Sinless Mary

[SIA]

Your silence speaks volumes, SIA . . .

Oh it’s you, how lovely. Look at Aquinas yourself. It is a matter of historical fact that he and the church did not agree on some matters including the one which I quoted. Aquinas believed that Mary was a sinner in need of a savior same as us.

 

[wmscott]

I have been given this Catholic understanding of Mary ever since I can remember Manny and that’s fine. Problem is, it parallels Mary with divinity. I know that you and I disagree on this and that’s fine with me. I accept Mary as blessed and given grace as the Scriptures tell us, but to raise her to divine status is beyond what I can ever accept. To be Catholic is to accept what the church declares as dogma and doctrine about Mary and I could never go back to it.

It does not parallel divinity to the Blessed Mother; the point is that everyone here is thinking in human terms and rational. God is beyond our comprehension, anything is possible with God, even allowing the Blessed Mother to be sinless. Think that the point that was made earlier is the God created Adam and Eve in a sinless state, he can do it again if it his will. We cannot speak for, know the mind, or will of God.

 

[elvisman]

Oh it’s you, how lovely. Look at Aquinas yourself. It is a matter of historical fact that he and the church did not agree on some matters including the one which I quoted. Aquinas believed that Mary was a sinner in need of a savior same as us.

Again, SIA - for the 3rd time:
Prove your assertions that he made the statement you claim he did. You’re the one who made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. My guess is that your refusal to provide proof is that you can’t - bevcause he never said it.

As for his statement that his writings were “of straw” - he was only saying that in comparison to the vision he was granted. In other words, his writings could not compare to what he’d seen. He wasn’t repudiating what he had written.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;4214545]It’s also a poor argument that Mary being sinful. Scripture is silent on that and if the claim that Mary did commit sin.

Huh? How can saying that Mary is a sinner a poor argument?
We know that she herself claimed God as her Savior (which implies being a sinner) and there are no positive statements in Scripture to the effect that she never sinned.

Then Satan have victory over the Mother of Our Lord. It also belittle Mary.

A sinner is the slave of Satan. God does not will that the mother of Jesus Christ be stained with sin.

Were the apostles slaves of Satan or of Christ? How do you understand their writings in this regard?

She is literally the Living Ark of the Covenant. The Ark is pure.

 

[guanophore]

Huh? How can saying that Mary is a sinner a poor argument?
We know that she herself claimed God as her Savior (which implies being a sinner) and there are no positive statements in Scripture to the effect that she never sinned.

Well, we read it differently. Catholics believe that people that hear the Word of God and keep it are not living in sin. Also, Mary’s acknowledgement that she was saved from sin does not “imply” that she lived as a sinner previously. When the angel came to her, she was already “full of grace”.

Were the apostles slaves of Satan or of Christ? How do you understand their writings in this regard?

 

[justasking4]

It does not parallel divinity to the Blessed Mother; the point is that everyone here is thinking in human terms and rational. God is beyond our comprehension, anything is possible with God, even allowing the Blessed Mother to be sinless. Think that the point that was made earlier is the God created Adam and Eve in a sinless state, he can do it again if it his will. We cannot speak for, know the mind, or will of God.

What you are doing is assuming God did in some manner create Mary to be sinless or was kept from sin. Either way there is no evidence for this. An assumption about about something is not proof. Its still speculation.

 

[Nickkname]

St. Thomas did oppose the Immaculate Conception in his Summa Theologica. From the CE article on the Immaculate Conception (Source):

St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.

In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word “conception” was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.

We may formulate the question discussed by them in two propositions, both of which are against the sense of the dogma of 1854:

– the sanctification of Mary took place before the infusion of the soul into the flesh, so that the immunity of the soul was a consequence of the sanctification of the flesh and there was no liability on the part of the soul to contract original sin. This would approach the opinion of the Damascene concerning the holiness of the active conception.
– The sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul by redemption from the servitude of sin, into which the soul had been drawn by its union with the unsanctified flesh. This form of the thesis excluded an immaculate conception.

The theologians forgot that between sanctification before infusion, and sanctification after infusion, there was a medium: sanctification of the soul at the moment of its infusion. To them the idea seemed strange that what was subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous in point of time. Speculatively taken, the soul must be created before it can be infused and sanctified but in reality, the soul is created snd sanctified at the very moment of its infusion into the body. Their principal difficulty was the declaration of St. Paul (Romans 5:12) that all men have sinned in Adam. The purpose of this Pauline declaration, however, is to insist on the need which all men have of redemption by Christ. Our Lady was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the silence of the earlier Fathers. But the divines of those times were distinguished not so much for their knowledge of the Fathers or of history, as for their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the Eastern Church, who exhibit in far greater completeness the tradition of the Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been lost sight of have since been brought to light.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4217451]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? How can saying that Mary is a sinner a poor argument?
We know that she herself claimed God as her Savior (which implies being a sinner) and there are no positive statements in Scripture to the effect that she never sinned.

guanophore
Well, we read it differently.

What you are doing is reading Catholic doctrine back into the Scriptures and making the Scriptures claim things that it does not.

Catholics believe that people that hear the Word of God and keep it are not living in sin.

This does not mean though they never sin. That is impossible for anyone who lives in a human body which is fallen flesh.

Also, Mary’s acknowledgement that she was saved from sin does not “imply” that she lived as a sinner previously.

Of course it implies she was a sinner. She to inherits Adam’ sin since she was born of a man and a woman. There is no way to get around this.

When the angel came to her, she was already “full of grace”.

The term though has nothing to do with sin. Look it up again in your Greek lexicon.

Were the apostles slaves of Satan or of Christ? How do you understand their writings in this regard?

I didn’t see a reply to this. I don’t blame you for not wanting to address this… View attachment 4165

 

[guanophore]

What you are doing is assuming God did in some manner create Mary to be sinless or was kept from sin. Either way there is no evidence for this. An assumption about about something is not proof. Its still speculation.

Well, we read it differently, ja4. My question is, why does it bother you so much even if Catholics are speculating? Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that it is all just a pious speculation. So what?

You are right about proof, but the vast majority of our faith cannot be “proved”. That is why they call it articles of “faith”.

What keeps you from letting it go?

 

[justasking4]

When I see these types of arguments against the Blessed Mother it is truly amazing and sad how spiritually blinded to the Truth people can be. These people will never know and experience the fullness of Gods graces because of closed minds and stubborn perceptions of what they think is truth. It’s like going through life with blinders on, having no ability to view the vastness of Gods Truth. So much of Gods wonderful world and graces are missed out on. Pray for them, I am sure that the Blessed Mother will pray for them also. That is one of my requests to Her as I pray today, “open the eyes of the spiritually blind”.

Why would anyone want to pray to a creature when we can pray directly to Christ Who is God and has the power to act for us?
Hebrews 4:14-16 is one of many places that describes His relationship to us:
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Only in Christ do we have the confidence to approach the throne of grace. No other can give us such confidence…

 

[justasking4]

Well, we read it differently, ja4. My question is, why does it bother you so much even if Catholics are speculating? Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that it is all just a pious speculation. So what?

You are right about proof, but the vast majority of our faith cannot be “proved”. That is why they call it articles of “faith”.

What keeps you from letting it go?

Does the truth matter to you? Do you let your fellow Catholics believe things that you know are not true and not say anything?

 

[guanophore]

Why would anyone want to pray to a creature when we can pray directly to Christ Who is God and has the power to act for us?
Hebrews 4:14-16 is one of many places that describes His relationship to us:
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Only in Christ do we have the confidence to approach the throne of grace. No other can give us such confidence…

If you have your confidence in God, how is it that it is so necessary for you to fight so hard against the saints? Why does it concern you that others find confidence in praying with those who have gone before us in the faith? Why does it bother you so much that we believe in the communion of saints, and that we are quick to ask the intercession of those who have good standing with the Father? How is it that you cannot see that God is so generous with His gifts that He shares them with His people?

Todays gospel is about how He sent the disciples out to heal and preach. This did not take anything away from Him. If you lack confidence, then you don’t have to ask for their intercession.

Scripture shows that the effectual fervent prayers of the righteous have great power in their effects. Mary’ s prayers are especially powerful because God has put enmity between her and the devil.

 

[guanophore]

Does the truth matter to you? Do you let your fellow Catholics believe things that you know are not true and not say anything?

Of course the truth matters, but I am in no position to “let fellow Catholics” believe one thing or another. Such an expression indicates a person that has a serious control issue, and seems to feel that it is his duty to not “let” others believe things that he thinks are wrong. It is a gross intolerance of others who are different.

Recently you said you were on CAF “to help”. It seems that your goal here is to promulgate what you believe is the “truth”, especially these anti-Catholic reactions to such doctrines as the sinlessness of Mary.

CAF is not a venue for you to promote your anti-Catholic agenda. I am sure there are other fora for that purpose. I have visited several myself.

CAF is here to answer genuine questions that people have about the Catholic faith. You have made it clear that this is one particular topic where you cannot accept the Catholic teaching. This is between you and God. There is no reason to continue to grind this axe.

 

[Nickkname]

Your problem with the Immaculate Conception, justasking4, seems to be twofold:

1. Since Mary was a daughter of Adam, she had to inherit Original Sin (and this is supported by St. Paul’s “all have sinned” scriptural verse)
2. Mary called Jesus her Savior (and this is supported by Mary’s Magnificat)

However, there is a problem in your reasoning: You may not even realize it yourself, but basically, according to your argument, a Mary without sin is a Mary who dose not need a Savior. In other words, if Mary had never sinned, than why would she need to be saved?

The fact of the matter is very simple, though. Let’s say that a man was conceived without Original Sin and had never committed a sin in his life. Now, how could this be possible? Did the man do this? Certainly not. As Jesus said, only God is good. So God had to be the One Who free the man from Original Sin and gave him the graces necessary to not sin. But how? Simple: Through Jesus. By His Death Jesus won for all mankind all the divine graces that are necessary to be holy. And so, replacing the example of the sinless man with the person of Mary, you can understand Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Jesus won for her every grace, He won for her all the graces, making her full of grace, even to the point of cancelling out Original Sin. So it is not that Mary was sinless apart from Jesus, but rather, she is sinless because of Jesus.

Now, there are two objections to this: 1) How could Mary as a human person be sinless if she is a daughter of Adam? and 2) Why would Mary need Jesus if she was concieved without Original Sin? The answer is simple: Mary was freed from Original Sin in light of the Death of Jesus, being filled with every grace, and so, because it is Jesus Who made Mary the Immaculate Conception, she needed a Savior just like us. It still may seem confusing, I know, because it still begs the question “But she had not been conceived with Original Sin like us?” and the answer is already given: It is because of Jesus that she was conceived without Original Sin. All human beings need a Savior, so Mary needed a Savior, being human herself, and it so happened that the Savior gave Mary the fullness of the fruits of His Death, not only because God saw it fit that the Mother of His Son should be without sin but also because she had trusted completed in God and surrendered herself to His Will. Man recieves graces by trusting in God and surrendering himself to God’s Will - and so it was with Mary, who, more than anyone else, trusted absolutely in God and completely surrendered herself to the Will of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I have been given this Catholic understanding of Mary ever since I can remember Manny and that’s fine. Problem is, it parallels Mary with divinity. I know that you and I disagree on this and that’s fine with me. I accept Mary as blessed and given grace as the Scriptures tell us, but to raise her to divine status is beyond what I can ever accept. To be Catholic is to accept what the church declares as dogma and doctrine about Mary and I could never go back to it.

How does it parallel divinity? Mary is a created being. She like the rest of us need to be saved. She is Immaculate because it is the merits of Jesus Christ that she has been preserved.

The Catholic Church does not even raised her to a divine status. The Church does not claim that she is eternal.

I don’t really care if you never go back to the Catholic Church. God’s will determine our path in life.

Mary is sinless because nothing is impossible for God. God created her like so. If God created Adam and Eve without sin, surely he would do the same to the Mother of His Only Begotten Son.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Huh? How can saying that Mary is a sinner a poor argument?

Because to claim that Mary is sinful is to say like having Satan. “Hey Jesus, I made your mommy sin. She is my slave.”

You know Scripture says that anyone who is sin is the slave of Satan.

We know that she herself claimed God as her Savior (which implies being a sinner) and there are no positive statements in Scripture to the effect that she never sinned.

Mary did claim that God is her savior. It was through God’s grace that He preserved Mary from the original sin and had no tendency to sin. Without God’s actions, Mary would be sinful.

Were the apostles slaves of Satan or of Christ? How do you understand their writings in this regard?

The Apostles were the chosen by Jesus to preach his Gospel Message. They are witnesses to the incarnation. The difference between Mary and the Apostles is this.

Mary conceived the Word of God made flesh. She spend 30 yrs with Jesus. She knows Jesus more than any of the Apostles. She also had God in ther womb for the first nine months of Jesus here on earth.

Now suppose you claim that Mary was a sinful woman all her life even before she conceived Jesus. Sin is the spot in our souls. Do you want Jesus be inside a woman who is has spot of sin? It would be like putting dirt on God’s face since Jesus’ own flesh and blood comes from his mother.

It insults God to have his son be born of a sinful woman. God is offended by sin. He does not want his Son to be born of some dirty soul. Jesus who is also full of grace and power, had to be born of a virgin who is as pure and spotless as a lamb.

 

[Good_Fella]

St. Thomas did oppose the Immaculate Conception in his Summa Theologica. From the CE article on the Immaculate Conception (Source):

St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.

In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word “conception” was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.

We may formulate the question discussed by them in two propositions, both of which are against the sense of the dogma of 1854:

– the sanctification of Mary took place before the infusion of the soul into the flesh, so that the immunity of the soul was a consequence of the sanctification of the flesh and there was no liability on the part of the soul to contract original sin. This would approach the opinion of the Damascene concerning the holiness of the active conception.
– The sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul by redemption from the servitude of sin, into which the soul had been drawn by its union with the unsanctified flesh. This form of the thesis excluded an immaculate conception.

The theologians forgot that between sanctification before infusion, and sanctification after infusion, there was a medium: sanctification of the soul at the moment of its infusion. To them the idea seemed strange that what was subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous in point of time. Speculatively taken, the soul must be created before it can be infused and sanctified but in reality, the soul is created snd sanctified at the very moment of its infusion into the body. Their principal difficulty was the declaration of St. Paul (Romans 5:12) that all men have sinned in Adam. The purpose of this Pauline declaration, however, is to insist on the need which all men have of redemption by Christ. Our Lady was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the silence of the earlier Fathers. But the divines of those times were distinguished not so much for their knowledge of the Fathers or of history, as for their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the Eastern Church, who exhibit in far greater completeness the tradition of the Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been lost sight of have since been brought to light.

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord!”
Luke 1, 46

 

[justasking4]

Nickkname;4217627]
Your problem with the Immaculate Conception, justasking4, seems to be twofold:

1. Since Mary was a daughter of Adam, she had to inherit Original Sin (and this is supported by St. Paul’s “all have sinned” scriptural verse)
2. Mary called Jesus her Savior (and this is supported by Mary’s Magnificat)

However, there is a problem in your reasoning: You may not even realize it yourself, but basically, according to your argument, a Mary without sin is a Mary who dose not need a Savior. In other words, if Mary had never sinned, than why would she need to be saved?

The fact of the matter is very simple, though. Let’s say that a man was conceived without Original Sin and had never committed a sin in his life. Now, how could this be possible? Did the man do this? Certainly not. As Jesus said, only God is good. So God had to be the One Who free the man from Original Sin and gave him the graces necessary to not sin. But how? Simple: Through Jesus. By His Death Jesus won for all mankind all the divine graces that are necessary to be holy. And so, replacing the example of the sinless man with the person of Mary, you can understand Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Jesus won for her every grace, He won for her all the graces, making her full of grace, even to the point of cancelling out Original Sin. So it is not that Mary was sinless apart from Jesus, but rather, she is sinless because of Jesus.

The problem is that even though Christ died for all the sins of the world and defeated death it does not mean we no longer sin. Not even the apostles make such a claim for themselves. Our salvation in Christ is still to be finalized when Christ comes again. In the meantime we are in fallen human bodies in which sin remains. Secondly, there has never been a man or woman in history after the Christ event who can truly claim to have never sinned.
Thirdly, what you say about Mary may sound great but it has no basis in Scripture. Scripture does not come close to saying this about her.

Now, there are two objections to this: 1) How could Mary as a human person be sinless if she is a daughter of Adam? and 2) Why would Mary need Jesus if she was concieved without Original Sin? The answer is simple: Mary was freed from Original Sin in light of the Death of Jesus, being filled with every grace, and so, because it is Jesus Who made Mary the Immaculate Conception, she needed a Savior just like us. It still may seem confusing, I know, because it still begs the question “But she had not been conceived with Original Sin like us?” and the answer is already given: It is because of Jesus that she was conceived without Original Sin. All human beings need a Savior, so Mary needed a Savior, being human herself, and it so happened that the Savior gave Mary the fullness of the fruits of His Death, not only because God saw it fit that the Mother of His Son should be without sin but also because she had trusted completed in God and surrendered herself to His Will. Man recieves graces by trusting in God and surrendering himself to God’s Will - and so it was with Mary, who, more than anyone else, trusted absolutely in God and completely surrendered herself to the Will of God.

Scripture is the only place that records anything we know of Mary and it never makes this kind of claim for her. Keep in mind also that the writers of Scripture knew her best and they never make such claims as you are doing here. It never makes any exception for her in regards to sin.

 

[guanophore]

What you are doing is reading Catholic doctrine back into the Scriptures and making the Scriptures claim things that it does not.

No need! The NT was written by Catholics who were writing their Catholic beliefs. In order to properly understand it, it must be read in the light of what the writers believed and taught.

This does not mean though they never sin. That is impossible for anyone who lives in a human body which is fallen flesh.

You are wrong about this, ja4. Jesus died to free us from sin, and saying this, you are basically saying his sacrifice was insufficient. This is one of the basics that I was telling you to focus on, instead of matters too sublime, like the immaculate conception.

Grasping and living the concept that you don’t have to sin would be a much better use of your time and energy.

Of course it implies she was a sinner. She to inherits Adam' sin since she was born of a man and a woman. There is no way to get around this.

Not humanly, anyhow!

 The term though has nothing to do with sin. Look it up again in your Greek lexicon. :thumbsup:

Well, we read it differently. You read it in the light of your deficient understanding of grace and sin.

Were the apostles slaves of Satan or of Christ? How do you understand their writings in this regard? I didn’t see a reply to this. I don’t blame you for not wanting to address this…

I didn’t see it. However, I can’t imagine how it is relevant.

 

[wmscott]

What you are doing is assuming God did in some manner create Mary to be sinless or was kept from sin. Either way there is no evidence for this. An assumption about about something is not proof. Its still speculation.

Still a blinded response to the truth I see. The truth surrounding the Blessed Mother was carried on through Sacred Tradition, and when I say Sacred Tradition I mean the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. There is the relationship between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, Sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. These successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence. Therefore, when it comes to the Blessed Mother and what you are having trouble with was not an issue with the Church for more than 1800 years. This was and is facts handed down by the Apostles to their successors (Sacred Tradition), and was never disputed because there never was any reason to dispute the facts surrounding the Blessed Mother. As a matter of fact, Martin Luther at the time of the reformation did not have an issue with it. It was not until later in his life when he grew bitter towards the CC that he started to denounce some of the Catholic views and teachings. So no assumption here, just understanding that the CC has preserved the truth for over 2000 years, and that same truth will prevail against assumptions like yours for thousands of years from now. This is why we have one teaching authority (Magisterium) and one interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not 30K+ personal interpretations. Today is the second day that I pray to the Blessed Mother to ask our Lord to pray for all that are blinded to the truth, including you.