Sinless Mary

[justasking4]

Good Fella;4257877]
Originally Posted by justasking4
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?

Good Fella
To be fully and permanently endowed with God’s sanctifying and habitual grace means being fully and permanently without sin.
Are you getting this out of ‘kecharitomene’?

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 same word used here is the same as used in Ephesians 1:6 of Christians. I know many Christians including myself that sins. So to answer your question is yes. Being in a state of grace does not mean a person cannot sin.

The expression ‘kecharitomene’ signifies that Mary was constantly in a state of grace.

You won’t find this idea in the definition of the word itself. You have to read into it what is not there to say this.

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.

The NT is all that we know of her and not once does it make this claim. Secondly, this idea was unknown for centuries by your own church.

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.

The problem is that the Scriptures don’t come close to saying this about her. Not even implicitedly. Better to say it has nothing to do at all with the Scriptures than to say that it does. Its not wise to make the Scriptures say something it does not.

“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)

This is the speculations of men.

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.

On what basis does this man in 235 make this claim? He is not getting it from Scripture.

PAX
:tiphat:

:hammering:

 

[elvisman]

Originally Posted by Leeann
Having said that:

I’m now sticking my tongue out at elvisman for his last post to me!
Except this happy face looks too happy…so imagine it without the little smile and the colour is dark grey!

I’m tired and hungry now and have to get away from this computer for a few hours…

Do Catholics not have a sense of humour?

I have a WONderful sense of humor.
**I just don’t think that untruthful remarks about the Catholic Church are funny. **
**Ignorance is one thing - lies are quite another. **

 

[justasking4]

I was wondering what exactly justification and sanctification meant to you?

Justification has do with being justified before God on the basis of our faith in Christ. See Romans 5:1 for example.

Sanctification has to do with our living our lives out in holiness.

 

[justasking4]

The problem with JA4 is he doesn’t tell us what he exactly means. He just makes abstract assertions and generalizations without any support behind what he says. His monotonous catch phrases are “not in the scriptures” and “speculations of men”. If anyone could win the Nobel Prize for saying something without saying anything, it would be JA4 & Co.

View attachment 4255

 

[Leeann]

I have a WONderful sense of humor.

I knew you did!

I just don’t think that untruthful remarks about the Catholic Church are funny.

Well any remarks I’ve made about the Catholic Church weren’t intended to be funny, that’s probably why you saw no humor in them.

Ignorance is one thing - lies are quite another.

Well, that’s something that at least we agree on!

Okay…enough off topic, too many interesting dialogue and interesting postings to digest!

 

[elvisman]

Well, that’s something that at least we agree on!

Okay…enough off topic, too many interesting dialogue and interesting postings to digest!

Ummmm . . . I was staying on topic.
I was referring to your post #376**. **
It’s a pack of lies and half-truths that usually finds its way around anti-Catholic circles.

 

[justasking4]

Ummmm . . . I was staying on topic.
I was referring to your post #376**. **
It’s a pack of lies and half-truths that usually finds its way around anti-Catholic circles.

Here is some of the post from 376:

"Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!
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.

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

As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.

Mary

Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)

Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)

Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)

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

Jesus

Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)

Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)

King (clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)"

What lies and half truths are you referring to here?

 

[guanophore]

i understand fully what the immaculate conception of Mary involves. In terms of “misinterpretations” has your church ever infallibly interpreted the verses used to support this doctrine to mean that she was sinless? I’m not talking about some doctrinal pronouncement of a pope but an actual interpretation of the passages to mean that Mary was considered sinless by Jesus or His apostles. Does such an interpretation by the Catholic church exist?

There is no need for this, since this is the Apostolic faith. Jesus adn the Apostles knew her personally. What better reference could one find?

And yes, there has been an ex-cathedra pronouncement on this.

However, what relevance does this have? You have no respect or regard for any of the infallible proclaimations of the Church.

Are you getting this out of ‘kecharitomene’?

No, it is the other way around. We understtand kecharitomene from what we received of the Apostolic Teaching.

