Sinless Mary

[Mannyfit75]

If Catholics seem to take the Lord out of context of honor and worship and focus more on Mary like worshipping her. Then it is time to correct them. Some Catholics who do not know know their faith will be so confused that they actually “worship Mary.” I have actually taken the time to example the correct teachings of the Church. That one the Catholic do not worship Mary. We do honor and venerate her.

But this topic has nothing to do with veneration. This thread speaks about the issue of Mary being conceived with sin.

 

[Leeann]

If Catholics seem to take the Lord out of context of honor and worship and focus more on Mary like worshipping her. Then it is time to correct them. Some Catholics who do not know know their faith will be so confused that they actually “worship Mary.” I have actually taken the time to example the correct teachings of the Church. That one the Catholic do not worship Mary. We do honor and venerate her.

But this topic has nothing to do with veneration. This thread speaks about the issue of Mary being conceived with sin.

Yes Mannyfit, but I was responding to a particular question with regards to why I am here…and so I answered it.

Since this thread is dealing with the teachings of the church with regards to Mary, then this is a thread for me to be in.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes Mannyfit, but I was responding to a particular question with regards to why I am here…and so I answered it.

Since this thread is dealing with the teachings of the church with regards to Mary, then this is a thread for me to be in.

Call me Manny.

The teachings of the Church concerning Mary has always remain consistent. Even when certain doctrines were not defined like Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. The sources of this belief comes from Patristic sources or writings of the Early Church Fathers.

They Church did not pick it out of the blue. Rather through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the CC affirms this to be true.

 

[guanophore]

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?

I think you are afraid to deal with the evidence. If Lazarus died again, and his sisters Mary and Martha buried him a second time, would tht mean that Jesus raising him from the dead the first time 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?

ja4, tombs are opened and bodies moved all the time. Some have been moved because construction was taking place. Many of the bodies of the saints were relocated under altars of the Churches, after Christianity was legalized.

If you think it is a spurious claim, then I challenge you to look at the evidence. Do you not believe that Jesus is able to preserve our bodies from corruption?

This has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura per se but what was the nature of the church in the 1st century.

Oh, I think it has everything to do with SS. The nature of the Church in the 2st century was Catholic. In separating the scriptures from the Source that produced them, persons embracing SS have lost sight of what was there.

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.

To whom do you believe the letters were addressed?

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

What possible relevance could that have, since you have no respect for those infallible teachings anyhow?

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

I am curious, ja4. If you knew of a very saintly person whose body had to be exhumed for some reason (perhaps to obtain forensic or genetic evidence) and the body was found incorrupted, what would you think caused it?

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.

Well, who are “we”? Previously, you have stated that when you use the word “we” you are referring to “bible christians” which you have further stated are “true Christians”. So, where do bible persons get their canon of scripture? Shouldn’t the list of books that ought to be included be contained in scripture, since all doctrine and practices must be grounded there?

True

 

[guanophore]

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.

"guanophore:

Why are you here at 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.

Am I to understand that you are here out of “concern” that Catholics who accept the authority of the Church are being misled?

Do you see yourself as the person to enlighten us, so that we can see the “truth”?

 

[Leeann]

Am I to understand that you are here out of “concern” that Catholics who accept the authority of the Church are being misled?

Originally Posted by Leeann
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.

by Leean
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…
…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!

Do you see yourself as the person to enlighten us, so that we can see the “truth”?

I don’t see myself as anything guanophore, but I am certainly “being” enlightened.

Why are you in this thread?

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;4255412]
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

Good Fella
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?

Your right i have gone over this with those who try to promote this kind of thing as being true. Its amazing isn’t when those who have been taught this phrase “full of grace” and “highly favored one” somehow means without sin and have been shown by the meaning of the word has nothing to do with Mary being sinless still persist.

“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].

Where in any of these statements is there said anything about a person in such a state is sinless? Where is there anything here about being sinless all her life?

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

This is for all believers.

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.
Where are you getting this idea?

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

.
I agree.

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.

No evidence for this assertion.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

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).

You are reading into this far more than what is said in any passage on Mary.

Mary was an exceptional human being, or else the angel would have addressed her by her given name rather than by her spiritual disposition.

What made Mary an exceptional human being was that she was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus.

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.

