Sinless Mary

[Leeann]

(Continued to Goodfella)

“If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c.A.D.110)

Ignatius of Antioch had to deal with the same mentality the Catholic Church has to with Protestants today. In his case it was a matter of Christology and the interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. Today the Church must contend with Reformed Fundamentalists (a modern phenomenon) over the issue of Mariology and the interpretation of the New Testament.

Yes…I can see the comparison, however in Ignatius’ case he was preaching something that was true and vital and necessary for the salvation of those people, whereas the issue of Mariology isn’t a necessity for one’s salvation, and any contention is more over the issue of “the truth” being taught.

Leeann: “Naturally…however what is more important is that it (Catholic theology and Church teaching) should reflect the ‘Truth’”.

Good Fella: Naturally, or more precisely supernaturally, Catholic theology and Church teaching does reflect the divine truth as mediated through Scripture and Tradition. If this were not so, then Jesus broke his promise to his apostles and us. And you make our Lord, who claimed to be the Truth, out to be a despicable liar.

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations, and he assured them that he would be with them until the end of time (cf. Mt. 28, 19-20).

Well I don’t believe that to be true….about Jesus breaking His promise to the Apostles and us, His church – body of believers - there’s nothing to the contrary to indicate that when He sent out His Apostles with the assurance He would be with them until the end of time in Matthew that this hasn’t and won’t be fulfilled.

 

[Leeann]

(AND Still for Goodfella!)

Leeann: “Naturally…however what is more important is that it (Catholic theology and Church teaching) should reflect the ‘Truth’”.

Good Fella: Naturally, or more precisely supernaturally, Catholic theology and Church teaching does reflect the divine truth as mediated through Scripture and Tradition. If this were not so, then Jesus broke his promise to his apostles and us. And you make our Lord, who claimed to be the Truth, out to be a despicable liar.

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations, and he assured them that he would be with them until the end of time (cf. Mt. 28, 19-20).
Well I don’t believe that to be true….about Jesus breaking His promise to the Apostles and us, His church – body of believers - there’s nothing to the contrary to indicate that when He sent out His Apostles with the assurance He would be with them until the end of time in Matthew that this hasn’t and won’t be fulfilled.

Thus our Lord had not only the original Twelve in mind but their valid successors also: The Pope in union with the College of Bishops.

Thus our Lord had not only the original twelve in mind, but all those that they sent out themselves – disciples, followers and believers – chosen for the proper area of work within each church that was being established at that time and that would succeed and continue on for the ages to come – lead by His spirit and truth.

“And so I say to you. You are Peter (Cephas: the Rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys (the power to open and shut) to the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 16, 18-19

Jesus established his Church on Peter with the Apostles serving as a foundation to avoid chaos in faith as we find in the divided Protestant traditions that rest merely on human speculation and rationalization, having originated from men and women.

Jesus established His church on the merit of the comment that Peter made, not on Peter himself……His Church……with the original Apostles, disciples, followers and traditions that in no way resemble the Catholic church of today.

 

[Good_Fella]

What if in 500 years they dig her body up and it is corrupted? Or in 1500 years it has turned to dust? Would this mean a miracle did not happen and the church was mistaken?

There is no proof for this assertion.

Go back and read my reply. Her body was exhumed for the last time 46 years after her death. It is no longer buried. I provided a link with photographs. I’ve seen her body myself at the convent where she lies in state. The fact is her body is not decaying. Admit it. You’re in a state of denial because you’re afraid it is true.

Your problem is you are alienated from the scriptures and don’t understand them. Genesis 3:15 makes it clear for starters. Mary was sinless. Christ has spoken through his Church.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Leeann]

Tell me, Leeann -
Which Church DID Jesus establish here on earth - if not the Catholic Church?
Please don’t tell me he established a conglomeration of Protestant factions/denominations because that is just plain silly. - and biblically unfounded.
Jesus said he was building a "Church" - not “Churches”.

**The reason I ask is because much **of what is being argued on this thread can be answered by the points I have already made repeatedly about Authority.

Please enlighten me. While you’re at it, please show me where in scripture Jesus told the Apostles about how to structure the Church hierarchy (bishops, presbyters, deacons, elders, etc).

Hi Elvisman -
Yes…the history of the early church that the Apostles established was catholic in its very nature, but not as it is known today…the Apostles set clear guidelines for the churches to follow in regards to how they should be organised.

As for the church that Jesus established here on earth…it was very visible then in His followers and disciples as it still is today, no matter what denomination - Protestant(s) or Catholic(s) - they belong too - it’s evident in their faith and belief in HIM…this is HIS church.

 

[Leeann]

Hi elvisman!

Posted by elvisman:
You have missed the point completely - or have avoided it.
I was asking you about Matthias to prove to you that the Authority given the Apostles by Jesus included Apostolic succession.

