Sinless Mary

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella, I just want to tell you that you are doing a fine job here and have enjoyed reading your posts. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated.

You’re most welcome, thanks.

 

[Good_Fella]

(Continued to Goodfella)

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.

Give us a break. You’re tearing our stitches.

Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop of the same Catholic Church that has existed since Pentecost. The point is that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the teaching authority of the Church. Still Ignatius was the first Church Father to allude to Mary as the New Eve and the Mother of God. He perceived that Mary had a vital role to play in God’s plan of salvation. He didn’t ignore her in his soteriology.

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.
*To the Ephesians, 7 *

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary by the dispensation of God, as well as of the seed of David as of the Holy Spirit: He was born and was baptized, that by himself submitting he might purify the water.
To the Ephesians, 18

And the virginity of Mary, and her giving birth, were hidden from the prince of this world, as was the death of the Lord. Three mysteries of a cry which were wrought in the stillness of God.
To the Ephesians, 19

For who would not rejoice to behold and address her who bore the true God from her own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion?
The Second Epistle to St. John
[c.A.D.110]

PAX

 

[elvisman]

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 -
Again - you just don’t seem to understand the basic points here.
Jesus established ONE Church.
He DIDN’T establish differing “denominations” or schisms of this ONE Church.
He ONLY built ONE. That Church is and has always been known since the First Century as The Catholic Church.

**You naively believe that the Church is to remain exactly as it did in the Bible. By doing this, you fail to understand that an acorn doesn’t remain an acorn. It becomes an oak. **

You deny the words of Jesus himself when he spoke of the mustard seed that grew into a large plant and the birds nestled in its branches.

It is this confusion that stymies your understanding of what his Church is - and the truths revealed to that Church.
This is why you cannot grasp the reason Mary had to be made sinless to be Theotokos - the God Bearer.

You falsely assert that we raise her to Jesus’ level because of her sinlessness. This was accomplished by God’s saving grace - not by her own power. This is shown in Luke 1:46-47 where she states:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior."
She gives HIM the glory for having saved her.

You guys are so willing to believe and understand the hows and whys regarding the meticulous care and purification surrounding the building of the Ark of the Covenant - which only held SYMBOLS of God within it!

**Mary actually held our Lord and Savior! She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant. **

Tell me why you think that this would not require MORE purity than the original ark.

 

[elvisman]

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.

Again, Leeann - you have failed to understand that the Church MUST grow into the mustard plant and not remain a seed.

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit." (John 12:24).

**If your church resembles the Church of the 1st Century - you should be worried . . .

 

[justasking4]

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:

You miss my point. If the body is found to be decayed 100 years from now will that mean this so called miracle was false?

Secondly, where do we find Christians in the NT digging up bodies and claiming that bodies they find that are not corrupted is some kind of sign or miracle from God?

 

[justasking4]

What part of “We don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura” don’t you guys understand? The term “Catholic Church” was used at the end of the 1st century in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (in his Letter to the Smyrnaens).

---

The 7 "churches" spoken of in the Book of Revelation were Parishes or locations of the same Catholic Church.

All of those 7 "churches" were Catholic. I can name you 20 different “churches” or parishes in my diocese.

**The problem with Protestantism - *one ***problem, at least - is that you interpret the 7 Churches as different entities with 7 different creeds or sets of beliefs. They are all the same Church in different locales.

This has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se but what was the nature of the church in the 1st century. What these examples in Revelation demonstrate is that in this case there was no appeal to any human leader like a bishop or to the church in Rome.

 

[elvisman]

This has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se but what was the nature of the church in the 1st century. What these examples in Revelation demonstrate is that in this case there was no appeal to any human leader like a bishop or to the church in Rome.

It absolutely has everything to do with sola scriptura. Your adherence to this false, self-refuting doctrine is what blinds you.

Again - you are under the false assumption that the entire word of God is what is written in Scripture. That is nonsense.

Our God is a living God whose truth is revealed eternally. His truth is and has been revealed to his Catholic Church since the beginning. that is what he promised in John 16:13.

 

[Leeann]

Hi elvisman!

You naively believe that the Church is to remain exactly as it did in the Bible.
Well of course not…but you’d at least expect it to remain Christian in its perspectives!

By doing this, you fail

to understand that an acorn doesn’t remain an acorn. It becomes an oak.

Or in this case - a conglomeration of spurious ideas.

You deny the words of Jesus himself when he spoke of the mustard seed that grew into a large plant and the birds nestled in its branches.

To borrow from another poster’s form of response:
I just interpret it differently!

You falsely assert that we raise her to Jesus’ level because of her sinlessness. This was accomplished by God’s saving grace - not by her own power. This is shown in Luke 1:46-47 where she states:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior."
She gives HIM the glory for having saved her.