Again you go far beyond what the Scriptures say. This is speculation.

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.

Again there is no proof for this.

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.

OSAS has nothing to do with this. What you are promoting here is a speculation theology which has no grounds in Scripture.

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

FONT=“Book Antiqua”]“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:

What i’m finding in my study of these Marian doctrines is that there is no limit to the speculations about her. The Catholic church must also condone these things since i have yet to see any offical rebuke of this but rather an embracing of these these unbiblical claims.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Luke 1:
[13] But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
[14] And you will have joy and gladness,
and many will rejoice at his birth;
[15] for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.[16] And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,
[17] and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah,
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just,
to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

Can John the Baptist, being filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb, sin?

 

[justasking4]

Luke 1:
[13] But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
[14] And you will have joy and gladness,
and many will rejoice at his birth;
[15] for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.[16] And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,
[17] and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah,
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just,
to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

Can John the Baptist, being filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb, sin?

Yes

 

[guanophore]

What made Mary an exceptional human being was that she was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus.

That is interesting. Jesus said what made her exceptional is that she heard the word of God, and obeyed it.

Again you go far beyond what the Scriptures say. This is speculation.

The same kind of “speculation” that got us the canon, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc, etc?

What you are promoting here is a speculation theology which has no grounds in Scripture.

The fact that you are not connected to the ground does not eliminate the ground itself, or the fact that others are standing upon it.

What i’m finding in my study of these Marian doctrines is that there is no limit to the speculations about her. The Catholic church must also condone these things since i have yet to see any offical rebuke of this but rather an embracing of these these unbiblical claims.

What is curious, ja4, is that you have determined that these Marian doctrines are “unbiblical” and should therefore be rejected. For some reason, you cannot just reject them and move on. You have some kind of consistent and pestering pre-occupation with this subject, and can’t seem to tolerate that others believe differently than you, and that we understand the scriptures differently.

 

[guanophore]

Yes

I agree. Being filled with the spirit does not deprive a person of their ability to sin. John the Baptist, Mary, and many others predestined and sanctified by God chose not to sin. This is what happens when one allows oneself to be full of the grace of God. Where God’s grace dwells in fullness, sin cannot exist. However, this is a choice that people make, and it is possible to quench the spirit.

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 2

You are reading into this far more than what is said in any passage on Mary.

What made Mary an exceptional human being was that she was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus.

Again you go far beyond what the Scriptures say. This is speculation.

Again there is no proof for this.

OSAS has nothing to do with this. What you are promoting here is a speculation theology which has no grounds in Scripture.

What i’m finding in my study of these Marian doctrines is that there is no limit to the speculations about her. The Catholic church must also condone these things since i have yet to see any offical rebuke of this but rather an embracing of these these unbiblical claims.

The expression ‘kecharitomene’ is enough “proof”.

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
Ephraem, 'Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 373)

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

Elizabeth declares both Mary and Jesus blessed in one breath. Are you saying that Jesus was blessed only because Mary was his mother? He was blessed in a way, since the Father had given him such a pure and spotless mother. Elizabeth’s child leaped in her womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. But that’s not all what we mean by being blessed. Both mother and son are equally blessed above and apart from humanity by being at complete and constant enmity with Satan - holy and blameless before God. The Church has perceived this since apostolic time. The early Church Fathers preserve this traditional belief found in Luke and passed on to them by the agency of the Holy Spirit articulating it further.

As long as you sweep Christ’s humanity under the carpet, you’ll never see the truth. You are outside the Church and severed from the true historic Christian faith as part of a post-modern religious movement, so you are in no viable position to tell the Church what the scriptures tell us. The final authority lies with the Magisterium of the Church which Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles. The Church is the custodian of the scriptures. Meanwhile you are blind to the truth of the Spirit of the Word by concentrating primarily on the mere letter of the word. You are more rational than spiritual. Your frame of mind will not permit the Spirit to touch your heart and soul with his truth.


“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast to the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12’ (A.D. 350)

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine Tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.”
Clement of Alexandria, ‘Stromata, 7:16’ (post A.D. 202)

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Gara3987]

We are all sinners and Mary is also a sinner. The only human being that is not a sinner is Jesus Christ for he is the Son of God.

