day celebrating his nativity from the earliest Christian times.

The reason one is a dogma is because the Church made it explicit. And the reason the Church does this is typically because it is being challenged.

In other words, I think that if John the Baptist’s sanctity became challenged enough, then the Church would in fact define it as dogma. But as it is, no one challenges it much, but rather accepts it or considers it a benign issue.

BJRumph:

Either the issue of a biblical character’s condition of sinlessness (outside of Christ) has theological importance in the economy of salvation, or it does not. I still cannot see how it can.

Anything pertaining to the Faith is important in the economy of salvation. You seem to think that only those things pertaining directly to the Redemption should be considered possible dogma.

BJRumph:

As to your further point, none of them need be sinless, especially in the exceptional cases you ascribe for them, in order to be appropriate pointers to Christ.

Well, and God can raise stones up to praise Him.

But it is proper to His glory that He establish His Kingdom in a praiseworthy and singular manner. It is not contrary to reason that He would do so with sinless pointers. It makes sense and stands out in history, and thus contributes to our likelihood of believing the great things we would expect of God in coming to earth.

Many expected Him to come in great material wealth and pomp, but He came in poverty of the world. But He was rich in grace, and had servants well-clad in grace, as well.

BJRumph:

hurst:

But it is important that they both be sinless.

Why? THeir state of Grace with God has no more bearing on my salvation than yours, or even B16’s, does.

What, then, do you think salvation even is??

As I proposed for you, God welcomes us into His Kingdom of glory, by grace. Sin is opposed to grace. You are missing something…

BJRumph:

Christ’s sinlessness, however, is wholly necessary to the salvation of everyone.

I am now interested in your reasoning for this.

hurst

 

[hurst]

svoboda:

If Mary could be conceived without original sin BEFORE Jesus’ sacrifice, what was the point of Jesus’ sacrifice and baptism?

As a matter of fact, He did do it for others (Jeremias and John the Baptist, for example). But That is understood to be applying in advance what Christ later accomplished. Christ still had to accomplish it at some point.

svoboda:

If God can free a person from temptation to sin (presumably Mary didn’t sin because she did not have concupiscence?), then he could do this for everyone and none will go to hell.

He does nothing against our will, though. Besides, being free from temptation does not guarantee you will not sin. Tell me, who “tempted” the devil before he fell?

The fact is, we should be thankful for temptations (James 1:2-4), for they make our imperfections known to us, and allow us to repent and avert eternal loss!

Mary was still capable of sinning, but chose not too. God gave her a special grace, and she accepted it. I believe that is why she was so humble - because she chose to rely on God so much for everything, and could not brag about herself. Instead, she magnified the Lord in her (Lk 1:46-55).

hurst

 

[MariaG]

jim1130:

Non-Catholics also like to throw out that Christ often spoke to her using the term “Woman.” I was rudely dismissed recently on a non-Cahtolic site because of Luke 11:27-28 in which the woman says blessed is the body that birthed and nourished Jesus and Jesus told the woman blessed is the one who was obedient to God. Most non-Catholics use THAT verse as a sign that Christ is dismissing and, in a round aobut way, embarrassing Mary.

Do non-Catholics hate Mary? Disrespect Mary? Or just think of her as a clay vessel that God used then discarded? Does it ever occur to non-Catholics that Christ may not be too keen on their lack of respect toward Mary?

Actually, this is a great verse to use to show that Mary was immaculately conceived. How?

In Genesis, Eve is only refered to as Woman until she sinned. Only after that was she called Eve.

Jesus never refers to Mary as anything but Woman. Why? To point to the fact that she is the New Eve, created without sin. Not meant to be disrepectful at all.

God Bless,
Maria