Already discussed this in a previous post….re: the Magnificat, etc., etc…etc.

Mary actually held our Lord and Savior! She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant.

Not all Catholics believe this.

The Ark in Catholic tradition

Catholic tradition, led by the Fathers of the Church, has considered the Ark of the Covenant as one of the purest and richest symbols of the realities of the New Law.
It signifies, in the first place, the Incarnate Word of God.
**“Christ himself”, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “was signified by the Ark. For in the same manner as the Ark was made of setim wood, so also was the body of Christ composed of the most pure human substance. The Ark was entirely overlaid with gold, because Christ was filled with wisdom and charity, which gold symbolizes. In the Ark there was a golden vase: this represents Jesus’ most holy soul containing the fulness of sanctity and the godhead, figured by the manna. **There was also Aaron’s rod, to indicate the sacerdotal of Jesus Christ priest forever. Finally the stone tables of the Law were likewise contained in the Ark, to mean that Jesus Christ is the author of the Law”.
In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant” — Faederis Arca.

Tell me why you think that this would not require MORE purity than the original ark.

Tell me why you choose to believe more in the theory of Mary’s significance than in that of Jesus’ with regards to the Ark?

 

[Leeann]

Hi elvisman

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit." (John 12:24).

This is Jesus speaking about His impending death and resurrection for our salvation and an illustration of the meaning of Christian discipleship.

John 12: 23 - 28

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

**If your **church resembles the Church of the 1st Century - you should be *worried *. . .

Not if the focus is placed where it properly should be…The Father/The Son/The Holy Spirit!

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvisman!

Well of course not…but you’d at least expect it to remain Christian in its perspectives!

Or in this case - a conglomeration of spurious ideas.

To borrow from another poster’s form of response:
I just interpret it differently!

Already discussed this in a previous post….re: the Magnificat, etc., etc…etc.

Not all Catholics believe this.

The Ark in Catholic tradition

Catholic tradition, led by the Fathers of the Church, has considered the Ark of the Covenant as one of the purest and richest symbols of the realities of the New Law.
It signifies, in the first place, the Incarnate Word of God.
**“Christ himself”, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “was signified by the Ark. For in the same manner as the Ark was made of setim wood, so also was the body of Christ composed of the most pure human substance. The Ark was entirely overlaid with gold, because Christ was filled with wisdom and charity, which gold symbolizes. In the Ark there was a golden vase: this represents Jesus’ most holy soul containing the fulness of sanctity and the godhead, figured by the manna. **There was also Aaron’s rod, to indicate the sacerdotal of Jesus Christ priest forever. Finally the stone tables of the Law were likewise contained in the Ark, to mean that Jesus Christ is the author of the Law”.
In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant” — Faederis Arca.

Tell me why you choose to believe more in the theory of Mary’s significance than in that of Jesus’ with regards to the Ark?

So, in the final analysis, you don’t believe that the Catholic Church is Christian. I’d like to hear your reasons for believing so.

By the way, ALL Catholics don’t need to see things the same way in order for them to bre true. Each individual Catholic does not possess the infallibility and Authority of the Church.

As for Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant - it’s not a theory - unless you don’t believe that she carried God in her womb.

 

[Good_Fella]

You miss my point. If the body is found to be decayed 100 years from now will that mean this so called miracle was false?

Secondly, where do we find Christians in the NT digging up bodies and claiming that bodies they find that are not corrupted is some kind of sign or miracle from God?

First, Bernadette’s body will never decay. And considering the length of time it has remained incorrupt, it’s still miraculous.

Second,

 

[Leeann]

**as posted by elvisman:
You naively believe that the Church is to remain exactly as it did in the Bible. **

reply by Leeann
Well of course not…but you’d at least expect it to remain Christian in its perspectives!

posted by elvisman
By doing this, you fail to understand that an acorn doesn’t remain an acorn. It becomes an oak.

reply by Leeann
Or in this case - a conglomeration of spurious ideas.

So, in the final analysis, you don’t believe that the Catholic Church is Christian. I’d like to hear your reasons for believing so.
In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter what I believe about the Catholic church, does it…what is important is what I believe about **any church or faith **that either dillutes the message of the gospel as taught by Christ and His Apostles by adding to it or changing the main focus of His followers’ devotion which in “some” cases has led them astray.

By the way, ALL Catholics don’t need to see things the same way in order for them to bre true.
Yes…well that’s rather obvious…and convenient…

Each individual Catholic does not

possess the infallibility and Authority of the Church.

uh-huh…

As for Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant - it’s not a theory - unless you don’t believe that she carried God in her womb.

Hhhhmmmm…I guess by your reasoning then…St.Aquinas didn’t believe that she carried God in her womb either!

 

[elvisman]

as posted by elvisman:
**You naively believe that the Church is to remain exactly as it did in the Bible. **

reply by Leeann
Well of course not…but you’d at least expect it to remain Christian in its perspectives!

posted by elvisman
By doing this, you fail to understand that an acorn doesn’t remain an acorn. It becomes an oak.

reply by Leeann
Or in this case - a conglomeration of spurious ideas.

So, in the final analysis, you don’t believe that the Catholic Church is Christian. I’d like to hear your reasons for believing so.
In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter what I believe about the Catholic church, does it…what is important is what I believe about **any church or faith **that either dillutes the message of the gospel as taught by Christ and His Apostles by adding to it or changing the main focus of His followers’ devotion which in “some” cases has led them astray.

Yes…well that’s rather obvious…and convenient…

uh-huh…

Hhhhmmmm…I guess by your reasoning then…St.Aquinas didn’t believe that she carried God in her womb either!

Leeann -
You seem to have a very difficult time understanding plain English. I was saying that the truths revealed to the Church are TRUE no matter what an individual Catholic personally believes. Call it what you will - but it’s not a matter convenience - it’s a metter of TRUTH.

While it’s true that Aquinas had a problem with Mary’s Immaculate Conception – he didn’t have a problem with her being sinless. He debated that Mary’s sinlessness began at the time of her birth, rather than at her conception. He may not have referred to her as the “Ark of the New Covenant” but that is a matter of fact that cannot be denied.

**You seem to suffer from what is called, “Relativism” - “my truth is not the same as your truth”. **
Truth is TRUTH - and there is only ONE truth.

As for your thought that is doesn’t really matter what you think about the Catholic Church - it DOES. You’ll find that out when you stand before the Lord.

 

[justasking4]

So, in the final analysis, you don’t believe that the Catholic Church is Christian. I’d like to hear your reasons for believing so.

By the way, ALL Catholics don’t need to see things the same way in order for them to bre true. Each individual Catholic does not possess the infallibility and Authority of the Church.

As for Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant - it’s not a theory - unless you don’t believe that she carried God in her womb.

Is the idea that Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant an infallible teaching of the Catholic church?

 

[justasking4]

First, Bernadette’s body will never decay. And considering the length of time it has remained incorrupt, it’s still miraculous.

Second,

View attachment 4237

 

[cfrancis]

Secondly, where do we find Christians in the NT digging up bodies and claiming that bodies they find that are not corrupted is some kind of sign or miracle from God?

Did you really ask this question? YIKES!
Shall we begin the litany of “where do we find Christians in the NT…” questions directed to non-Catholics?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, where do we find Christians in the NT digging up bodies and claiming that bodies they find that are not corrupted is some kind of sign or miracle from God?

cfrancis
Did you really ask this question? YIKES!
Shall we begin the litany of “where do we find Christians in the NT…” questions directed to non-Catholics?

Being a person who believes doctrines and practices for Christians must be grounded in Scripture we can see with this kind of thing how far the Catholic church differs from the Scriptures.

 

[cfrancis]

Being a person who believes doctrines and practices for Christians must be grounded in Scripture we can see with this kind of thing how far the Catholic church differs from the Scriptures.

Interesting, as I too, as a Catholic, believe doctrines and practices must be grounded in Scripture.
So, based on your response, you can then produce the Scripture passages that present to us the canon of Scripture, right?
After all, it your practice as a Christian to claim the books bound in your KJV are the Bible, inspired by God and inerrant, and thus deserving of the label, “Scripture.”

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4250068]Interesting, as I too, as a Catholic, believe doctrines and practices must be grounded in Scripture.

Then do you reject the idea of digging up dead people and say some kind of miracle has taken place?

So, based on your response, you can then produce the Scripture passages that present to us the canon of Scripture, right?

No need to. Each book of the Scriptures must stand on its own in it being inspired-inerrant. The canon in and of itself is just a term we use to indentify which books are inspired-inerrant.

After all, it your practice as a Christian to claim the books bound in your KJV are the Bible, inspired by God and inerrant, and thus deserving of the label, “Scripture.”

True

 

[cfrancis]

Then do you reject the idea of digging up dead people and say some kind of miracle has taken place?

no, just as I don’t reject the practice of reading the Bible in my home - which was not done in the NT.

No need to. Each book of the Scriptures must stand on its own in it being inspired-inerrant. The canon in and of itself is just a term we use to indentify which books are inspired-inerrant.

Excellent! Please point to the verse in the Gospel of Matthew where it says it is Scripture, that it is inspired by God and inerrant.