Mary was a great person of course since God has chosen her to carry his son, but that doesn’t mean that Mary is not a sinner. Every single human being is a sinner and needs to accept Jesus Christ in his life for he only is the savior.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4)

Only Jesus was born without a sin. If Mary was born without a sin that means that her parents should have been born without a sin and the parents of her parents … and this is impossible. Jesus is born without a sin through the Holy Spirit.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.(Romans 5:12)

Mary herself said: And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47)

There is not doubt whatsoever that Mary was a great person since she was the mother of Jesus the man, but after all she is a human being and every human being is a sinner and needs Jesus as a savior.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was born without sin, Hence Saint Gabriel said to her “hail full of Grace the Lord is with thee” (Luke 1, 28). This can also all be found in Apocalypse Chapter 21, that is if you are able to truly understand these Scriptures.

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 1

Your right i have gone over this with those who try to promote this kind of thing as being true. Its amazing isn’t when those who have been taught this phrase “full of grace” and “highly favored one” somehow means without sin and have been shown by the meaning of the word has nothing to do with Mary being sinless still persist.

Where in any of these statements is there said anything about a person in such a state is sinless? Where is there anything here about being sinless all her life?

To be fully and permanently endowed with God’s sanctifying and habitual grace means being fully and permanently without sin. Are you suggesting that someone who is in a state of grace is in a state of sin? That’s a contradiction in terms. You’d certainly confuse St.Paul who taught otherwise. He viewed grace as the antidote to sin.

The expression ‘kecharitomene’ signifies that Mary was constantly in a state of grace. She never once fell from God’s grace as Eve did and entered the state of sin. Mary was able to remain faithful to God because she was conceived without a sinful nature and empowered by God’s grace to choose not to sin. She was endowed with God’s sanctifying grace as soon as she was fashioned to be the Ark of the Word made flesh. You will never see the truth as long as you keep taking the written word literally by focussing on what lies explicitly on the surface of a page. Your faulty premise on which you approach the scriptures naturally leads you to arrive at wrong conclusions and espouse heretical beliefs.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hyppolytus, ‘Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me’ (ante A.D. 235)

I’m impressed by this fragment since it implies belief in Mary’s Assumption had already existed in the Church by this time. In his Apostolic Constitution Pope Pius lX cites Mary’s exemption from the universal law of sin and the corruption of death as a reason for her Assumption into heaven.

PAX
:tiphat:

 

[Good_Fella]

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???

“Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all.”
Proverbs 31, 29

Elizabeth declares both Mary and her Divine offspring blessed as Uzziah blesses both Judith and God. Judith is blessed for having saved Israel by cutting off the head of the Assyrian general Holofermes with God’s guidance. Mary is blessed for having saved mankind from eternal destruction by crushing the head of the serpent underfoot with her ‘Fiat’ which brought our Redeemer into the world. Thus Elizabeth will also declare: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” The fruit of Mary’s faith is her Divine offspring whose Passion and Death were victorious over the serpent and his seed: sin and death. When Luke wrote 1:42, he had the Protoevangelium and the Jewish servant and handmaid Judith in mind. The evangelist perceived the heroine as a prefigurement of Mary, a type of Woman of Promise, the New Eve, who runs current throughout the Old Testament among the Jewish heroines. In the original Hebrew text we have the neuter epicene personal pronoun in Genesis 3:15. With a dual subject the woman is indicated in the prophecy together with her offspring: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.” Both the woman and the child will crush the head of the serpent while he waits at their heels. And the woman is Mary, since it is “her” seed, not the seed of a man. It was God who destroyed Holofermes and the Assyrians, but Judith played a vital role as God’s chosen handmaid in the general’s death by doing the actual slaying with the use of a sword. The quickest and most efficient way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.