And how would that relate to the way the Catholic church of today chooses their successors…history has shown that it has been “changed” :

Papal conclave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sistine Chapel has been the location of the conclave since 1492.A papal conclave is a meeting of the College of Cardinals to elect the Pope (or Bishop of Rome) who is considered by Catholics to be the Successor of Saint Peter and earthly head of the Catholic Church.[1] The conclave is the oldest ongoing method for choosing the leader of an institution.[2]

A history of political interference in these elections and consequently long vacancies between popes, and most immediately the interregnum of 1268-1271, prompted the Second Council of Lyons which decreed in 1274 that the electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave (Latin for “with a key”), and not permitted to leave until a new Bishop of Rome is elected. Conclaves are now held in the Sistine Chapel in the Palace of the Vatican.[3]

In the early centuries of Christianity the Bishop of Rome (like other bishops) was chosen by the consensus of the clergy and people of Rome.[4] The body of electors was more precisely defined when, in 1059, the College of Cardinals was designated the sole body of electors.[5] Since then other details of the process have developed. In 1970 Pope Paul VI limited the electors to cardinals under 80 years of age. The Pope may change the procedures for electing his successor by issuing an apostolic constitution; the current procedures were established by Pope John Paul II in his constitution Universi Dominici Gregis[6] and amended by a motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI dated 11 June 2007.As indicated in my response about how they voted for Matthias (120 followers/disicples/believers were there and they voted along with the Apostles ) there is no mention again of that every happening after Pentacost…Timothy was cautioned by Paul in a letter about not being hasty when ‘laying on hands’ when choosing a leaders for the church…

The point I made about the Gospel being “unclear” was to refute the many Protestant factions based on thousands of differing, “clear” interpretations. the Protestant Reformation was based on rebellion, divorce and misnterpretation.
That one perspective…perhaps the reformation was based on things that were being taught within the Catholic church that just didn’t seem to quite up add up to what Jesus had in mind…or what the Apostles had in mind when they first established the churches.

This is why you cannot grasp the Marian dogmas, the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration and many other doctrines.

Well…in trying to get this back to the “thread topic” - “Sinless Mary”…I cannot grasp any “validity” in the Marian dogmas…because there’s so little to go on other than what I believe to be a lot of speculation.

 

[Good_Fella]

**
Why shouldn’t we expect it? Paul’s letters were of great importance to these communities in the way they should conduct themselves…wouldn’t you think, if Paul, holding Mary in the same high esteem that Catholics do now…that he would use her as a prime example for how they should act in faithfulness, steadfastness and decorum? **

Shouldn’t we expect Paul to mention the Virgin Birth in his letters as well? There was no need for him to. Not everything each apostle orally taught was put down in writing either implicitly or explicitly. We have the oral and the written traditions. Paul did not have to mention Mary in his letters. But her absence in them does not necessarily imply he held little or no esteem for her unlike Luke and John - the Marian gospel writers. He must have shared their perceptions, unless he was actually unaware of them, which could be the case. The Church had just been born and was beginning to gel. Paul expected Jesus to return during his lifetime. Our Lord was his primary focus, so he referred to Jesus and himself (an apostle of Christ) as spiritual models. Priests normally refer to Mary as a spiritual model for us in Christ in their sermons during the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass on her feast days. They don’t have to in Ordinary Time and usually don’t.

By the way, indifference towards Mary is a modern phenomenon among Reformed Fundamentalist Christians outside the Church and severed from the historic Christian faith. Listen to the Church Fathers who were guardians of the scriptures, not your local American pastor who is so far removed. Maybe you consider yourself your own pastor and Vicar of Christ (the Rock).

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Good_Fella]

(AND Still for Goodfella!)

Well I don’t believe that to be true….about Jesus breaking His promise to the Apostles and us, His church – body of believers - there’s nothing to the contrary to indicate that when He sent out His Apostles with the assurance He would be with them until the end of time in Matthew that this hasn’t and won’t be fulfilled.

Thus our Lord had not only the original twelve in mind, but all those that they sent out themselves – disciples, followers and believers – chosen for the proper area of work within each church that was being established at that time and that would succeed and continue on for the ages to come – lead by His spirit and truth.

Jesus established His church on the merit of the comment that Peter made, not on Peter himself……His Church……with the original Apostles, disciples, followers and traditions that in no way resemble the Catholic church of today.

Go back and read Matthew 28. You’re rationalizing.