The same word used here is the same as used in Ephesians 1:6 of Christians. I know many Christians including myself that sins. So to answer your question is yes. Being in a state of grace does not mean a person cannot sin.

You are right. All of us are called to live a sinless life, and this is only the result of being full of grace. However, being in a state of grace does not mean a person cannot sin. Mary could have sinned, she just chose not to do so. Adam an Eve were created in the same state of grace, but chose to sin.

You won’t find this idea in the definition of the word itself. You have to read into it what is not there to say this.

The word was placed there by Catholics, and for Catholics. If you wish to interpret it apart from the Catholic faith by which it was included, that is your own affair. You have the freedom to depart from the Apostolic Teaching. God created you with this freedom, just as He created Adam and Eve with the freedom to rebel against Him.

The NT is all that we know of her and not once does it make this claim. Secondly, this idea was unknown for centuries by your own church.

Well, we have a different reception of what is known, don’t we? Persons who reject the Apostolic Traditions cannot be expected to have all the information.

The problem is that the Scriptures don’t come close to saying this about her. Not even implicitedly. Better to say it has nothing to do at all with the Scriptures than to say that it does. Its not wise to make the Scriptures say something it does not.

Catholics, unlike SS, are not dependent upon the scripture for doctrine. Catholic Teaching is based on Jesus, not on the Holy Writings, as important as they are.

This is the speculations of men.

Why does that bother you so much? why is it that you cannot go your way in peace, knowing in your heart that Catholics believe in “speculations of men”? It seems that you have a nagging intolerance for the fact that others believe differently than you. What keeps you from allowing the wheat and tares to grow together, as Jesus commanded?

On what basis does this man in 235 make this claim? He is not getting it from Scripture.

Both the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition are part of the Divine Deposit of Faith, that is why neither contradicts the other. They both come from the same Source.

:hammering:

Anything going in?

 

[guanophore]

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

This is not surprising, since most of the NT was completed at the time. Those books that do reference it were written by the only Apostle left alive at the last, and they do contain references to her. Fortunately, this Apostle to write last was closes to Mary at the end of her life, and had firsthand information.

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

Really? Hmm. Why is evidence that is convincing to your finite and uneducated mind more valuable than the promises of Christ?

" And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matt 28:18 - Mark 1:1

Whenever you see a “therefore” in scripture, it is important to look and see what it is “there for”. In this passage, it refers back to “all authority”. That authority belonging to Christ, He sends HIs Apostles forth in that authority. He appoints them to be the teaching authority of the Church, and promises that He will be with them to the end of the age. What you are suggesting is that Jesus was a liar, or a weakling, that he failed to remain with them, or that He lied about His authority.

i agree. However fallible men can lie.

This is why it is so important to be able to distinguish between the Holy and infallible Bride of Christ, an the fallible men attached to her. Jesus does not allow His bride to participate in falsehood. As her Head, He protects her.

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you getting this out of ‘kecharitomene’?

.
The same word used here is the same as used in Ephesians 1:6 of Christians. I know many Christians including myself that sins. So to answer your question is yes. Being in a state of grace does not mean a person cannot sin.

You won’t find this idea in the definition of the word itself. You have to read into it what is not there to say this.

The NT is all that we know of her and not once does it make this claim. Secondly, this idea was unknown for centuries by your own church.

The problem is that the Scriptures don’t come close to saying this about her. Not even implicitedly. Better to say it has nothing to do at all with the Scriptures than to say that it does. Its not wise to make the Scriptures say something it does not.

This is the speculations of men.

On what basis does this man in 235 make this claim? He is not getting it from Scripture.

:hammering:

You don’t understand the meaning of the expression kecharitomene as used by Luke. Ephesians 1:6 uses escharitosen. Big difference.

Once again you bring an argument back to the beginning full circle. Like I said, you act like a mobile billboard. Is it true that there are other people using your user name? I’ve heard rumours. It seems you’re unaware of what we’ve already said about Luke perceiving Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant. It’s too bad you fail to see all the implications contained beneath the written word. You need enlightening. You should point that drill at your head. Maybe the truth will then get in. :newidea:

 

[Good_Fella]

Justification has do with being justified before God on the basis of our faith in Christ. See Romans 5:1 for example.

Sanctification has to do with our living our lives out in holiness.

This is still generalizing, but it’s an improvement. How does your Protestant understanding of justification and sanctification affect your views on the Immaculate Conception?

 

[elvisman]

Here is some of the post from 376:

"Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!
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.

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

As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.

Mary

Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)

Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)

Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)

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

Jesus

Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)

Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)

King (clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)"

What lies and half truths are you referring to here?

My mistake. It was SIA’s remarks that I mistook for Leeann’s because of the way she included his remarks.
**She must have just begun posting because her method was confusing. **

**My contention was that her support to SIA’s claim that the Catholic Church raises Mary to divinity is patently false. **

Also, YOUR post of #377 says that Mary’s assumption is mean parallel Jesus “Assumption” which is ALSO patently false. Jesus ASCENDED into heaven under his own power, whereas Mary was Assumed into heaven under God’s power.

Unless you can show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion - yes, you’re liars. A liar is somebody who says things that aren’t true - not out of ignorance, but contempt or other ulterior motive.

The only other option left is that you’re ignoramuses but I would never accuse you of that.

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is an excellent question, and one of the clearest testimonies to the presence of Oral Tradition in the Church. The early church adopted the practice very early of reciting the psalms daily, a practice that has continued to this day. Some communities recite all of them daily. Since the Word of Christ was delivered orally, it was shared orally and dwelt within the believers’ hearts. This living word inspired the NT that we know of today.

For some reason you seem to think that God is not able to preserve His word in the heart of a person.

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.

The question is, how do YOU know it is scripture. If you reject the Apostolic Tradition that testifies to this, then you have no basis for accepting it as such. The Epistle of Barnabas is equal to it.

The fact is that there are truths about the kingdom of God that have been preserved outside of scripture. The author of this gospel is one example of Sacred Tradition. You keep insisting that it does not exist, yet you base the bulk of you faith upon it, apparently not realizing where it came from!

 

[Good_Fella]

i understand fully what the immaculate conception of Mary involves. In terms of “misinterpretations” has your church ever infallibly interpreted the verses used to support this doctrine to mean that she was sinless? I’m not talking about some doctrinal pronouncement of a pope but an actual interpretation of the passages to mean that Mary was considered sinless by Jesus or His apostles. Does such an interpretation by the Catholic church exist?

Have you actually read the Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ of Pope Pius lX? If not, then you don’t understand the dogma fully.

www.papalencyclicals.com

 

[Good_Fella]

My mistake. It was SIA’s remarks that I mistook for Leeann’s because of the way she included his remarks.
**She must have just begun posting because her method was confusing. **

My contention was that her support to SIA’s claim that the Catholic Church raises Mary to divinity is patently false.

Also, YOUR post of #377 says that Mary’s assumption is mean parallel Jesus “Assumption” which is ALSO patently false. Jesus ASCENDED into heaven under his own power, whereas Mary was Assumed into heaven under God’s power.

Unless you can show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion - yes, you’re liars. A liar is somebody who says things that aren’t true - not out of ignorance, but contempt or other ulterior motive.

The only other option left is that you’re ignoramuses but I would never accuse you of that.

The untruths Protestants spout on this forum are the same ones we can find on anti-Catholic Protestant websites and blogs. It’s too bad they don’t check the Catholic apologetics sites to see how the common Protestant objections are soundly refuted before raising the same feeble objections here.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

Ummmm . . . I was staying on topic.

Ummmm…I was referring to me.

I was referring to your post #376**. **
It’s a pack of lies and half-truths that usually finds its way around anti-Catholic circles.

Post # 510 elvisman (with reference made to a post of mine)
Unless you can show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion - yes, you’re liars. A liar is somebody who says things that aren’t true - not out of ignorance, but contempt or other ulterior motive.

The only other option left is that you’re ignoramuses but I would never accuse you of that.
Matthew 5

10:Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11:Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12:Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

elvisman - you should be rejoicing and be exceedingly glad if you sincerely believe what you posted above.

And even more to the point, I know that I’m blessed by the accusations you’ve made from your own posting, so in a way I should be grateful to you!

Thank you elvisman!

 

[Leeann]

Quote:
“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)

Can anyone refer me to the “original” posting this quote came from so I can get the context of why it was posted…thanks.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by wmscott

What I find amusing with Leeann’s and justasking4’s arguments is that the sinless state of the Blessed Mother, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption was never, I repeat never an issue for over 1500 years. Moreover, it was not until Martin Luther, later in life when he was old a bitter towards the Catholic Church that it even became an issue. (Not true – ECF and theologians had varying viewpoints prior to Martin Luther and his exposure of the greed and fraud that the Catholic Church had been perpetrating ) At first, he had no issue with the Blessed Mother. There was never at any time in history of Christianity issues surrounding the Blessed Mother until later in the reformation. It is a relatively new phenomenon when you look back over 2000 years of history.
(…however if you hold that this is true – and that the reformation was somehow a catalyst for the interest….perhaps there is another reason that the Catholic church “needed” to try and substantiate some of its erroneous teachings….after “exposure”…it’s called “back tracking”)
You get the Bible only literalists, those who only have limited information, and by the way, the Bible is a CC product, (a product packaged and presented as so many other products that they develop and produce in order to attempt to add credence to their superfluous theologies) coupled with the fact they have no central teaching authority,(other than the HS- who as we all know – is the property of the Catholic church and cannot work outside of its claimed authority) you get an infinite amount of personal misinterpretations. (as opposed to the infinite amount of “authorized” misinterpretations from slightly delusional members of the Magestarium ) As with Leeann’s and justasking4’s, you have explained the concepts to them, I do not know how many ways, and they still do not get it. In a nutshell, they have lost the bubble regarding Sacred Tradition and do not understand that it is also the Word of God just as Sacred Scripture is. You may be getting to the point that you are going to start covering old ground. (don’t worry too much about that wm scott…the way the Catholic church operates, you will no doubt have more new ground to cover…as soon as they finish “developing” more spurious theology and present it as fact). God bless you for keeping the dialog open, hopefully you will plant a seed of reason, if not with Leeann and justasking4, then maybe with others. Keep up the good work.

 

[Thing]

Justification has do with being justified before God on the basis of our faith in Christ. See Romans 5:1 for example.

Sanctification has to do with our living our lives out in holiness.

So I take it that if you are being sanctified you have been justified, correct?

 

[Leeann]

I found it!

Originally posted by Good Fella

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.

I found it!

With regards to the underlined portion above, indicating how Mary is believed to be the “Ark of the Word made flesh” and the contrast to the quotation taken from ‘Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me’ – Hyppolytus, which states the “He” was the ark formed of incorruptible wood…….“His tabernacle” was exempt from putridity and corruption.”

A few questions - to anyone -

*Is the “Ark of the Word made flesh” the same as “the Ark of the Covenant” - if so - is she also now considered to be “His tabernacle” - or is this simply poetic license taken by Hyppolytus?

Is the excerpt by Hyppolytus now accepted by the Catholic church as teaching that Mary is “His tabernacle” - or is it only another opinion that Catholics can take anyway they want too by the “impressive” way it “implies” support to a questionable belief?

And did Pope Pius IX when he cited his belief in Mary’s sinlessness refer to this quotation?*

If one is to state blatantly that : “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.” and then proceed to grasp at any thing that “implies” something as way of adding substance to a theory that has little to begin with…they themselves are in danger of possessing an extremely “faulty premise” on which they approach the scriptures, which ultimately will (and has) already produced the teachings of the Catholic church as we know it today.