As there is an ongoing duel between types of Christ and Satan throughout the Old Testament, so too is there an ongoing battle in progress between types of Mary and the devil. The Jewish heroines prefigure the Woman of the Protoevangelium who crushes the head of the serpent. Judith is among those who serve as prefigurements of the New Eve. But the Jewish heroines are not as great as the one whom they prefigure, just as Isaac and David are not as great as Jesus, for they are not the New Eve who helps bring about the spiritual salvation of mankind. The arch-type of the New Testament surpasses that of the Old Testament. Anyway, Mary is identified as “Woman” by Jesus in the Gospel of John: at the wedding feast and at the foot of the cross, the beginning and end of our Lord’s ministry, inaugurated by Mary’s solicitation and intercession. The evangelist presents her again in Revelation 12: 1, 5 as “Woman” or the New Eve and Mother of the Church. Mary became our new spiritual mother when Jesus gave her to us from the cross. Eve is the biological mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). She first gave birth to Cain. Our Lord is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). Thus in Luke 1:42, both the woman and her offspring are blessed, for they are both at enmity with Satan. In Hebrew thought this means that they are both in a spirit of constant opposition against the devil as enemies of the serpent. Like her divine Son, Mary was never under the dominion of Satan in virtue of her Divine Maternity and role as the New Eve. Mary could never have sinned according to the scriptures. A woman contributed to the fall by disobedience, a woman contributed to our redemption by obedience. Mary could not have been Eve’s anti-type if she had ever succumbed to the devil’s words at any moment of her life.

The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth; the woman must encompass the man with devotion.
Jeremiah 31, 22

“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament.”
St. Augustine

PAX :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;4257745]The expression ‘kecharitomene’ is enough “proof”.

Its not if you want to establish the idea that Mary was sinless.

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
Ephraem, 'Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 373)

Bad theology for this hymn.

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

Elizabeth declares both Mary and Jesus blessed in one breath. Are you saying that Jesus was blessed only because Mary was his mother? He was blessed in a way, since the Father had given him such a pure and spotless mother. Elizabeth’s child leaped in her womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. But that’s not all what we mean by being blessed. Both mother and son are equally blessed above and apart from humanity by being at complete and constant enmity with Satan - holy and blameless before God. The Church has perceived this since apostolic time. The early Church Fathers preserve this traditional belief found in Luke and passed on to them by the agency of the Holy Spirit articulating it further.
I don’t dispute Mary being blessed. The question is: what does it mean to be blessed in the context where we find it? Is there any hint of being sinless on the part of Mary in Luke 1?

As long as you sweep Christ’s humanity under the carpet, you’ll never see the truth

.
Huh??? I have never done such a thing.

You are outside the Church and severed from the true historic Christian faith as part of a post-modern religious movement, so you are in no viable position to tell the Church what the scriptures tell us. The final authority lies with the Magisterium of the Church which Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles. The Church is the custodian of the scriptures.

If this is what you believe then you have a serious problem on your hands. On the one hand the Scriptures don’t support the idea that Mary was sinless and on the other your church says she was. Both positions cannot be right. You cannot hold to both.

Meanwhile you are blind to the truth of the Spirit of the Word by concentrating primarily on the mere letter of the word. You are more rational than spiritual. Your frame of mind will not permit the Spirit to touch your heart and soul with his truth.

This is a matter of sound reasoning from the Scriptures and not about some kind of emotional spiritual expierence. If it is of the Spirit there will be harmony with the Scriptures.

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast to the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12’ (A.D. 350)

“For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine Tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy.”
Clement of Alexandria, ‘Stromata, 7:16’ (post A.D. 202)

PAX :tiphat:

I stand on the Word of God and i know it does not teach Mary being sinless.

 

[justasking4]

I agree. Being filled with the spirit does not deprive a person of their ability to sin. John the Baptist, Mary, and many others predestined and sanctified by God chose not to sin. This is what happens when one allows oneself to be full of the grace of God. Where God’s grace dwells in fullness, sin cannot exist. However, this is a choice that people make, and it is possible to quench the spirit.

Where does the Catholic church teach that John the Baptist chose not to sin or did not sin?

 

[guanophore]

Its not if you want to establish the idea that Mary was sinless.

I agree. I think, if a person has not received the Apostolic Teaching, there are many things in scripture that will not be pursuasive. This is obvious with JW’s, who say that there is no Trinity, that Jesus is not God, and the HS is not a person. They cannot “see” what we see in the scriptures because they have rejected the Apostolic Teaching.

I don’t dispute Mary being blessed. The question is: what does it mean to be blessed in the context where we find it? Is there any hint of being sinless on the part of Mary in Luke 1?

That is how we read it! I agree, though, it is more of a “hint” than an explicit statement.

] Huh??? I have never done such a thing.

Yes. When you deny that He took His unstained flesh from the Body of Mary, you fall into gnostic heresy that denies the humanity of Christ.

Huh??? I have never done such a thing.

If this is what you believe then you have a serious problem on your hands. On the one hand the Scriptures don’t support the idea that Mary was sinless and on the other your church says she was. Both positions cannot be right. You cannot hold to both.

It is possible to hold on to both when one knows that not all of God’s revelation is confined to the scriptures. We can hold to this because we do see the support in the scriptures, and we have received the Apostolic Teaching. It is a serious problem for those who have rejected the Kerygma, and embraced the error of SS.

This is a matter of sound reasoning from the Scriptures and not about some kind of emotional spiritual expierence. If it is of the Spirit there will be harmony with the Scriptures.

I agree, notwithstanding that emotional spiritual experience is also valid, it must be examined in the light of the Teaching and the Scriptures.

I stand on the Word of God and i know it does not teach Mary being sinless.

God has made you in His own likeness and image. You have the same freedom as Lucifer, to stand on your own ideas instead of God’s revelation. You have the same freedom as Adam and Eve, who also chose to disregard God’s commmandment, and embrace their own ideas of what they thought was good for them.

Where does the Catholic church teach that John the Baptist chose not to sin or did not sin?

The Church teaches that, although the Baptist was conceived with original sin, he was born without it, as he was filled with the HS by Jesus when the sound of his mother’s voice reached the ears of Elizabeth. When John was filled with the Spirit of the holy God, he leapt in his mother’s womb. From the time he came from that womb, he was filled with the HS, and there was none greater than he that was born of woman up to that time.

One who is filled with the Spirit chooses not to sin.

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t dispute Mary being blessed. The question is: what does it mean to be blessed in the context where we find it? Is there any hint of being sinless on the part of Mary in Luke 1?

.Huh??? I have never done such a thing.

If this is what you believe then you have a serious problem on your hands. On the one hand the Scriptures don’t support the idea that Mary was sinless and on the other your church says she was. Both positions cannot be right. You cannot hold to both.

This is a matter of sound reasoning from the Scriptures and not about some kind of emotional spiritual expierence. If it is of the Spirit there will be harmony with the Scriptures.

I stand on the Word of God and i know it does not teach Mary being sinless.

Mary is blessed together with her offspring in that they are both at enmity with the serpent. Like Jesus, the Son of Man, Mary was sinless. Neither of them could have been under Satan’s dominion of sin and evil in God’s plan of salvation. Adam and Eve incurred the fall of mankind, the New Adam and the New Eve reversed the fall in the order of events. Take a course in Greek 101 in the meantime.

You cannot accept the idea of Mary’s sinlessness because you mistakenly think such a pure state would amount to her deification. You don’t have to put your inference exactly into words. Your persistent objection to Mary’s sinlessness says enough. Perhaps you have an issue with Church authority and are clutching at straws to justify your existence outside the Church. But I’m afraid both history and theology are not on your side.

You sound like a parrot constantly repeating: “It’s not in the scriptures.” Why don’t you show us how it’s not in the scriptures apart from isolating one or two verses from St. Paul that are misinterpreted to begin with? The Jews and Muslims will tell you that the Holy Trinity isn’t in the scriptures. The Church definitively tells us it is. There are not three Gods. Comprendo? There have been twenty Christological and Trinitarian heresies in the history of the Church because of the private interpretation of the scriptures.

What do you mean by my “church”. Scripture reveals that Jesus Christ founded only One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. He said nothing about churches. Luther scattered Christ’s sheep. There are about 30,001 Protestant churches now with the inclusion of the Church of Uganda. Which man made church do you belong to, if any? Your faulty and pathetic interpretations are at odds with the true teachings of the Church founded by Christ. The Catholic Church is absolutely right, you’re absolutely wrong. You’re a post-modern religious phenomenon, nothing more. A highjacker of Christianity and a plagiarist of our Holy Bible to boot.

Your reasoning from the scriptures is unsound. My little niece understands the scriptures better than you ever will. The more I listen to you, the less chance I’ll ever become a Fundamentalist.

The Paraclete is not a purely subjective religious experience.

You folks make good tragic comedians when it comes to theology and exegesis.

You stand on the word of Justasking4 and you corrupt the Word of God.

PAX :yawn: