Prayers to Mary

[crazzeto]

God is able to sin. God is able to lie. God is able to deceit. He can do whatever He pleases. God can sin, lie, deceit, etc., therefore breaking His own law. He can do whatever He wants. He can destroy us. He can kill you. He can kill me. He can kill the one who reads this post. He can transform you into a frog. He can transform me into a frog. He can do all those things, but that doesn’t mean that He will do it. He chose to keep His word. He chose to keep His word. He chose not to kill us. He chose not to sin. He chose not to lie. He chose not to deceit.

One thing is not being able to, and not doing it. He chose to keep His word, and He gave us His word that He will not sin, lie, deceit, kill us, etc. He chose to obey His own law.

Is this so hard to understand? He can do everything: good and bad; but He chose to only do good. That doesn’t mean He cannot do bad things, but He gave us His word that He won’t.

This opinion is highly irregular, and is most certainly inconsistant with Orthodox Christian doctrine. Cristian, you say you’re open to other peoples opinions and learning more. Can I suggest you start with Theology for Beginners:

books.google.com/books?id=Du8T-iKfou0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=theology+for+beginners&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

also available for sale.

 

[DCNBILL]

God is able to sin. God is able to lie. God is able to deceit. He can do whatever He pleases. God can sin, lie, deceit, etc., therefore breaking His own law. He can do whatever He wants. He can destroy us. He can kill you. He can kill me. He can kill the one who reads this post. He can transform you into a frog. He can transform me into a frog. He can do all those things, but that doesn’t mean that He will do it. He chose to keep His word. He chose to keep His word. He chose not to kill us. He chose not to sin. He chose not to lie. He chose not to deceit.

One thing is not being able to, and not doing it. He chose to keep His word, and He gave us His word that He will not sin, lie, deceit, kill us, etc. He chose to obey His own law.

Is this so hard to understand? He can do everything: good and bad; but He chose to only do good. That doesn’t mean He cannot do bad things, but He gave us His word that He won’t.

Note that these statements are a fallacy of logic, as per the following example.
If God is immutable (unchanging)
And God is Truth (origin and being)
Then God can not lie because in lying he would be changing and cease to be God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Are you saying God is incapable of something? Anyway, there is a fail in logic here:

1. 
   *]Jesus was born in a world of sin.
   *]Jesus drank with sinners.
   *]Jesus ate with sinners.
   *]Jesus was friends with sinners.
   *]Jesus bore the sins of the whole world on Him.
   
   After doing so many things with sinners, you’re telling me that He cannot be born of a sinner (a person who sinned at least once in his life)?
   
   One reason He hid His glory from us is that we would not die because of the light of His glory. It says in the Bible that at the end of the world the wicked will not be able to endure His brightness and His glory. The reason He hid His glory is that the sinners will not die when they see Him. This way, since He hid His glory, He could be born in a sinful world. Jesus could and He was born of a woman who sinned at least once in her life.

1. 
   Please go back and read what was written about this before. As was explained, it is not necessary for Jesus to be born of a sinless woman. However, it is fitting that He would be.

 

[LittleSoldier]

God is able to sin. God is able to lie. God is able to deceit. He can do whatever He pleases. God can sin, lie, deceit, etc., therefore breaking His own law. He can do whatever He wants. He can destroy us. He can kill you. He can kill me. He can kill the one who reads this post. He can transform you into a frog. He can transform me into a frog. He can do all those things, but that doesn’t mean that He will do it. He chose to keep His word. He chose to keep His word. He chose not to kill us. He chose not to sin. He chose not to lie. He chose not to deceit.

One thing is not being able to, and not doing it. He chose to keep His word, and He gave us His word that He will not sin, lie, deceit, kill us, etc. He chose to obey His own law.

Is this so hard to understand? He can do everything: good and bad; but He chose to only do good. That doesn’t mean He cannot do bad things, but He gave us His word that He won’t.

God cannot sin. To do so would be to deny His very nature. He can do everything good, and as all is good that comes from Him, nothing He does is bad.

God is a perfect being. God is love. A perfect being cannot be imperfect. A God that is love cannot hate or lie or cheat or sin.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The protestants teach that Mary must be sinful like us. But the Bible clearly shows that God is sinless, and Jesus is sinless, and that nothing imperfect can be united with God (see Revelation and other places). Therefore, for God to be in union with a human person the way a baby in the womb is in communion with its mother, the human mother would NEED to be sinless. This isn’t a belief we have because of an inappropriate belief about Mary… its a belief we have because of what we believe about Jesus Christ i.e. that he is 100% God and 100% man.

NO - Mary did not NEED to be sinless. Jesus could have been conceived in an impure vessel or Mary could have sinned and then have been purified before the conception of Jesus; there are a ton of possibilities, but only one actually occurred. It is fitting that the Christ be born of a pure woman who never sinned. Please read through this thread (towards the end) where this is discussed, especially about Mary being honored more than Eve and about how the angel spoke to her with the title “Full of Grace.”

When protestants attack Mary, they actually attack Jesus, but in their ignorance they know not what they do.

I haven’t seen one instance of a protestant attacking Mary in this thread or in any other. I’m sorry, but I see your statement as an insult to every protestant and an embarrassment to every Catholic.

Authentic Marian prayer always asks for her intercession. That said, Mary is a real person, and is very much alive, and is the person in history who brought Jesus Christ into the world. Therefore, it makes real sense to fly to her. She will only help people find Jesus. Not keep them away. “Do whatever he tells you.”

Peace!

I agree. Pax.

 

[Cristian_B]

Note that these statements are a fallacy of logic, as per the following example.
If God is immutable (unchanging)
And God is Truth (origin and being)
Then God can not lie because in lying he would be changing and cease to be God.

I never said He sinned. I said He chose not to sin.

 

[crazzeto]

I never said He sinned. I said He chose not to sin.

I don’t think you understand, God isn’t capable of it and will never be capable of it…

 

[Cristian_B]

I don’t think you understand, God isn’t capable of it and will never be capable of it…

He is able to. You should change the verb ‘capable’ with ‘do’.

“God doesn’t do it and will never do it…”

 

[LittleSoldier]

He is able to. You should change the verb ‘capable’ with ‘do’.

“God doesn’t do it and will never do it…”

God cannot sin and will never sin. To do so would be contrary to His nature. Try to look at it this way:

God is omnipotent, but He cannot do that which is contrary to His nature; which is contrary to what He is. Sinning is contrary to His nature, to what He is.

God is perfect. To be perfect, He cannot sin, as sin is an imperfection. If He sinned, He would not be God because He would not be perfect.

 

[cathguy]

NO - Mary did not NEED to be sinless. Jesus could have been conceived in an impure vessel or Mary could have sinned and then have been purified before the conception of Jesus; there are a ton of possibilities, but only one actually occurred. It is fitting that the Christ be born of a pure woman who never sinned. Please read through this thread (towards the end) where this is discussed, especially about Mary being honored more than Eve and about how the angel spoke to her with the title “Full of Grace.”

I haven’t seen one instance of a protestant attacking Mary in this thread or in any other. I’m sorry, but I see your statement as an insult to every protestant and an embarrassment to every Catholic.

I agree. Pax.

This post is extremely offensive, and uncivil, and the “I’m sorry” before it doesn’t excuse it.

I would request a moderator intervene.

Unbelievable.

 

[cathguy]

Please go back and read what was written about this before. As was explained, it is not necessary for Jesus to be born of a sinless woman. However, it is fitting that He would be.

This is wrong.

The Bible and Catholic theology are clear.

The Marian doctrines are Christological. You must understand this. As Christological doctrines they are there because of what we believe about God.

God CANNOT act against His nature because anyone with a modicum of philosophy in their background understands if God acts against HIs nature He ceases to be God. THis is impossible because God is both omnipotent and eternal. A protestant who says “God can sin” is, to be blunt, philosophically and theologically illiterate.

Catholic teaching about Mary is not something that is just “fitting.” Something that is acceptable, but protestant doctrine is okay too. NO.

God prepared a perfect vessel for Himself from the beginning. Have you heard of the Proto-evangelicum?

There is one person who is both at the beginning of the Bible, and the end, and that is Mary.

Catholic doctrine is TRUTH.

It isn’t just fitting that Mary be without sin. It is true, because of what we know about Jesus. It is because of Jesus that we believe what we believe about Mary. The Church stands on solid theological ground, and she proclaims absolute TRUTH, not just things that are fitting or acceptable.

I said that we believe what we be believe about Mary because of what we believe about Christ. Mary is sinless because of the fact that she is the person from whom Jesus entered the world.

Your statement that me saying so makes me an embarassment to all Catholics is about the most offensive, mean spirited, uncivil, and poorly reasoned thing I have read here on CAF. I request an immediate apology.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This post is extremely offensive, and uncivil, and the “I’m sorry” before it doesn’t excuse it.

I would request a moderator intervene.

Unbelievable.

Uh, I don’t see any place where LittleSoldier was offensive or uncivil. All LittleSoldier did was state church teaching, then comment that she hadn’t seen any Protestant attacking Mary in this or any other thread. If none have, then it would be insulting to them to say they are attacking Mary.

Perhaps you are reading something into it that wasn’t said.

 

[cathguy]

Uh, I don’t see any place where LittleSoldier was offensive or uncivil. All LittleSoldier did was state church teaching, then comment that she hadn’t seen any Protestant attacking Mary in this or any other thread. If none have, then it would be insulting to them to say they are attacking Mary.

Perhaps you are reading something into it that wasn’t said.

You don’t think saying my statements were an embarassment to all Catholics was over the top?

Does “LittleSoldier” also have a problem with St. Augustine?

Even the modern Scott Hahn says: “Saint Augustine put the doctrine in its proper, familial context saying that it would be offensive against Jesus to say that His mother was a sinner.” (Hail Holy Queen 96).

This is exactly what I said. I said protestants who say Mary was born in sin attack Jesus, but they do not know what they do.

Apparently “LittleSoldier” finds Augustine offensive.

So be it.

I say again:

The Marian Dogmas are Christological. We believe what we believe about Mary because of what we believe about Christ. Mary is sinless because to say should would be born in sin is offensive to Christ, and arguably contrary to the nature of God.

I repeat my demand for an apology. Little Soldier didn’t just give us Church teaching. He or she gave her impression of it and tried to silence someone who, within the bounds of orthodoxy, made a statement in a way he or she couldn’t understand.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This is wrong.

The Bible and Catholic theology are clear.

The Marian doctrines are Christological. You must understand this. As Christological doctrines they are there because of what we believe about God.

God CANNOT act against His nature because anyone with a modicum of philosophy in their background understands if God acts against HIs nature He ceases to be God. THis is impossible because God is both omnipotent and eternal. A protestant who says “God can sin” is, to be blunt, philosophically and theologically illiterate.

Catholic teaching about Mary is not something that is just “fitting.” Something that is acceptable, but protestant doctrine is okay too. NO.

God prepared a perfect vessel for Himself from the beginning. Have you heard of the Proto-evangelicum?

There is one person who is both at the beginning of the Bible, and the end, and that is Mary.

Catholic doctrine is TRUTH.

It isn’t just fitting that Mary be without sin. It is true, because of what we know about Jesus. It is because of Jesus that we believe what we believe about Mary. The Church stands on solid theological ground, and she proclaims absolute TRUTH, not just things that are fitting or acceptable.

I think you need to step back and see what LittleSoldier is actually saying. She didn’t say Protestant doctrine is true. She said Catholic doctrine is true.

Perhaps the two of you are defining “necessary” differently. LittleSoldier seems to be saying that God could have chosen (but didn’t choose) a sinful woman to give birth to Jesus. Since God is omnipotent, He is perfectly capable of protecting a baby in the womb from the sinfulness of its mother. In fact, we see this happening with Mary, since she was protected from the sinfulness of her own mother while she was in the womb. Do you want to argue that God is incapable of doing that?

Nowhere did LittleSoldier say that Protestant doctrine is fitting or acceptable. She said it was fitting that the mother of our Lord be the Immaculate Conception. I don’t believe you want to argue that it wasn’t fitting that she be so.

LittleSoldier also said that what actually happened is that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. That is the way the Father chose to bring His Son into the world. He could have chosen a different way if He wanted to. He could have chosen to just have Jesus appear as a fully-grown adult.

This is the point: Because there are alternatives to the way God chose to bring Christ into the world, it wasn’t necessary for Jesus to be born the way He was. He could have entered the world in some other way if God had so desired. Surely you’re not going to tell us that God couldn’t have done it some other way if He had wanted to. But that in no way lessens the method God did choose, which was that His Son be born of a sinless virgin.

I said that we believe what we be believe about Mary because of what we believe about Christ. Mary is sinless because of the fact that she is the person from whom Jesus entered the world.

You seem to be saying here that Mary is sinless because she gave birth to Jesus. (Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about what you’re saying.) But isn’t the reason she is sinless is because God made her so? I agree that God made her so because He desired that Christ enter the world through her. But Mary was sinless *before *Gabriel visited her, so she was sinless even though she had not yet conceived in her womb.

 

[Kay_Cee]

You don’t think saying my statements were an embarassment to all Catholics was over the top?

Does “LittleSoldier” also have a problem with St. Augustine?

Even the modern Scott Hahn says: “Saint Augustine put the doctrine in its proper, familial context saying that it would be offensive against Jesus to say that His mother was a sinner.” (Hail Holy Queen 96).

This is exactly what I said. I said protestants who say Mary was born in sin attack Jesus, but they do not know what they do.

Apparently “LittleSoldier” finds Augustine offensive.

So be it.

Uh, now it looks like you’re putting words in her mouth. She didn’t say anything about Augustine.

I say again:

The Marian Dogmas are Christological. We believe what we believe about Mary because of what we believe about Christ. Mary is sinless because to say should would be born in sin is offensive to Christ, and arguably contrary to the nature of God.

I repeat my demand for an apology. Little Soldier didn’t just give us Church teaching. He or she gave her impression of it and tried to silence someone who, within the bounds of orthodoxy, made a statement in a way he or she couldn’t understand.

Well, I confess I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying in the section I bolded above. I think you may have left out a word.

I also don’t recall seeing any place where LittleSoldier tried to silence you. Did she say you shouldn’t post?

You seem to be reading something into what she’s saying, because I honestly don’t know how you’re coming to the conclusions you’re making. Neither she nor I are saying that Christ was, or should have been, born in sin. In fact, we are saying the exact opposite.

Allow me to direct your attention to something one of the apologists of Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin (a man who often is on the radio program Catholic Answers Live to answer questions from both Catholics and Protestants) posted on his blog: “It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.”

Link: jimmyakin.org/2007/01/more_help_for_m.html

That’s from a Catholic apologist, and he’s basically saying the same thing LittleSoldier said, which is that Christ could have come into the world in some other manner if He had chosen to do so. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with Mr. Akin.

 

[cathguy]

Perhaps the two of you are defining “necessary” differently. LittleSoldier seems to be saying that God could have chosen (but didn’t choose) a sinful woman to give birth to Jesus. Since God is omnipotent, He is perfectly capable of protecting a baby in the womb from the sinfulness of its mother. In fact, we see this happening with Mary, since she was protected from the sinfulness of her own mother while she was in the womb. Do you want to argue that God is incapable of doing that?

These two incidents are incomparable.

Let me be more clear. Catholicism has ALWAYS taught that GOD had Mary in mind, and our salvation in mind FROM THE BEGINNING. Genesis 3:15 is the proto-evangelium. Do you believe that Genesis 3:15 refers to Mary?

Mary had human parents, Anne and Joachim. God did NOT over shadow Anne, and conceive a new life in her womb. Are you really drawing a parallel here?

What God DID do was prevent Mary from being conceived in sin. Why? Because he planned it so from the beginning. Why? Because He foretold it and because He new He would enter the world as a man.

Nowhere did LittleSoldier say that Protestant doctrine is fitting or acceptable. She said it was fitting that the mother of our Lord be the Immaculate Conception. I don’t believe you want to argue that it wasn’t fitting that she be so.

Mary is free of sin because GOD willed it so, and He willed it so because of who Jesus Christ is. Are you saying that it would be okay for Jesus to born of a woman who is sinful? Think hard before you answer this question, and do not answer it rashly. I do not want to tempt anyone to heresy.

Would it be acceptable, or okay, or within the nature of God, that Jesus be born of a sinful mother?

LittleSoldier also said that what actually happened is that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. That is the way the Father chose to bring His Son into the world. He could have chosen a different way if He wanted to. He could have chosen to just have Jesus appear as a fully-grown adult.

But He didn’t do those things.

And speculation is idle. We have data that we cannot contradict, and that data comes from Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium.

God did not chose to make Jesus a full blown adult. He became man like us, and lived like us, and experienced all we experience (save sin of course… not by His choice merely… but by His very nature).

This is the point: Because there are alternatives to the way God chose to bring Christ into the world, it wasn’t necessary for Jesus to be born the way He was. He could have entered the world in some other way if God had so desired.

But He didn’t. And that is important.

And that is yet another reason why Mary is so important. Because God planned it so from the beginning.

Surely you’re not going to tell us that God couldn’t have done it some other way if He had wanted to. But that in no way lessens the method God did choose, which was that His Son be born of a sinless virgin.

Well… here I may disagree to a small extent. I think overall you are correct, BUT.

God acts in a manner consistent with His nature. The protestant in this thread who said that God can sin, lie, deceive is making an impossible statement, a statement that is dangerously heretical. Think on it! A God that is love, a God that is truth, being able to sin and deceive? That isn’t Christianity… its Islam.

Now, God’s nature is that nothing imperfect can be united with God… yes… this fits the Biblical data… doesn’t it?

Now, The Holy Ghost conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb. I don’t want to go to far here just to prove a point, but please understand. Mary is the SPOUSE of the Holy Ghost. You understand this yes?

Is it consistent with the Biblical data we have, and with Tradition (especially Augustine… whom I quoted above and you simply ignored) that God would do this with a woman who was in sin?

Forget apologetics for a moment. Just pray on that. Would God unite in that way with a woman who was in sin?

Is that in keeping with the nature of God?

I don’t think so. I think it is perfectly consistent with Catholic tradition to say that God planned salvation history in the way he did from the Beginning (Gen. 3:15) precisely because a) the plan was perfect, and b) it is consistent with His nature.

I ask the question again. Would it have been consistent with His nature to enter the world another way? I personally don’t believe so.

You seem to be saying here that Mary is sinless because she gave birth to Jesus. (Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about what you’re saying.)

Um… I never said this…

What I said was that the Marian DOCTRINES are Christological.

What this means is that we believe what we believe about Mary because we believe what we believe about Jesus. Go back and read the prior post (you didn’t address a single point I made or source I quoted by the way) and deal with the statements from Dogmatic theology about WHY Mary existed.

Put simply: No Jesus, no Mary.

Mary is sinless not BECAUSE she gave birth to Jesus. Rather, Mary is sinless because GOD willed it so because she was destined, from the Beginning to give birth to Jesus. (I had thought this distinction was pretty clear… I guess it wasn’t, and I apologize for not making it more clear).
Kay Cee;6323195:

But isn’t the reason she is sinless is because God made her so?

Yes, because of Jesus.

I agree that God made her so because He desired that Christ enter the world through her. But Mary was sinless *before *

Gabriel visited her, so she was sinless even though she had not yet conceived in her womb.

Umm…

God planned this from the beginning. It wasn’t a last minute decision.

 

[cathguy]

Uh, now it looks like you’re putting words in her mouth. She didn’t say anything about Augustine.

Umm…

Look… Augustine said that those who claim Mary was born in sin demean Christ. I said the same thing, and LittleSoldier called me an embarassment for saying it.

See the connection? Its a direct parallel. It fits the rules of logic and reason.

Well, I confess I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying in the section I bolded above. I think you may have left out a word.

No I didn’t leave out a word. The sentence is pretty clear. Go back and re-read it.

Did you understand the section I quoted from Hahn’s book? It says the same thing.

The Marian doctrines are Christological, and if you deny the Marian doctrines you ultimately detract from Christ. (another way of saying the same thing).

I also don’t recall seeing any place where LittleSoldier tried to silence you. Did she say you shouldn’t post?

Calling someone an embarassment for typing isn’t an attempt to silence them?

You seem to be reading something into what she’s saying, because I honestly don’t know how you’re coming to the conclusions you’re making. Neither she nor I are saying that Christ was, or should have been, born in sin. In fact, we are saying the exact opposite.

I am glad you say the opposite. Is your understanding of the issue complete.

"It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one.

This is PURE conjecture. However, it is a valid form of argumentation, and for an apologist or theologian totally within bounds. But asking a question is NOT professing Church teaching.

For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman."

Sure. He is making an interesting argument. It is one that he is making. It is an apologetic argument, surely not a theological statement, and it is an argument of his own invention I think (because I haven’t seen it anywhere else). Of course its possible I missed it.

But DO NOT confuse apologetics with Mariology or Church teaching. Apologists make arguments for the faith.

Link: jimmyakin.org/2007/01/more_help_for_m.html

That’s from a Catholic apologist, and he’s basically saying the same thing LittleSoldier said, which is that Christ could have come into the world in some other manner if He had chosen to do so. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with Mr. Akin.

Poor Mr. Akin! You have taken him entirely out of context!

Look. Mr. Akin was making an apologetic argument and asking a theological question at the same time. It is clear from the context of his statement.

He wasn’t professing Marian dogma or Church teaching per se here!

My goodness! I essentially proposed an answer Jimmy Akin’s question and got smashed for it?

Read more…

Yikes…

 

[LittleSoldier]

This post is extremely offensive, and uncivil, and the “I’m sorry” before it doesn’t excuse it.

I would request a moderator intervene.

Unbelievable.

This is the statement you made:

When protestants attack Mary, they actually attack Jesus, but in their ignorance they know not what they do.

When I read your statement all I could think about was that there are protestants in this thread (and in other threads I have been involved in) who have stated their love for Mary. As I said, I have never seen an instance of a protestant attacking Mary.

This thread is now fairly long. A lot of statements have been made by both protestants and Catholics. We have agreed on some things and we have disagreed on some. But, with one exception, there has never been any sort of attacking or fighting (and the member who was fighting left the forum).

Your statement made me very sad, because it makes it appear that protestants are not welcome here. If a protestant disagrees with praying to Mary, are you construing that as an attack? If so, why? Aren’t protestants allowed to be in this thread, posting what they believe is truth? Aren’t they allowed to search for truth, just as Catholics?

As a Catholic, it also embarrassed me, because I don’t want protestants to think they are not welcome here on a Catholic forum. I want them to be here; I want to discuss our theological differences; I want to defend the Catholic Faith. When we have the word “Catholic” in the upper right-hand corner whenever we post, we are representing the Catholic Church.

And as Catholics, we should always welcome those with conflicting beliefs, as they are our brothers and sisters. We should always treat them with love and respect.

Your sentence angered and saddened me because it may tear down so much of what we have tried to build in this thread.

I never said anything about you. I said your statement is an insult and an embarrassment. I believe that you, just like anyone else in this thread and on these forums, is a loved child of God.

And that includes protestants.

Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.

 

[Kay_Cee]

These two incidents are incomparable.

Let me be more clear. Catholicism has ALWAYS taught that GOD had Mary in mind, and our salvation in mind FROM THE BEGINNING. Genesis 3:15 is the proto-evangelium. Do you believe that Genesis 3:15 refers to Mary?

Mary had human parents, Anne and Joachim. God did NOT over shadow Anne, and conceive a new life in her womb. Are you really drawing a parallel here?

What God DID do was prevent Mary from being conceived in sin. Why? Because he planned it so from the beginning. Why? Because He foretold it and because He new He would enter the world as a man.

You are not getting the point. Nobody is arguing that Christ came into the world in a different way. The point is that He could have if He had chosen to do so. Do you deny this?

Mary is free of sin because GOD willed it so, and He willed it so because of who Jesus Christ is. Are you saying that it would be okay for Jesus to born of a woman who is sinful? Think hard before you answer this question, and do not answer it rashly. I do not want to tempt anyone to heresy.

Read the quote from Jimmy Akin. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

Would it be acceptable, or okay, or within the nature of God, that Jesus be born of a sinful mother?

Again, not the point. The point is that God had options.

But He didn’t do those things.

And speculation is idle. We have data that we cannot contradict, and that data comes from Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium.

God did not chose to make Jesus a full blown adult. He became man like us, and lived like us, and experienced all we experience (save sin of course… not by His choice merely… but by His very nature).

Here’s the problem: if you say it is *necessary *for Christ to be born of a sinless woman, and by *necessary *you mean that it was impossible for God to do it some other way, then I disagree with you. As I mentioned, God had options, one of which was that Christ not be born at all but just show up as an adult. The fact that He chose only one of those options doesn’t negate the fact that there were options.

But He didn’t. And that is important.

And that is yet another reason why Mary is so important. Because God planned it so from the beginning.

Well… here I may disagree to a small extent. I think overall you are correct, BUT.

God acts in a manner consistent with His nature. The protestant in this thread who said that God can sin, lie, deceive is making an impossible statement, a statement that is dangerously heretical. Think on it! A God that is love, a God that is truth, being able to sin and deceive? That isn’t Christianity… its Islam.

What’s your point? No Catholic here is arguing that God can sin.

Now, God’s nature is that nothing imperfect can be united with God… yes… this fits the Biblical data… doesn’t it?

Now, The Holy Ghost conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb. I don’t want to go to far here just to prove a point, but please understand. Mary is the SPOUSE of the Holy Ghost. You understand this yes?

Is it consistent with the Biblical data we have, and with Tradition (especially Augustine… whom I quoted above and you simply ignored) that God would do this with a woman who was in sin?

Forget apologetics for a moment. Just pray on that. Would God unite in that way with a woman who was in sin?

Is that in keeping with the nature of God?

I don’t think so. I think it is perfectly consistent with Catholic tradition to say that God planned salvation history in the way he did from the Beginning (Gen. 3:15) precisely because a) the plan was perfect, and b) it is consistent with His nature.

I ask the question again. Would it have been consistent with His nature to enter the world another way? I personally don’t believe so.

I’m glad you said this is your personal opinion. But unless we know, and know completely, the mind and nature of God, I don’t think we can say with any certainty that entering the world in another way would have been inconsistent with His nature.

You seem to be saying here that Mary is sinless because she gave birth to Jesus. (Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about what you’re saying.)

Um… I never said this…

What I said was that the Marian DOCTRINES are Christological.

What this means is that we believe what we believe about Mary because we believe what we believe about Jesus. Go back and read the prior post (you didn’t address a single point I made or source I quoted by the way) and deal with the statements from Dogmatic theology about WHY Mary existed.

Put simply: No Jesus, no Mary.

Mary is sinless not BECAUSE she gave birth to Jesus. Rather, Mary is sinless because GOD willed it so because she was destined, from the Beginning to give birth to Jesus. (I had thought this distinction was pretty clear… I guess it wasn’t, and I apologize for not making it more clear).

Yes, because of Jesus.

Okay. The way you worded it, it was hard to tell what you meant. Glad to know we’re clear on that.

Umm…

God planned this from the beginning. It wasn’t a last minute decision.

Agreed, since God is eternal. But that still doesn’t diminish the fact that there were other options. That’s all we’re saying. It wasn’t necessary to do it one particular way because there were other options.

 

[cathguy]

Agreed, since God is eternal. But that still doesn’t diminish the fact that there were other options. That’s all we’re saying. It wasn’t necessary to do it one particular way because there were other options.

No Kay Cee…

That’s all you are saying.

The reason I defended my position so staunchly is that I was called an embarrassment for saying that

a) Mary is kept free from Sin because of who Jesus is… i.e. the doctrines are Christological.

AND

b) Those who deny Mary’s sinlessness are demeaning Christ (Augustine)

Jimmy Akin’s question and opinion stated in the context of a radio show or internet article do NOT constitute Church teaching. I will point out that his question flies in the face of Augustine.

I DO have a problem with that by the way.

But I am not an extremist, and it is okay for apologists to have freedom to make arguments and it is okay for theologians to speculate.

I just wish they wouldn’t do it in public so much.

However, the understanding I shared was perfectly within the bounds of orthodoxy and both you and LittleSoldier were far to quick to pounce. LittleSoldier at the very least owes me an apology for the embarrassment comment and her poorly articulated attack on my position (which is entirely in keeping with the tradition of the Church)

Peace.