Jesus had the apostles’ valid successors in mind. Read the Acts and Epistles. Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands) and the Divine Office is a reality, and it does not include every single baptized layperson who happens to read his Bible. It is a sacred institution of the “One” visible Church founded by Christ on Peter and his Apostles. You can deny it all you want. It’s your privilege.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means “rock” in greek (Petros) and in Aramaic (Cephas). He alone was given the keys to the kingdom. Obviously you are unaware of the institution and function of the king’s prime minister or vicar in the Davidic kingdom. We cannot separate the New Testament from the Old Testament to grasp the fullness of divine revelation. I have nothing more to say to you, Leeann. You’re here just to argue and contest the true faith until the end of time. You think you already have all the answers by privately reading your copy of the Bible, so you don’t need any Catholic answers. I’ve received all the answers you’ve given me from other Protestants long before I met you. The more I listen, the more I’m glad I’m a Catholic. Anyway, this is off topic, which shows you are hear only to contest Cathiolicism as a whole from different angles.

Your understanding of Scripture is so limited, I’m afraid, and your knowledge of Church history is scant. But a study of Church history would be of no benefit to you as long as you cling to your prejudices. I studied Church history in university and read the works of Catholics, Protestants, and non-Catholics. The Catholic authors and some of the non-Catholic authors held the stronger position against the Protestant one. I recommend you read Kenneth D Whitehead’s book: ‘The Catholic Church is the Early Church’. I can also recommend some books that clearly show how American Reformed Fundamentalism resembles the heresy of ancient gnosticism. Do a google search for quick info.

PAX :yawn:

 

[guanophore]

i must disagree with you. The RCC does raise Mary to divinity. It parallels her with Christ on all of the Marian dogmas. It claims that Mary was sinless like only Christ was.

This is not true. Adam and Eve were created without sin.

It claims that Mary was taken into heaven body and soul which parallels the resurrection of Christ

No, Jesus is divine, and therefore, has the Power in Himself to ascend to heaven. Mary is a creature. She must be assumed, like Enoch and Elijah.

and it claims that Mary was born without sin like only Christ was.

Actually, no. The Church does teach that Mary was born without original sin, as was John the Baptist, but not “like Christ”. They each had to be saved from sin.

Furthermore, Catholicism claims that Mary was and is perfect and is the queen of Heaven which parallels that Jesus is the King of the Universe.

No, I don’t think that the Church teaches Mary is “perfect”. We can clearly see that she fell into distress when she lost Jesus in the temple. She has been perfected by God’s grace, just as we all will one day be (if we persevere in faith).

Marian doctrines are developed “backwards” from doctrines about Christ. Christ is God, therefore, Mary is considered the Mother of God (Theotokos). Jesus is the King, therefore, she is the Queen mother. Jesus needed pure unstained flesh from which to draw His human nature, therefore, he made Mary’s flesh clean.

The Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Scriptures.

To an extent, this is true. These doctrines developed centuries later in response to heresies that did not exist when the NT was being written.

Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.

The point is that God intended humanity to be without sin. That is how He created us. He can create humans without sin if He wishes!

As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.

The point is that God has taken people up to heaven, body and soul.

Mary

Born without sin (*not *clearly defined in scripture)

Neither is the Trinity, but that does not seem to be a problem…

Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)

Well…we read it differently.

Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)

Well…we read it differently.

Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)

Well,…we read it differently.

Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (*no where *in scripture)

It seems that you are expecting everything to be present in scripture. Clearly Mary was preached about, or there would not be stories about her in the Gospels. Luke most likely is recording what Paul preached (parallels with the Ark of the Covenant) and what he learned from Mary himself, when they were in Ephesus together.

Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence…the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854

As you are likely aware – the bible verse listed above has different translations, whereby they either infer that the “seed itself “ - JESUS - is the one that ‘crushes the serpent’s head’ – not Mary – or it states clearly ‘he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.’ – again not Mary.

All those who are “in Christ” will have the power to trample the serpent underfoot. It is by His power that we are freed from the slavery to sin.

 

[guanophore]

Where in Scripture does it say that a body is to be dug up after its buried and that a uncorrupted body is a some kind of miracle?

Right next to where it says that the bodies of the dead will come to life again when they touch the bones of a saint.

Many bodies are exhumed for all kinds of reasons.

How do you think a body would be uncorrupt, if not miraculously?

It is true that Adam and Eve were of a special creation. Jesus was also. Mary though was born of 2 human parents while Christ, Adam and Eve were not.

This is true. However, we know that God is not limited when He is created special persons for special purposes. John the Baptist was also born without original sin, and was, from the moment of His conception, set aside by God for a special purpose.

Mary’s assumption is meant to parallel Jesus’ assumption.

Sorry, but this is very bad theology ja4. Jesus is divine, and can ascend to heaven under His own power. Humans are created beings, and cannot ascend, but must be assumed. The assumption of our bodies to a glorified state in heaven is God’s plan for all of us. He became human so that we could participate in His divinity.

Just because these 2 were taken directly to heaven does not mean Mary was. There is no record of her in Scripture for this claim.

Such a statement reveals the erroneous belief that all of God’s truth is limited to scripture.

There is no evidence in Scripture that she was assumed into heaven nor are there any eyewitness accounts for it in the first century.

True. Neither is there any mention of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, or the index to the Bible.

Just because a church has authority does not mean its always correct. For this claim to be true it must have some evidence.

i agree. However fallible men can lie.

It is true that fallible men can lie, however, what you are saying is that Jesus is lying. 'Since He is the Head of the Church, He cannot deny HImself. He identifies HImself completely with His Body, the Church. It is He that you are persecuting, and accusing of falsehood.

Are there any examples of this in Scripture and what is the evidence that God did this for Mary?

I think that such a matter is just too sublime for you, ja4. You will not be able to understand these things without a firm foundation in the basics. You don’t understand the nature and function of baptism, or original sin, and because of that, you cannot understand what it means to be “full of grace”.

In regards to you last comment do we find anyone praying to Mary at the hour of their death in Scripture? Is there even any allusions to this kind of thing?

Do you imagine that it is somehow contrary to the will of God to ask other saintly people to pray for us at the hour of our death?

Yes, actually, there is an example of an intercession to Peter of this kind.

Where in Scripture is it ever referred to when 2 living people on this planet are conversing with each is it considered a prayer?

since the NT was composed by Catholics, and the whole of scripture was compiled by Catholics, and Catholics dont’ distinguish between members of the Body that are in this world, and members in the next, such an artificial distinction would not be made.

Jesus demonstrated that conversation with those who have passed can happen on earth.

When you talk to your friends and relatives do you and they consider this prayer?

I think you have a narrow, modern, and inadequate definition for the word prayer. In this context, it just means to ask, as Simon asked Peter to pray for him. It is a request for intercession.

 

[guanophore]

Throughout the ages there have been so-called “private revelations”, some of which have been recognized by the Catholic Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation (i.e, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the faithful) knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church [67]

Do you have an objection to this?

But what of the instruction as stated in:

1 John 4:V1 -3

(Douay Rheims Bible online)

1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.

The apparitions refer to God or to the Son on occasion, some never mention Jesus at all….but pleas for the rosary to be prayed, etc. None of the visionaries ever actually “tested” the apparitions by asking them to “tell us who Jesus was/is”…yet these apparitions and the messages they gave were accepted as having come from God.

You are wrong about a number of these assertions. The main one is that the Rosary is Christ centered. Another is that you somehow believe that Mary is “separated” from her divine son, which is not the case. Everyone who is “in Christ” has been grafted into Him, and becomes a vine sustained by Him.

All of the apparitions have been thoroughly tested, or are currently being tested.
Leeann;4241935:

The authorities, the ‘sensus fidelium’ also accepted these apparitions as being “authentic” without knowing “where” they came from, simply because the question with regards to JESUS and who He was and is was never asked.

Such a statement reveals a vast ignorance about Catholic practice.

It would appear that the acceptance seems to be in the way the apparitions a “support” the Catholic traditions of the rosary, penance, thus enabling the firm establishment of the Catholic Marian Theology, and most importantly - the gathering of “converts” to the CHURCH itself and its authority…which is all very nice…but doesn’t establish the authenticity of “where” the apparitions are from.

The Rosary, penancy, and Catholic Marian Theology are all peripheral to the Teachings of Christ. It is Jesus who is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. Everything must be judged in the light of this.

 

[Leeann]

Hi Goodfella!

Answers to your “Part ll”

Leeann: “In the Catholic Church’s opinion (that Mary was endowed with God’s sanctifying and habitual grace at the precise moment God fashioned her soul upon her conception, not at her birth.).”

Good Fella: Well, are you willing to go so far as to affirm that Mary was made sinless when she was born? That’s a good start. And while you’re at it you may as well reject Catholic teaching that the Son of Man was made sinless at his incarnation, not at his nativity. We become human as soon as we are conceived, at which precise instant we receive our souls from God, not when we are born. Original sin stains the soul in union with the body.

I am not willing to affirm that Mary was made sinless when she was born.
I believe that Mary was sanctified when the Holy Spirit over shadowed her, during her pregnancy and right up until Jesus’ birth.
Mary’s human lineage and body were what was necessary for the fulfillment of God’s promises- mission accomplished – a holy vessel for a holy cargo.
As for Jesus himself – He was God and human – at the same time – right at the itzy bitzy beginning (is that too technical a phrase?..I’m tired here….)…I almost cry when I type that…obviously not due to it’s “poetic” value, but just thinking of it is overwhelming

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
Luke 1, 46

Mary was redeemed at the point of her conception in virtue of her Divine Maternity. In order to be saved by the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death, she had to be fashioned sinless. Mary could not have declared with absolute certainty that she was saved if she were sinful. Luke saw her as sinless, acknowledging the traditional belief of the Church.

Perhaps Mary was not “declaring with absolute certainty that she was saved” when she made that proclamation….it is similar to the one made by Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:V1 , when she sang out in praise :

“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
My horn is exalted in the Lord,
I smile at my enemies,
Because I rejoice inYour salvation.”

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He (She) will strike at your head, while you strike at his (her) heel.”
Genesis 3, 15

Then Uzziah said to her: “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.”
Judith 13, 18-19

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

The declared heretic Martin Luther rejected the Book of Judith as apochryphal, though Luke cites a passage from this text in connection with Mary’s privileged position with God -

Now that is reeeaallly trying to stretch it a bit Goodfella……that quotation from Luke is in reference to what Elizabeth said to Mary when she greeted her and as prompted by the Holy Spirit….the reference to Judith as in comparison to Mary however…only points out more clearly that Mary and Judith were both just women, unless of course you would place Judith on the same level as Mary, by the words describing her in the quotation you offered above???

Also, further reference for the “declaration” from Mary, that you say she could not have declared unless she was sinless: (see below)

New Advent website (Magnificat)

“Similarities are found with Hab., iii, 18; Mal., iii, 12; Job, v, 11; Is., xii, 8, and xlix, 3; Genesis 17:19. Steeped thus in Scriptural thought and phraseology, summing up in its inspired ecstasy the economy of God with His Chosen People, indicating the fulfillment of the olden prophecy and prophesying anew until the end of time, the Magnificat is the crown of the Old Testament singing, the last canticle of the Old and the first of the New Testament. It was uttered (or, not improbably, chanted) by the Blessed Virgin, when she visited her cousin Elizabeth under the circumstances narrated by St. Luke in the first chapter of his Gospel. It is an ecstasy of praise for the inestimable favour bestowed by God on the Virgin, for the mercies shown to Israel, and for the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and to the patriarchs.”

Note: “Brackets” were there in New Advent website – the “underlining” is mine

 

[Leeann]

Hi Goodfella!
(continued for you)

Her Assumption into heaven is implicitly, but clearly, revealed in Scripture.

Apparently not “clearly” enough for some Catholic scholars, in fact they’re not even clear on where Mary was born and can only offer “questionable” stories about her childhood – as for her alleged assumption – where is it clearly revealed in scripture?

Advent website:
The birth of Mary
As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, **there are three ****different traditions **to be considered.

**First, **the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled “De nativ. S. Mariae” [36] inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or less vaguely supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 580 [37]; finally the popes Paul II (1471), Julius II (1507), Leo X (1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and Innocent XII (1698) in their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that the Blessed Virgin was born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy House. But these pontiffs hardly wish to decide an historical question; they merely express the opinion of their respective times.
A second tradition placed the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Diocaesarea, and the residence of Herod Antipas till late in the life of Our Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris to commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place [38]. St. Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary [39]. But this merely shows that Our Blessed Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without forcing us to believe that she had been born there.
The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, **is the **most probable one. We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica.

Leeann: “Could you please supply the scripture verses for these statements from Luke?”

Good Fella: Luke confirms the traditional belief of the Church that Mary was sinless, by being the one who originally typified Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant. He portrayed Mary as the immaculate Ark who carried the Word made flesh. Please reflect on the following pairs of passages:

Luke 1:39 / 2 Samuel 6: 2; Lk 1:41 / 2 Sam 6:16; Lk 1:43 / 2 Sam 6:9; Lk 1:56 / 2 Sam 6:11.

Thank you for doing that. Aren’t they marvelous verses.

Leeann: "An erroneous assumption made on your part…I have never stated that (everything God reveals to us must be explictly written down and literally conveyed in single passages). And “what a novel and new idea (on GF’s part that the Bible must be taken as a whole to discover the divine truths that lie beneath the surface of the written word in single passages)!”

Good Fella: "You deny the Church’s Marian dogmas on the grounds that they find no explicit support in the Scriptures;
(I don’t honestly believe I’ve ever done that…and the reason I say this is because the very first dogma – about Mary being the mother of God…is something that I’ve never had a problem with, it’s just something that I’ve always believed, unless I’ve just made a “blanket” statement in haste or something at some point)

yet in the same breath you object to the approach of understanding a divine truth by taking the entire Bible - Old and New Testaments - into a single perspective and by penetrating what literally lies on the surface of the written word in a single verse.

I wasn’t “objecting” - I was saying “What a novel idea and *new *idea!” – as in, don’t you thing anyone has ever done this before???!!!”

Will you criticize Luke as well with regard to the sinlessness of Mary?

I don’t believe Luke was trying to establish Mary’s sinlessness with these verses at all, as much as he was putting down exactly what happened as he said he was witness too. If he was at all that concerned about any “great importance” that should have been attributed to Mary’s participation “after” the event, other than what he covered, I believe he would have done so and given Mary as much hype as possible at the time.

The END! Pheww!!!

 

[Leeann]

Go back and read Matthew 28. You’re rationalizing.

Jesus had the apostles’ valid successors in mind. Read the Acts and Epistles. Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands) and the Divine Office is a reality, and it does not include every single baptized layperson who happens to read his Bible. It is a sacred institution of the “One” visible Church founded by Christ on Peter and his Apostles. You can deny it all you want. It’s your privilege.Why thank you!

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means “rock” in greek (Petros) and in Aramaic (Cephas). He alone was given the keys to the kingdom. Obviously you are unaware of the institution and function of the king’s prime minister or vicar in the Davidic kingdom. We cannot separate the New Testament from the Old Testament to grasp the fullness of divine revelation. I have nothing more to say to you, Leeann. You’re here just to argue and contest the true faith until the end of time. You think you already have all the answers by privately reading your copy of the Bible, so you don’t need any Catholic answers. I’ve received all the answers you’ve given me from other Protestants long before I met you. The more I listen, the more I’m glad I’m a Catholic. Anyway, this is off topic, which shows you are hear only to contest Cathiolicism as a whole from different angles. It’s off topic due to all the statements that you posted that needed responses…or is that not a granted “privilege”…no one is allowed to respond? …but that’s okay…maybe I’m just “rationalizing” again.
Your understanding of Scripture is so limited, I’m afraid, and your knowledge of Church history is scant. But a study of Church history would be of no benefit to you as long as you cling to your prejudices. I studied Church history in university and read the works of Catholics, Protestants, and non-Catholics. The Catholic authors and some of the non-Catholic authors held the stronger position against the Protestant one. I recommend you read Kenneth D Whitehead’s book: ‘The Catholic Church is the Early Church’. I can also recommend some books that clearly show how American Reformed Fundamentalism resembles the heresy of ancient gnosticism. Do a google search for quick info.

Hhhhhmmm?? Looks like a hit a nerve…

 

[Leeann]

**Hi guanophore

Your Post #407 :

The first 5 quotes that you have attributed to me - aren’t mine!



**

 

[Good_Fella]

From Goodfella’s previous post

A couple of sites that show serious controversy with regards to this apparition.

www.cathetel.com/guadalupe

Our Lady of Guadalupe
(Wikipedia onine…)
Controversies

How do you connect this with the Lourdes apparition?

Genesis 3, 15, as cited by Pope Pius lX in his Apostolic Constitution of 8 December 1854.

Wikipedia is speculatively recording the reactions of clerics and viceroys who for personal reasons of their own or out of political expediency denied the authenticity of the apparitions. This was the time of the slave trade in New Spain. The conversion of the indigenous population to Catholicism would destroy this trade. Many clerics were puppets of the state, and so it’s understandable they attempted to suppress the claims of Juan Diego. Bishop Zumarrraga opposed the opressive regime and he knew of Juan Diego before he became bishop as Don Fray. He granted Juan admittance to the palace of the bishop at the time of the apparitions. Zumarraga and Juan saw reflections of people in the eyes of Mary as they looked into them while examining the tilma.

Juan Diego is buried near the basilica of Guadalupe. The Church also has a record of his baptism. Juan Diego was beatified by Pope John Paul ll in 1996. He couldn’t have been beatified without any official record of his baptism. He is not a fictional character.

The private opinions of clerics who question the forms and extent of Marian devotion do not speak for the entire Church: the Sensus Fidelium under the guidance of the Magisterium.

The goddesses of the pagan myths prefigure Mary as the god-men prefigure Christ. They are transformed and substituted for who they really are: Jesus and Mary. Jesus is Mithras, Mary is Mestiza (etc.).

The image of Mary on the tilma has confounded art experts for centuries. No art expert has been able to explain the method of application or the media used in impressing the image onto the tilma. No portrait that has ever existed has a natural life-like quality as does the image of Our Lady. A group of five ophthamologists who examined the eyes of the image through their ophthomoloscopes in 26 May 1956 each discovered that he was “looking into a human eye.” They saw reflections of people in Mary’s eyes as did Juan and Don Fray Zumarraga but without the use of scientific instruments. By all natural laws the tilma (of cactus fiber) should have disintegrated while it was hung out in the open air in the basilica for over a century before it was placed in a glass case.

The tilma remains just as vibrant as ever. The image has never faded against all natural laws: something no sceptic can hope to contradict. The famous Mexican artist Miguel Cabrara (d. 1768) concluded that the rough surface of the tilma should not be able to support the image. A strange characteristic of the tilma is that up close the image is unremarkable, but the tone and depth emerge beyond six or seven feet and the image becomes more radiant and photogenic.

Studies by infra-red photography in May of 1979 were carried out by Phillip C Callahan, a research biophysicist at the University of Florida. He ruled out brush strokes, overpainting, varnish, sizing, or even conventional preliminary drawings by an artist in the body of the image. He determined that the image on the tilma has qualities of colour and uses the weave of cloth in such a way that the image could not be the work of human hands.

[cf. Rengers, Christopher OFM Cap., ‘Mary of the Americas’: St.Paul - Alba House: New York, 1989.]

The translations from Nahuatl into Spanish have faithfully preserved Our Lady’s original messages.

“I am the Virgin Mary, Mother of the one true God, of Him who gives life. He is Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. I desire that there be built a temple at this place where I want to manifest Him, make Him known, give Him to all people through my love, my compassion, my help, and my protection. I truly am your merciful Mother, your Mother and the Mother of all who dwell in this land, and of all mankind, of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, and of those who seek and place their trust in me. Here I shall listen to their weeping and their sorrows. I shall take them all to my heart, and I shall cure their many sufferings, afflictions, and sorrows. So run now to Tenochtitlan and tell the Lord Bishop all that you have seen and heard.”
Our Lady of Guadalupe

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Good_Fella]

Beautiful verses and I indeed believe them …however they do not “confirm” in any way the authenticity of the above apparitions.

Also see:

1 Timothy 4 V.1 – 3
1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times (latter times) some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,
3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

(Explanation as given in Catholic Duoay Rheims bible version)

3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics**,(He was not speaking of “that” time, but of “last days”-“****latter **times”) who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; **(as “instituted” by “the church”)**though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.

Note: I used “red” as red is used when you access the online bible.

And please, please, please…these verses can and do apply to ALL Christians of whatever faith in whatever time that can be defined as “last/latter days”…as indeed has been proven in the past and will most likely be proven again before Christ returns. But we are to take “heed” of these words also.

Peace and God Bless

An historical and theological impossibilty. Paul had the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in mind when he wrote his letter to Timothy. He could never have dreamt of Luther’s revolt and the opening of Pandora’s box: chaotic faith.

 

[Leeann]

Hi guanophore:

Those were SIA’s statements Post #374

 

[Leeann]

Hello guanophore!

**Originally Posted by Leeann

Mary

Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)**

Neither is the Trinity, but that does not seem to be a problem…

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture) **

Well…we read it differently.

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture) **

Well…we read it differently.

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Queen (not clearly defined in scripture) **
Well,…we read it differently.

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (no where in scripture) **

It seems that you are expecting everything to be present in scripture.

guanophore - you’ve taken the above excerpts out of context of the originally posting - there was a reason I put them down like that and it had nothing to do with me “expecting everything to be present in scripture”. It was to clarify another poster’s comment that was made about the Catholic church attempting to draw “parrallels” between Mary and Jesus.

Clearly Mary was preached about, or there would not be stories about her in the Gospels. Luke most likely is recording what Paul preached (parallels with the Ark of the Covenant) and what he learned from Mary himself, when they were in Ephesus together.

**I have absolutely no idea what that statement is in reference too??? **

I appreciate how it gets a bit confusing in here with all the various posts and trying to keep up in discussions, but you’ve got to slow down a bit…you’ve mistakenly attributed quotes to me that I’ve never posted and in this instance, have lost the context of the ones I did post… …slow down!!!

 

[Good_Fella]

---

“I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence…the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854

As you are likely aware – the bible verse listed above has different translations, whereby they either infer that the “seed itself “ - JESUS - is the one that ‘crushes the serpent’s head’ – not Mary – or it states clearly ‘he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.’ – again not Mary.

In the original Hebrew an epicene personal pronoun was used in the Protoevangelium. This pronoun has only one form to denote either a male or a female person. Both the woman and her offspring are to be taken in association with each other. It is not only the child but also the mother who is at total enmity with Satan and his offspring: sin and consequential corruption. Thus both the woman and her offspring strike at the head of the serpent, as Judith, who prefigures Mary, strikes at the head of the enemy chieftan in association with God who directed her blow. Luke perceives that both Jesus and Mary (“Most blessed among women”) are equally blessed above and apart from humanity by having absolutely nothing in common with the devil as his adversaries. Luke 1, 22 parallels the Protoevangelium. Jesus alludes to his mother when he tells the woman in the crowd “Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk 11:28). Mary is truly blessed not only because of her faith in bringing the Saviour to the world in ‘cooperation’ with the Holy Spirit, but on account of being holy and righteous before God.

Clearly Jesus identifies his mother with the woman in the Protoevangelium, a title of honour and respect in Judaism. for in the gospels our Lord addresses his mother by no other appellation or affectionate term than “Woman”. Mary’s efficacious participation in God’s plan of salvation is certainly acknowledged by John in his gospel:

“Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come?” His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”
John 2, 4-5

Jesus declares to his mother that her concern does in fact affect him, and our Lord acknowledges that his hour has indeed arrived. Mary’s solicitation inaugurates his ministry under the shadow of the cross. Jesus performs his first and most important miracle upon his mother’s request as he wills not otherwise. The evangelist recorded this event to express the traditional belief of his church, that Mary has a vital part to play in the economy of salvation.

Since the Protoevangelium has a dual subject in the original Hebrew text, either the male or female rendering of the epicene pronoun is acceptable. It’s a matter of perspective. The Latin translation of the Hebrew pronoun (ipsa) espoused by Jerome in his composition of the Latin Vulgate and by the early Church Fathers, who acknowledged Mary as the New Eve, alludes to the vital share Mary has in God’s plan of salvation brought to fruition by the final victory of the woman’s seed over the serpent and his seed: sin and death. The female rendering of the neuter pronoun in no way serves to denote a final victory directly attributed to the woman. It was God who directed Judith’s crushing blow against the head of the enemy chieftain that saved God’s people from destruction. The reading ‘ipse’ or ‘ipsum’ announces a final victory of a descendant of the woman.

All the same God has ordained that a woman should freely contribute to the victory won for us by Christ as part of the undoing of Eve’s disobedience. For God it is sufficient, thereby necessary for us, that Mary’s ‘Fiat’ should pave the way to our redemption. I’m afraid to think where we would now be if Mary had said “No!” to God’s will. Scripture makes it clear that God has ordained no other means to save us, and what God wills cannot be otherwise. Luke also portrays Mary as the New Eve, focussing intently on Mary’s declaration of faith for our spiritual benefit. And he wants us to know that we should be grateful to Mary for her free participation.

“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38

“Blessed are you who believed that what was said to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 44 (45)

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi Goodfella!
(continued for you)

Apparently not “clearly” enough for some Catholic scholars, in fact they’re not even clear on where Mary was born and can only offer “questionable” stories about her childhood – as for her alleged assumption – where is it clearly revealed in scripture?

Advent website:
The birth of Mary
As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, **there are three ****different traditions **to be considered.

**First, **the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled “De nativ. S. Mariae” [36] inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or less vaguely supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 580 [37]; finally the popes Paul II (1471), Julius II (1507), Leo X (1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and Innocent XII (1698) in their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that the Blessed Virgin was born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy House. But these pontiffs hardly wish to decide an historical question; they merely express the opinion of their respective times.
A second tradition placed the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Diocaesarea, and the residence of Herod Antipas till late in the life of Our Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris to commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place [38]. St. Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary [39]. But this merely shows that Our Blessed Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without forcing us to believe that she had been born there.
The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, **is the **most probable one. We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica.

Leeann: “Could you please supply the scripture verses for these statements from Luke?”

Leeann: "An erroneous assumption made on your part…I have never stated that (everything God reveals to us must be explictly written down and literally conveyed in single passages). And “what a novel and new idea (on GF’s part that the Bible must be taken as a whole to discover the divine truths that lie beneath the surface of the written word in single passages)!”

(I don’t honestly believe I’ve ever done that…and the reason I say this is because the very first dogma – about Mary being the mother of God…is something that I’ve never had a problem with, it’s just something that I’ve always believed, unless I’ve just made a “blanket” statement in haste or something at some point)

I don’t believe Luke was trying to establish Mary’s sinlessness with these verses at all, as much as he was putting down exactly what happened as he said he was witness too. If he was at all that concerned about any “great importance” that should have been attributed to Mary’s participation “after” the event, other than what he covered, I believe he would have done so and given Mary as much hype as possible at the time.

The END! Pheww!!!

The question of Mary’s place of birth or entombment is irrelevant.

Between Jerusalem and Ephesus,evidence points more towards her place of entombment in the Valley of Josophat near Jerusalem. Her tomb is still empty and there is no historical record of the faithful venerating her remains, a practice of the early Church. The remains of Peter and Paul are still preserved in Rome. Mary’s remains would still be preserved also, since she is the Mother of our Lord. I hardly think that the Church would lose the body of Mary. At the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Emperor Marcion requested to have the remains of Mary for veneration. The Patriarch of Jerusalem told him that he could not grant his request, for her tomb had been empty since Apostolic time. According to oral Tradition originating in Palestine, the apostles discovered her tomb empty days after she passed away.

Mary exists body and soul in the first heaven. In her glorified body and soul she has appeared to people numerous times in the history of the Church. Mary was assumed into heaven by the power of her divine Son in virtue of her Divine Maternity and her enmity with the serpent. The curse of Eve does not apply to Mary. Of course you will deny this out of fear of being wrong.

“For God said, 'Honour your father and mother. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
Matthew 15, 4

Not explicit and literal enough for you, I would imagine, just as Luke’s typology between Mary and the immaculate ark isn’t. The Word of God is not so shallow and plain as you think. Jesus followed all the commandments while he was among us, for he would not dismiss what he considers worthy of our observance. The Fundamentalist view of Jesus abandoning the body of his own mother who bore him makes him out to be a cold hearted and dishonourable cad. Your Lord is not our Lord.

PAX :tiphat: