Sinless Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Christopher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cfrancis;4250117]no, just as I don’t reject the practice of reading the Bible in my home - which was not done in the NT.
If this is the case then why did Paul write these words in Colossians 3:16–Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

???
How were the Christians in the NT to “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within” them?
cfrancis;
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.
Did the Christians of the 1st century believe that the words recorded in Matthew were of Christ? We know the they did. They also believed that Jesus was God and spoke the words of God which puts the gospel of Matthew on the level of Scripture even though there is no sayings as such that Matthew is Scripture.
 
Did the Christians of the 1st century believe that the words recorded in Matthew were of Christ? We know the they did. They also believed that Jesus was God and spoke the words of God which puts the gospel of Matthew on the level of Scripture even though there is no sayings as such that Matthew is Scripture
That’s an extra-Biblical source - as you say, nowhere in the NT is it stated that what Matthew wrote is Scripture.
So, now you have a practice that is outside Scripture (along with reading the Bible in your home): calling the Gospel of Matthew “Scripture”.
Your answer is also based on Tradition, as you noted in by saying “the Christians of the 1st century believe that the words recorded in Matthew were of Christ.”
 
If this is the case then why did Paul write these words in Colossians 3:16–Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

???
How were the Christians in the NT to “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within” them?
You added this while I was writing!
You mean Paul didn’t preach the “word of Christ” to the Colossians, and write the “word of Christ” in his letter to them?
You mean they were reading the “word of Christ” in their Bibles?
 
cfrancis;4250182]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did the Christians of the 1st century believe that the words recorded in Matthew were of Christ? We know the they did. They also believed that Jesus was God and spoke the words of God which puts the gospel of Matthew on the level of Scripture even though there is no sayings as such that Matthew is Scripture
cfrancis
That’s an extra-Biblical source - as you say, nowhere in the NT is it stated that what Matthew wrote is Scripture.
True. It does not change the fact that Matthew’ Gospel is Scripture though.
So, now you have a practice that is outside Scripture (along with reading the Bible in your home): calling the Gospel of Matthew “Scripture”.
What’s important though is that Matthew is Scripture and the evidence for it is found in the gospel itself.
Your answer is also based on Tradition, as you noted in by saying “the Christians of the 1st century believe that the words recorded in Matthew were of Christ.”
If the “Tradition” has evidence for it then i can accept it as true.

Now to the topic at hand. Where in Scripture is it said explicitedly that Mary herself was sinless? Does anyone else attest to this in Scripture?
 
Hi elvisman!
**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.
This is what you actually posted:
Elvisman -
By the way, ALL Catholics don’t need to see things the same way in order for them to bre true.


**Perfectly clear to me….even the “bre” part!
(I won’t even mention the “metter of truth.”) :rolleyes: **
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.
Sure it can…and it has….many times….by Catholics and Protestants alike.
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.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
**relativism **
The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.

As you can see by previous posts of mine, I’m very clear on what I believe to be “true” and what I believe is not “true”. No grey areas.
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.
**Yes….but “you’re” not God….and I was answering “your” question.

I have no concern about this particular item……I’m sure He’ll understand my position as “clearly” stated.

“……what is important is what I believe about any church or faith that either dilutes 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”.**
 
True. It does not change the fact that Matthew’ Gospel is Scripture though. What’s important though is that Matthew is Scripture and the evidence for it is found in the gospel itself.
You and I know it is Scripture because the Church has declared the canon. Would you please provide the evidence within Matthew showing Matthew says he is inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant in his writing?
If the “Tradition” has evidence for it then i can accept it as true.
THe evidence you cited is extra-Biblical, so you are saying, if the Tradition has extra-Biblical evidence you can accept it.
Now to the topic at hand. Where in Scripture is it said explicitedly that Mary herself was sinless? Does anyone else attest to this in Scripture?
You cannot produce an explicit statement from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, etc… regarding their writing Scripture. Do we then not believe their writings are SCripture?
 
Hi elvisman!

This is what you actually posted:
Elvisman -
By the way, ALL
Catholics don’t need to see things the same way in order for them to bre true.

Perfectly clear to me….even the “bre” part!
**(I won’t even mention the “metter of truth.”) :rolleyes: **

Sure it can…and it has….many times….by Catholics and Protestants alike.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
**relativism **
The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.

As you can see by previous posts of mine, I’m very clear on what I believe to be “true” and what I believe is not “true”. No grey areas.

Yes….but “you’re” not God….and I was answering “your” question.

I have no concern about this particular item……I’m sure He’ll understand my position as “clearly” stated.


“……what is important is what I believe about any church or faith that either dilutes 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”.
Again, your failure to understand even basic conversational points is glaringly obvious.

So you basically “agree to disagree” and will cross your fingers in the hope that “God will understand” your position - your position being that Jesus is NOT the New Covenant?
Hmmmmm . . . good luck! 🤷

By the way - what was your point in including the dictionary definition of the word “Relativism”? I already know what it means and it fits you to a tee. 👍
 
Again, your failure to understand even basic conversational points is glaringly obvious.

So you basically "agree to disagree" and will cross your fingers in the hope that “God will understand” your position - your position being that Jesus is NOT the New Covenant?
Hmmmmm . . . good luck! 🤷

By the way - what was your point in including the dictionary definition of the word “Relativism”? I already know what it means and it fits you to a tee. 👍
I agree, Elvis. If there are no “grey areas” in Protestantism, then why is there a countless multiplicity of denominations in this religious movement? I expect Leeann to interject by saying: “I didn’t say that.” 😉

PAX
 
There is no proof for this assertion. 🤷
Your definition of proof differs from mine: a Christian one which translates into strong faith. Religious fundamentalism equals rationalism. Here the starting point is doubt. Read Descartes.

“The Almighy has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

I don’t doubt the revealed great things God has done for Mary!

PAX :coffeeread:
 
Again, your failure to understand even basic conversational points is glaringly obvious.

So you basically "agree to disagree" and will cross your fingers in the hope that “God will understand” your position - your position being that Jesus is NOT the New Covenant?
Hmmmmm . . . good luck! 🤷
It appears that you too struggle at times – “understanding basic conversational points”, as is evident by your statement above.:rolleyes:
By the way - what was your point in including the dictionary definition of the word “Relativism”? I already know what it means and it fits you to a tee. 👍
Apparently you don’t…and that was my point.😉
 
I agree, Elvis. If there are no “grey areas” in Protestantism, then why is there a countless multiplicity of denominations in this religious movement? I expect Leeann to interject by saying: “I didn’t say that.” 😉

PAX
I’m surprised you’d expect me to say anything Good Fella… :confused:

Post #406 – Good Fella

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.

…and since then I’ve attempted to not engage in conversation with you…and done quite well I think…but if you have changed your mind, I’d be more than happy to discuss anything with you that relates to the topic of this thread…which is “Sinless Mary”…as I wouldn’t want to be accused again, of being the one who went “off topic”. :rolleyes:
 
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.

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.”
Your understanding of the angel Gabriel’s salutation is derived from the watered down translation of the text. The expressions “highly favoured” or “favoured one” are acceptable, but they are shallow and are deficient in meaning. These expressions merely indicate that Mary was in a state of grace at the time of the Annunciation. One must be in a state of grace (the antidote to sin) to find favour with God. But Mary must have been in a state of grace by the time the angel appeared to her, for in verse 30 the angel tells her that she “has found favour with God.” The present perfect tense denotes an unspecified time before the present moment. So we must ask ourselves at what point in Mary’s mortal existence she had received God’s sanctifying and habitual grace. Sanctifying grace is habitual provided we don’t fall from God’s grace by sinning against God out of indifference. Anyway, did Mary “find favour” with God in her mother’s womb or when she was born? Was Mary sanctified at some point after the instant she was conceived before her birth? We can arrive at a conclusion by considering the reason why Mary was so “highly favoured” and “most blessed among women.” She was destined from all eternity to conceive and bear the holy child.

We must keep in mind that Luke typifies Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant. The original ark was fashioned in this sublime state before it contained the Word of God and for this purpose. Mary was fashioned at the precise moment God breathed her soul upon her conception. Thus Mary did not receive God’s grace at any point after the instant she was conceived. Our Blessed Mother was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin, which is marked by the absence of God’s sanctifying grace. Her canticle of praise concerns her soul which glorifies the source of all grace. Hannah’s canticle has a secondary context just as the prophecy of the Virgin Birth (Isa 7:14) has one. And so Mary is in a position to declare: “My spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”

We have all been saved, provided we persevere in faith, but Mary was redeemed in a unique and highly privileged way. And God fashioned her so that she would not want to sin and be enslaved by it. (God did not deprive Mary of his grace after she gave birth to Jesus, for God is not the author of sin, and Mary remained to be the Mother of God. Eve chose to fall from God’s grace. The New Eve didn’t.) With regard to her individual self, Luke has her speak in the indicative mood: “I am saved.” Unlike Hannah, who prefigures Mary to an extent, as David prefigures Christ, Mary rejoices in her own salvation. Luke perceived her as saved, and thus sinless. The evangelist wasn’t a Protestant.

The Koine Greek translation in v. 28 is inconsistent with v. 30, so it is not the correct or precise translation. Luke could not have used this form of Greek without contradicting himself. And since he was inspired to write under the influence of the Holy Spirit, there can be no contradiction. The evangelist assures Theophilus that he has acknowledged the traditional belief of the Church that Mary was sinless throughout her entire physical existence. The angel’s salutation should read: “Chaire kecharitomene,” meaning “Hail, full of grace.” Grammatically speaking, Mary was endowed with God’s grace permanently. She never sinned and offended God.

Like I said, I don’t wish to argue with you, but I noticed a reply of yours I missed. I’ll get back to you on Judith and the Magnifact, but that’s all. I have no patience with complacent individuals who say one thing and then claim they’ve never said it.

PAX :tiphat:
 
Hi Good Fella!
Like I said, I don’t wish to argue with you, but I noticed a reply of yours I missed. I’ll get back to you on Judith and the Magnifact, but that’s all. I have no patience with complacent individuals who say one thing and then claim they’ve never said it./
Well you don’t have to consider discussions in here as “arguing”. I try not to consider it that way, however at times it is extremely difficult to accomplish that with regards to some of the postings that have been addressed to myself…just as I’m sure it is for you and every other person that comes in here to post. It’s entirely up to each one of us on how we perceive what is being said to us, that determines if it’s “arguing” or “discussion”. And the same can be said for the responsibility that we each have to take with regards to how we “respond”.

I have no patience with people who “label” others - by doing so, it only indicates a sense of complacency within the person doing the labelling. It’s not an admirable quality at any time, but unfortunately, it is one that surfaces all too often within these threads, something we all would be wise to personally address and take responsibility for.

As to “saying one thing and then claiming they’ve never said it”, if you are indeed referring to something that I have posted and then claimed never to have said it…I would very much appreciate being made aware of this instance, thus affording me an opportunity to either clear up a misunderstanding - or to admit that I was wrong.

If you care to respond to my Judith posting - I would be interested in reading it, but don’t do it if it will bring you any discomfort.
 
It appears that you too struggle at times – “understanding basic conversational points”, as is evident by your statement above.:rolleyes:

Apparently you don’t…and that was my point.😉
**Hmmmm . . . ANOTHER non-answer! **
**Congratulations, Leeann - you have managed to avoid a serious conversation through more than half a dozen posts.:rolleyes: **

Next time - a substantial answer instead of the constant smug remarks (like, “uh-huh”) will help you to validate your point - or attempt to, at least.

Maybe someday, when you take your faith a little more seriously, we can have a meaningful dialogue.

**Until then . . . here’s *hopin’!👍 ***
 
elvisman

Stop whining - it’s not becoming.

The fact of the matter is - I have answered your questions - you simply did not like my answers…but that’s okay…you’re entitled…just as I am entitled (*aren’t I ???)…*or is this a place for you to simply spout off and if people don’t agree you start posting statements “as facts” - as to what they believe - how they’ve come to their conclusions - and begin *labelling *them as if somehow that adds credence to your insight.

If you want “substantial” and “serious” responses to your questions…or “statements”, consider re-reading some of your *own *posts with as clear and honest an eye as you’ve made claim to mine.

If you dish it out…you get it back sometimes…that’s what happens, it’s not very nice or comfortable being on the receiving end - is it? - but there you have it…so either adjust your own thermostat a bit…or take it like a man!
 
Good Fella;4252459]
Your understanding of the angel Gabriel’s salutation is derived from the watered down translation of the text. The expressions “highly favoured” or “favoured one” are acceptable, but they are shallow and are deficient in meaning. These expressions merely indicate that Mary was in a state of grace at the time of the Annunciation. One must be in a state of grace (the antidote to sin) to find favour with God.
But Mary must have been in a state of grace by the time the angel appeared to her, for in verse 30 the angel tells her that she “has found favour with God.” The present perfect tense denotes an unspecified time before the present moment. So we must ask ourselves at what point in Mary’s mortal existence she had received God’s sanctifying and habitual grace. Sanctifying grace is habitual provided we don’t fall from God’s grace by sinning against God out of indifference. Anyway, did Mary “find favour” with God in her mother’s womb or when she was born? Was Mary sanctified at some point after the instant she was conceived before her birth? We can arrive at a conclusion by considering the reason why Mary was so “highly favoured” and “most blessed among women.” She was destined from all eternity to conceive and bear the holy child.
We must keep in mind that Luke typifies Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant. The original ark was fashioned in this sublime state before it contained the Word of God and for this purpose. Mary was fashioned at the precise moment God breathed her soul upon her conception. Thus Mary did not receive God’s grace at any point after the instant she was conceived. Our Blessed Mother was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin, which is marked by the absence of God’s sanctifying grace. Her canticle of praise concerns her soul which glorifies the source of all grace. Hannah’s canticle has a secondary context just as the prophecy of the Virgin Birth (Isa 7:14) has one. And so Mary is in a position to declare: “My spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
We have all been saved, provided we persevere in faith, but Mary was redeemed in a unique and highly privileged way. And God fashioned her so that she would not want to sin and be enslaved by it. (God did not deprive Mary of his grace after she gave birth to Jesus, for God is not the author of sin, and Mary remained to be the Mother of God. Eve chose to fall from God’s grace. The New Eve didn’t.) With regard to her individual self, Luke has her speak in the indicative mood: “I am saved.” Unlike Hannah, who prefigures Mary to an extent, as David prefigures Christ, Mary rejoices in her own salvation. Luke perceived her as saved, and thus sinless. The evangelist wasn’t a Protestant.
The Koine Greek translation in v. 28 is inconsistent with v. 30, so it is not the correct or precise translation. Luke could not have used this form of Greek without contradicting himself. And since he was inspired to write under the influence of the Holy Spirit, there can be no contradiction. The evangelist assures Theophilus that he has acknowledged the traditional belief of the Church that Mary was sinless throughout her entire physical existence. The angel’s salutation should read: “Chaire kecharitomene,” meaning “Hail, full of grace.” Grammatically speaking, Mary was endowed with God’s grace permanently. She never sinned and offended God.
Again you go far beyond what is written. This term, “full of grace” or “favored one” says nothing about her not sinning ever. In fact the definition never addresses this. This is adding catholic doctrine to make the scripture say something it does not instead of letting the scriptures form the doctrine.
Like I said, I don’t wish to argue with you, but I noticed a reply of yours I missed. I’ll get back to you on Judith and the Magnifact, but that’s all. I have no patience with complacent individuals who say one thing and then claim they’ve never said it.
PAX :tiphat:
 
I don’t feel smug about it at all, I feel concerned that those placing such trust in the “authority” offered by the Catholic church (as we know it today)…are being mislead. Jesus did indeed consider His church as a part of Himself……HIS church….and I don’t see that as the Catholic church.
What is your goal here? Why are you on CAF?
 
I don’t feel smug about it at all, I feel concerned that those placing such trust in the “authority” offered by the Catholic church (as we know it today)…are being mislead. Jesus did indeed consider His church as a part of Himself……HIS church….and I don’t see that as the Catholic church.
What is your goal here? Why are you on CAF?
 
Again you go far beyond what is written. This term, “full of grace” or “favored one” says nothing about her not sinning ever. In fact the definition never addresses this. This is adding catholic doctrine to make the scripture say something it does not instead of letting the scriptures form the doctrine.
We’ve gone over this before on other threads, so why do you keep bringing the subject up ad finitum? Are you some kind of a mobile billboard or something? 🤷

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase ‘kecharitomene’ as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”
[Blass and Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’]

In Luke 1:28 we have a special conjugated form of ‘charitoo’: ‘kecharitomene’. while Ephesians 1:6 uses ‘echaritosen’, which is a different form of the verb ‘charitoo’. ‘Echaritosen’ means “he graced” (bestowed grace). This form of the verb denotes a momentary action, an action brought to pass. [Blass and Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’, p.166]. Whereas ‘Kecharitomene’, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. ‘Kecharitomene’ signifies continuance of a completed action. [H.W. Smythe, Greek Grammar, p. 108-9: Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 1968].

Whoever has been born of God, does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
1 John 3, 9

John tells us that God’s Holy Spirit is like a seed (sperma) that impregnates us and enables us not to sin. The Spirit infuses grace that empowers us not to sin at our conversion and baptism. When we are baptized we receive sanctifying grace: an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. This grace is habitual as the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call ( cf.CCC #2000). But this does not mean that a Christian will never sin. God’s grace enables us to reform our lives and turn away from habitually sinning. Though the Christian has turned away from habitually sinning to live in God’s favour and abide in his love, he is still imperfect and naturally inclined to sin because of his wounded human nature inherited from Adam. Like the psalmist David there are occasions when the Christian will fall from God’s grace by sinning and have to sincerely repent.

With regard to Mary it’s a different story. Her habitual state of grace had a permanent result (kecharitomene), for Mary was conceived preserved free from original sin. Like Eve, she had no natural inclination to sin against God. Though, unlike the former, Mary freely chose not to sin. The angel Gabriel knew that Mary would never sin, so he hailed her as “full of grace” (kecharitomene). Mary was an exceptional human being, or else the angel would have addressed her by her given name rather than by her spiritual disposition. Still God may have intervened to bestow his actual helping graces on Mary in the course of her life, but I believe this is probably not so; since Mary had no inclination to sin from the time she was born. Sanctifying and habitual grace were sufficient for her to live a holy and blameless life in cooperation with God’s grace. After all, this is one reason why the Church invokes Mary as the New Eve. 👍

Mary was initially justified before God at the instant she was conceived and her soul was sanctified. And she never fell from God’s grace. Since the angel Gabriel knew that she never would fall, seeing he was God’s messenger, I take delight in thinking that the rigid Protestant concept of Once-Saved-Always-Saved can apply to Mary. She is the New Eve. 😉

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

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
Ephraem, ‘Nisibene Hymns, 27:8’ (A.D. 370)

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother…The Lord warns saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’ "
Cyprian, ‘Unity of the Church, 6’ (A.D. 265)

I can’t help but think about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation when I read this passage. 😃

PAX :tiphat:
 
Hi guanophore:

Hi guanophore:

I have a quite a few good friends who are Catholic and they vary in their beliefs and the way that they understand and accept some of the dogmas/teachings of the church…*especially *when it comes to the Marian Dogmas.

A couple of them are so extreme in their “veneration” that they no longer even mention the Lord’s name in conversation and are constantly caught up in “what they can get” from Mary - while the others don’t see their faith that way at all and counter their extreme behaviour with a completely different type of devotion that makes it quite clear of Jesus’ place in their beliefs and what their salvation is dependent upon.

I’m not certain if in this particular thread, but I do know that in others that pertain to Mary, I have seen posts by Catholics that differ greatly in their understanding of some of the teachings and therefore have lead them off in different directions as to how and what they believe.

When I came in, this particular thread “Sinless Mary” was on a list of topics in the Non-Catholic area…so I thought it would be a good thread to go into. The pros - cons and the “whys” would be covered, and they certainly are!
Originally Posted by Leeann
I don’t feel smug about it at all, I feel concerned that those placing such trust in the “authority” offered by the Catholic church (as we know it today)…are being mislead. Jesus did indeed consider His church as a part of Himself……HIS church….and I don’t see that as the Catholic church.
What is your goal here? Why are you on CAF?
As you are aware, sometimes the “thread topic” gets lost or sidetracked during discussions and from my posting above, you can see that this is what happened - as every dogma or teaching eventually leads back to the claimed “authority” that the Catholic church has for being correct.

While in *that *particular response I was addressing the “authority” issue that had been brought into our discussion on “Sinless Mary”…it also applies to the reason I am here in any thread topic at CAF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top