Sinless Mary

[Mannyfit75]

SIA,

You claim that the Early Church is not Roman Catholic Church? Well it is. Officially it is called Catholic Church. Second, there are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church 22 Rites are Eastern or Oriental Rites, and the other is Roman or Latin Rites. The Catholic Church is known as, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as stated in the Nicene Creed.

St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD had the first recorded statement of the word Catholic. Consider these quotes from the Early Church Fathers:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

 

[Good_Fella]

I showed you what he said and I quoted him. Prove that he didn’t say it then. I quoted him; prove my quote wrong.
It’s a fact that many of them disagree with the Marian dogmas. You don’t seem to have a clue what they said and really don’t care because they don’t add up with your church. The Roman Catholic church is NOT the Early Church. Scripture proves this. Sorry.

The burden of proof is on you, since you claim Aquinas called Mary a sinnner. I quoted him in his Summa where he says Mary never committed a venial or mortal sin in her life. Provide your source of reference. All Aquinas questioned was whether Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin. Maybe this is what you’re referring to. But he did believe that Mary was preserved free from sin and redeemed at the moment she was born. Still, the private speculations of an individual theologian fail to constitute an official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Three Pillars of Truth are Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Leeann]

The Catholic Church is one of the five Patriarchiate Churches. Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

In those days, it was not defined about whether Mary was immaculate but many of the Early Church Fathers believe she was pure.

Consider the following:

And then you go on to post lists and lists of quotations.

You do realize of course that this doesn’t actually prove that the theory of a “Sinless Mary” is the “Truth”…it is just as logical to surmise that these quotations only confirm that there were *indeed *false teachings/beliefs that had already crept into the early Christian churches and that some of those “false beliefs/teachings” continued to be “developed” over the years,and were finally embraced by the Catholic church and were presented as being “true”.

That in itself doesn’t make a false teaching or practice to be true - simply because someone who has “self-garnered” its own “authority” declares it to be so. It just lends a false legitimacy to those who are told to accept and believe it.

 

[elvisman]

Give me a break man!! He said it, period! I don’t have to provide every bit of information that you will in some silly way try to rebuke. I can quote you MANY early church fathers who reject the Marian dogmas. MANY. You can’t just keep refuting. Why does YOUR church disagree with so many of the Early Church fathers and canonized saints??? Answer this please for everyone.

SIA -
You never provide source proof in your ridiculously tired anti-Catholic slams.
Show me the PROOF. I quoted Aquina’s Summa. Where did you get YOUR quote? If he did, in fact, say it - surely it would be easy to provide the source.

It is not up to any of us to prove he did’t say it. YOU made the ignorant remark - the burden of proof is on YOU, my friend.

Please provide this information instead of dodging the challenge like you do in so many other threads.

Unless you can provide a legitimate source, this is nothing more than another moronic, hateful slur.

 

[justasking4]

**SIA **-
You never provide source proof in your ridiculously tired anti-Catholic slams.
Show me the PROOF. I quoted Aquina’s Summa. Where did you get YOUR quote? If he did, in fact, say it - surely it would be easy to provide the source.

**It is not up to any of us to prove he did’t say it. YOU **made the ignorant remark - the burden of proof is on YOU, my friend.

**Please provide this information instead of dodging **the challenge like you do in so many other threads.

Unless you can provide a legitimate source, this is nothing more than another moronic, hateful slur.

I don’t know the fathers that well. Did any think she had sinned?

 

[Good_Fella]

And then you go on to post lists and lists of quotations.

You do realize of course that this doesn’t actually prove that the theory of a “Sinless Mary” is the “Truth”…it is just as logical to surmise that these quotations only confirm that there were *indeed *false teachings/beliefs that had already crept into the early Christian churches and that some of those “false beliefs/teachings” continued to be “developed” over the years,and were finally embraced by the Catholic church and were presented as being “true”.

That in itself doesn’t make a false teaching or practice to be true - simply because someone who has “self-garnered” its own “authority” declares it to be so. It just lends a false legitimacy to those who are told to accept and believe it.

Then I guess Jesus failed to keep his promise to the apostles that he would be with his Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail against his bride. What is infallible about Church doctrines isn’t merely the content of the teachings itself, but Christ’s guarantee that the Paraclete will guide the Church in all truth and preserve her from officially teaching error.

It’s true that false teachings did creep into the Church, notably twenty heresies which were condemned by Ecumenical Councils, including the Council of Trent which declared Martin Luther a positive heretic at the time he was excommunicated.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[elvisman]

I don’t know the fathers that well. Did any think she had sinned?

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one Father that says she did.
My point to SIA was that if he claims that Aquinas made this remark - I want to know from which of Aquinas’s writings this came. The burden of proof is clearly on SIA to provide this information.

I quoted from Aquinas’ work, Summa Theologiae that says the exact opposite of what SIA claims. Aquinas was no dummy and didn’t make such blatant contradictions.

 

[Leeann]

Then I guess Jesus failed to keep his promise to the apostles that he would be with his Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail against his bride.

Jesus *is *still with HIS Church…all those who believe and follow HIS teachings…that doesn’t mean it’s the Catholic church or any church with false teachings or doctrines.

What is infallible about Church doctrines isn’t merely the content of the teachings itself, but Christ’s guarantee that the Paraclete will guide the Church in all truth and preserve her from officially teaching error.

He did indeed…and He is and He will continue to do so with regards to HIS Church - not the Catholic Church.

It’s true that false teachings did creep into the Church, notably twenty heresies which were condemned by Ecumenical Councils, including the Council of Trent which declared Martin Luther a positive heretic at the time he was excommunicated.

Yes…in the true “early church”… HIS Church… the first churches of the Apostles…and even when Jesus himself preached and taught, there were those who fell away from what they had established as being “true”… those who fell away, continued claiming to be “Christians” even though their teachings and understanding had become contaminated through the blending of old traditions and pagan practices…developing over the years into a new religion - a false religion…not what was originally taught and passed on to by the Apostles themselves.

The Catholic religion - where God’s supreme authority has been grabbed and claimed as soley their own, thereby supposedly granting them the authority of allowing for all sorts of “developed theories” and claimed “divine revelations” to further contaminate and dampen down the true Gospel message that was established in the “true early churches” is a great example of that.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[elvisman]

Then I guess Jesus failed to keep his promise to the apostles that he would be with his Church until the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail against his bride. What is infallible about Church doctrines isn’t merely the content of the teachings itself, but Christ’s guarantee that the Paraclete will guide the Church in all truth and preserve her from officially teaching error.

It’s true that false teachings did creep into the Church, notably twenty heresies which were condemned by Ecumenical Councils, including the Council of Trent which declared Martin Luther a positive heretic at the time he was excommunicated.

PAX :tiphat:

[sign]YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, MY FRIEND![/sign]

 

[Mannyfit75]

And then you go on to post lists and lists of quotations.

You do realize of course that this doesn’t actually prove that the theory of a “Sinless Mary” is the “Truth”…it is just as logical to surmise that these quotations only confirm that there were *indeed *false teachings/beliefs that had already crept into the early Christian churches and that some of those “false beliefs/teachings” continued to be “developed” over the years,and were finally embraced by the Catholic church and were presented as being “true”.

That in itself doesn’t make a false teaching or practice to be true - simply because someone who has “self-garnered” its own “authority” declares it to be so. It just lends a false legitimacy to those who are told to accept and believe it.

If you bother to read the first one, it does show that the Early Church Fathers believe that Mary is sinless.

Do you want me to point you the quotes again?

Here it is again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4153509&postcount=71

 

[Mannyfit75]

Father William G. Most gives a Scriptural basis for the sinless of Mary.

I won’t quote the entire text here but here is the links:

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya1.htm

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

Other verses sometimes used to defend the Immaculate Conception include:

“And you shall make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood And you shall gild it with pure gold, you shall gild it within and without; and you shall make for it golden wreaths twisted round about.” (Exodus 25:10-11 Brenton LXX)

“So I made an ark of boards of incorruptible wood, and I hewed tables of stone like the first, and I went up to the mountain, and the two tables were in my hand.” (Deuteronomy 10:3 Brenton LXX)

Other translations use the words “setim,” “acacia,” “indestructible,” and “hard” to describe the wood used. In any case, Moses used this wood because it was regarded as very durable and “incorruptible.” Mary is regarded by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as being the Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament and therefore claim it is fitting that the New Ark likewise be made “incorruptible” or “immaculate.” Their basis for calling the Virgin Mary the Ark of the Covenant is based partly on the parallels of the Ark in Second Samuel 6 with the Nativity narrative of the Gospel of Luke. The early Church Fathers called Christ, the Church, and the Virgin Mary each at one point as being symbolized by the Ark. [10]

It is also claimed that Mary is shown as being totally faithful to Christ, especially during his Passion, when he was abandoned by his followers and apostles except for the young John. In this way, Mary’s complete faithfulness is argued to be the fruit of being sinless, as she could not then reject Christ in the darkest hour.

 

[Leeann]

If you bother to read the first one, it does show that the Early Church Fathers believe that Mary is sinless.

Do you want me to point you the quotes again?

Here it is again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4153509&postcount=71

Hi Manny

Not “early enough” - the earliest post was 100 or 110 A.D. - many false teachings had already been introduced throughout the original “true church” of believers. Obviously these ones were in support of them.

 

[Leeann]

Father William G. Most gives a Scriptural basis for the sinless of Mary.

I won’t quote the entire text here but here is the links:

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya1.htm

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

Other verses sometimes used to defend the Immaculate Conception include:

“And you shall make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood And you shall gild it with pure gold, you shall gild it within and without; and you shall make for it golden wreaths twisted round about.” (Exodus 25:10-11 Brenton LXX)

“So I made an ark of boards of incorruptible wood, and I hewed tables of stone like the first, and I went up to the mountain, and the two tables were in my hand.” (Deuteronomy 10:3 Brenton LXX)

Other translations use the words “setim,” “acacia,” “indestructible,” and “hard” to describe the wood used. In any case, Moses used this wood because it was regarded as very durable and “incorruptible.” Mary is regarded by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as being the Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament and therefore claim it is fitting that the New Ark likewise be made “incorruptible” or “immaculate.” Their basis for calling the Virgin Mary the Ark of the Covenant is based partly on the parallels of the Ark in Second Samuel 6 with the Nativity narrative of the Gospel of Luke. The early Church Fathers called Christ, the Church, and the Virgin Mary each at one point as being symbolized by the Ark. [10]

It is also claimed that Mary is shown as being totally faithful to Christ, especially during his Passion, when he was abandoned by his followers and apostles except for the young John. In this way, Mary’s complete faithfulness is argued to be the fruit of being sinless, as she could not then reject Christ in the darkest hour.

Manny - you keep referring to the “early Church Fathers” - who were they ??? - are you referring to any of the Apostles - or the “early Church Fathers” that represent the “Catholic church.”

You’d be hard pressed to find any mother who would reject their son in such a plight.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus *is *still with HIS Church…all those who believe and follow HIS teachings…that doesn’t mean it’s the Catholic church or any church with false teachings or doctrines.

He did indeed…and He is and He will continue to do so with regards to HIS Church - not the Catholic Church.

Yes…in the true “early church”… HIS Church… the first churches of the Apostles…and even when Jesus himself preached and taught, there were those who fell away from what they had established as being “true”… those who fell away, continued claiming to be “Christians” even though their teachings and understanding had become contaminated through the blending of old traditions and pagan practices…developing over the years into a new religion - a false religion…not what was originally taught and passed on to by the Apostles themselves.

The Catholic religion - where God’s supreme authority has been grabbed and claimed as soley their own, thereby supposedly granting them the authority of allowing for all sorts of “developed theories” and claimed “divine revelations” to further contaminate and dampen down the true Gospel message that was established in the “true early churches” is a great example of that.
PAX :tiphat:

Those who fell away were Christians like Arius or Martin Luther - not Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr - who rejected Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles and their valid successors in the Episcopacy, who governed the One Catholic Apostolic Church: Timothy succeeded Paul, by the “laying on of hands” (“Receive the Holy Spirit.”), ad finitum. Fallible individual theologians may err, including bishops (Nestorious), but official Church doctrines cannot be erroneous; since they are infallible by the guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit who was sent by Christ for the sake of the “One” true Faith.

What the Popes consistently teach in the Ordinary Magisterium or declare as dogma in an Apostolic Constitution cannot be false; nor can the Pope and Bishops of the Universal Magisterium in an Ecumenical Council declare and define a false teaching. The Paraclete is the Church’s warranty of infallibilty. If the Catholic Church officially teaches that Mary was sinless, then it’s true; for it is the Holy Spirit who unfolds this truth to us. I say “unfold” since this doctrine does not contravene Scripture, but is confirmed by it. You may disagree, but that’s your unauthoritative opinion - nothing more. And private exegetical opinions have divided Christendom.

The Catholic Church was born at Pentecost, not in the 16th century. The bride of Christ as a visible, single institution has been under the protection of the Paraclete since apostolic time, so she could never have ever espoused and officially taught false doctrines. False doctrines arise from the private interpretation of the scriptures. Arius and Luther erred by presuming the written word was the final teaching authority. But it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which declared which books of the Bible were truly inspired. The Holy Bible lays claim to no such authority.

Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the valid successors of the Apostles. The Magisterium - with the Divine mandate - authoritativey makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture: i.e, the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception. In any event, what Arius and Luther actually believed was that their personal interpretations of Scripture were the final teaching authority, not the Episcopacy of the Church, whom Paul calls “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. Individuals may err, but not the Universal Magisterium of the Apostolic Catholic Church.

Athiests and non-Christians argue that the concept of the divinity of Christ was engendered by the infiltration of pagan myths. From a historical perspective, they have a strong case. All we have is our “absurd” faith to go on and recourse to Scripture, which the Catholic Church dogmatically declared is the Word of God.

Protestantism is the highjacking of Christianity. The Five Solas, which neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the Church Fathers taught, definitely constitute a counterfeit Christianity. The consequent division and fragmentation of the Protestant movement evidently shows where all the wild theories and rationalizations abound.

But let’s stay on topic. I understand the sinlessness of Mary is more an issue of Church authority for Protestants who are determined to justify their severance from the historic Christian faith.

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise then as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 244)

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Leeann]

Hi Goodfella

Those who fell away were Christians like Arius or Martin Luther - not Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr - who rejected Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles and their valid successors in the Episcopacy, who governed the One Catholic Apostolic Church: Timothy succeeded Paul, by the “laying on of hands” (“Receive the Holy Spirit.”), ad finitum. Fallible individual theologians may err, including bishops (Nestorious), but official Church doctrines cannot be erroneous; since they are infallible by the guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit who was sent by Christ for the sake of the “One” true Faith.

I understand that this is what you’ve been taught and you believe it and state it as being all true…however that in itself does not make it “true” - especially when your are being taught from “Catholic sources” and relying on “Catholic sources” and their application of scripture in order to support their claim of “authority” - a rather one-sided fruitless effort wouldn’t you say?

What the Popes consistently teach in the Ordinary Magisterium or declare as dogma in an Apostolic Constitution cannot be false; nor can the Pope and Bishops of the Universal Magisterium in an Ecumenical Council declare and define a false teaching. The Paraclete is the Church’s warranty of infallibilty. If the Catholic Church officially teaches that Mary was sinless, then it’s true; for it is the Holy Spirit who unfolds this truth to us. I say “unfold” since this doctrine does not contravene Scripture, but is confirmed by it. You may disagree, but that’s your unauthoritative opinion - nothing more. And private exegetical opinions have divided Christendom.

Well…of course I disagree…IMH"unauthoritative"O…I do see your point…I’d even go as far to say that the only thing more destructive than the “private exegetical opinions” that you say have divided Christendom, has been the collective and collaborative opinions of the supposedly enlightened and Holy Spirit filled men that have managed over many years of development, to contaminate and pollute the “true” Gospel message since the beginnings of the REAL early Christian churches.

But it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which declared which books of the Bible were truly inspired. The Holy Bible lays claim to no such authority.

The Magisterium declared which books they needed and "officially added them to the bible to support their questionable practices and doctrines which had infiltrated the church and had been developed over the centuries,causing conflict with true believers, as they discerned them as being contrary to God and His teachings.
Note: they were “declared” truly inspired after the true believers left and the “sole authority of interpreting the bible” was then also “claimed” by the church at that point, in order to suit the needs of the Catholic church’s claim of having supreme authority - or “control”.

The Magisterium - with the Divine mandate - authoritativey makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture: i.e, the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

That’s an interesting concept…
Although…when I come to think of it…I didn’t need the Magisterium or their “Divine mandate” - or their “authority” to explain to me or make the understanding of the “Trinity” real to me…the Holy Spirit did that.

In any event, what Arius and Luther actually believed was that their personal interpretations of Scripture were the final teaching authority, not the Episcopacy of the Church, whom Paul calls “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. Individuals may err, but not the Universal Magisterium of the Apostolic Catholic Church.

Again…I must state this…I don’t believe that Paul was expressly speaking bout the “Epicopacy of the Catholic church” in this instance…as we know it today.

Athiests and non-Christians argue that the concept of the divinity of Christ was engendered by the infiltration of pagan myths. From a historical perspective, they have a strong case.

Yes…as Christians today,(*who have no difficulty with the concept *of the divinty of Christ)…put forth that some of those same pagan myths infiltrated the “early churches” when Christ himself walked the earth and when the Apostles were teaching - and the “early believers” (not specifically “Catholic”) - but the "early “Christians” were warned to hold to the “truth” and not to be deceived, in case they “fell away” after a different gospel…apparently some have.

All we have is our “absurd” faith to go on and recourse to Scripture, which the Catholic Church dogmatically declared is the Word of God.

I think you are being much too hard on yourselves…I wouldn’t say your faith is “absurd”…“misguided” perhaps…in the sense of where and whom you should be placing it in…but not “absurd”. The good thing is that the Catholic church took a stand…about declaring scripture to be the Word of God…whew!..that has GOT to make you feel better.

The consequent division and fragmentation of the Protestant movement evidently shows where all the wild theories and rationalizations abound.

Yesss…so unlike the Catholic church…all united…all one…or at least that’s the “portrayal” that is given - all under the one “umbrella” - all the different side organizations popping up - some causing schisms “within” the ranks - not to mention confusion and cultish practices - Society of Saint Pius V, Society of Saint PiusX, Opus Dei,Legion of Mary…

Reminds me of that scripture - about some men’s sins going before (made obvious to all)…and some men’s sins coming after (hidden away and not as obvious, but they’re still there)

1 Tim. Ch5 V
24: Some men’s sins are open before hand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

But let’s stay on topic. I understand the sinlessness of Mary is more an issue of Church authority for Protestants who are determined to justify their severance from the historic Christian faith.

Perhaps you understand incorrectly then…not the first part…because for me personally that is partly true…having to believe in something “just because the church” says so- *that *authority - but I can’t speak for others there…
The second part…being because it is a need “to justify their severence from the historic Christian faith” - I think that may be an understanding that some Catholics hold onto for their own reasons…for me…I simply don’t believe this teaching to be true.

Peace and God Bless you Goodfella!

Psalm Ch40:V4-5 (KJV)

**Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.**

 

[wmscott]

Christopher, i know the Bible because God said so and not because the church said so. Your reply has the same problem, you are giving authority to man instead of giving it to God. So if the early church decided that the Bible should not be published,then the Bible will not be available today?! (Of course it wouldn’t but i want to show that the decision is not in the hand of the church). It’s the will of God to give us the Holy Bible through the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the main point (problem) is that what Phil is discussing is not mentioned or supported by the Holy Bible. Everything we know about the Christ and Christianity is present in the Holy Bible and every opinion supported by traditions is man made.

Homer, for your edification, it was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon of the Bible, and it was the Catholic Church that had to determine what books were the divinely inspired words of God was.

In addition, I think you are confusing man mad tradition with Sacred Tradition. Remember not all that Christ taught was written into the Bible. It was Sacred Tradition that kept the early Catholic Church going until the Canon of the Bible was decided in the 3rd century. Finally, Sacred Tradition was never abolished because Sacred Scripture fully supports it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JasonTE said…

Where is the evidence of “people referring to Mary as a sinner long before anybody referred to her as sinless from conception?”

Let’s see some early Church writings that called her a sinner, if there are any.

Some of the Fathers thought she had committed some sins - Chrysostom has been rebuked for this by a Protestant - but without sufficient reason.​

It is intolerable to accuse the BVM of committing sin

The spotless bride of the Song of Songs is a type of something: where is the fulfilment of the type, if not in Mary ? “In the Church”, is a possible answer: but is it an adequate answer, if she is excluded ?

BTW - “sinless” =/= “perfect”: the BVM was sinless,but not perfect until after her Assumption; perhaps not until the Judgement. Part of the trouble is that sin is complex: there are sinful acts, states of sin, etc.

Any account of her sinlessness has to do justice to all the Biblical data about sin, to the sinlessness of Christ, to the Holiness of God which is incompatible with sin, & to much more.

 

[Good_Fella]

Some of the Fathers thought she had committed some sins - Chrysostom has been rebuked for this by a Protestant - but without sufficient reason.​

It is intolerable to accuse the BVM of committing sin

These Church Fathers you allude to are namely Origen, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom. Neither of them believed and taught Mary had committed venial or mortal sins. They simply thought Mary showed personal faults such as doubt, a lack of faith, maternal vanity, or ambition. But these are merely stray fallible theological opinions expressed in a private capacity. The Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief in Mary’s purity with respect to her position as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

It is heresy to reject and publicly contest a Church dogma.

PAX

 

[guanophore]

I’m confused… if it is required for a person to be sinless to be an adversary of Satan then what are to make of the apostles? They never claimed to be sinless and yet are we to think they were allies with Satan?

We all have various degrees of freedom from sin, as your own posts have testified, we struggle with our sin nature. God fashioned Mary in such a manner that by HIs grace she would have a complete separation from original sin.

Sin hinders our prayers, as the Apostles teach us. Mary’s prayers are so effective because of this emnity that God placed between her and the offspring of the devil.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi Goodfella

I understand that this is what you’ve been taught and you believe it and state it as being all true…however that in itself does not make it “true” - especially when your are being taught from “Catholic sources” and relying on “Catholic sources” and their application of scripture in order to support their claim of “authority” - a rather one-sided fruitless effort wouldn’t you say?

Well…of course I disagree…IMH"unauthoritative"O…I do see your point…I’d even go as far to say that the only thing more destructive than the “private exegetical opinions” that you say have divided Christendom, has been the collective and collaborative opinions of the supposedly enlightened and Holy Spirit filled men that have managed over many years of development, to contaminate and pollute the “true” Gospel message since the beginnings of the REAL early Christian churches.

The Magisterium declared which books they needed and "officially added them to the bible to support their questionable practices and doctrines which had infiltrated the church and had been developed over the centuries,causing conflict with true believers, as they discerned them as being contrary to God and His teachings.
Note: they were “declared” truly inspired after the true believers left and the “sole authority of interpreting the bible” was then also “claimed” by the church at that point, in order to suit the needs of the Catholic church’s claim of having supreme authority - or “control”.

That’s an interesting concept…
Although…when I come to think of it…I didn’t need the Magisterium or their “Divine mandate” - or their “authority” to explain to me or make the understanding of the “Trinity” real to me…the Holy Spirit did that.

Again…I must state this…I don’t believe that Paul was expressly speaking bout the “Epicopacy of the Catholic church” in this instance…as we know it today.

Yes…as Christians today,(*who have no difficulty with the concept *of the divinty of Christ)…put forth that some of those same pagan myths infiltrated the “early churches” when Christ himself walked the earth and when the Apostles were teaching - and the “early believers” (not specifically “Catholic”) - but the "early “Christians” were warned to hold to the “truth” and not to be deceived, in case they “fell away” after a different gospel…apparently some have.

I think you are being much too hard on yourselves…I wouldn’t say your faith is “absurd”…“misguided” perhaps…in the sense of where and whom you should be placing it in…but not “absurd”. The good thing is that the Catholic church took a stand…about declaring scripture to be the Word of God…whew!..that has GOT to make you feel better.

Yesss…so unlike the Catholic church…all united…all one…or at least that’s the “portrayal” that is given - all under the one “umbrella” - all the different side organizations popping up - some causing schisms “within” the ranks - not to mention confusion and cultish practices - Society of Saint Pius V, Society of Saint PiusX, Opus Dei,Legion of Mary…

Perhaps you understand incorrectly then…not the first part…because for me personally that is partly true…having to believe in something “just because the church” says so- *that *authority - but I can’t speak for others there…
The second part…being because it is a need “to justify their severence from the historic Christian faith” - I think that may be an understanding that some Catholics hold onto for their own reasons…for me…I simply don’t believe this teaching to be true.

Peace and God Bless you Goodfella!
I take it you believe Arius or Nestorious may have been right, that Jesus was either human or two persons in one body: one human and the other divine; since you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. And since you believe the Church’s Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception is erroneous, you cannot be sure whether the same Church erred in her Christological dogmas. To claim otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. Moreover, if the Catholic Church got some things right and other things wrong, then Jesus couldn’t have sent his Church the Paraclete to guide her in all truth as he promised his apostles he would.

If the Catholic Church has in fact “contaminated and polluted the true Gospels”, then I’ll become a Muslim. Mohammad felt the same way as you do about the Catholic Church. I could never consider becoming a Protestant, since the countless Protestant denominations can’t agree among themselves what the true Gospel is. Protestants still can’t agree with each other, for instance, what baptism essentially signifies.

The Council of Trent did not originally add the Deuterocanonical books. Martin Luther unauthoritatively rejected them from the existing canon of Scripture, although he still believed Mary was sinless throughout her entire life. Jesus and Paul cited verses from the Deuterocanonical books.

Are you trying to convince me that the Holy Spirit revealed the truth of the Holy Trinity to you after you opened your Bible? Are you saying that you were unaware of the existence of the Holy Trinity until you read the scriptures all by your lonesome self? If it were not for the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, you might be a Unitarian today. Unitarians and non-Christian monotheists will tell you rather convincingly, unless you choose to believe otherwise, that there is no Holy Trinity, by appealling to the scriptures. The concept of the Trinity originates from Sacred Tradition, not Scripture. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition, from whence the former comes, by the Catholic Church that was founded by Christ.

What have the different lay apostolate movements in the Catholic Church got to do with Christian disunity? You’ve created a faulty analogy. Their members all share the same Catholic faith.

Picking and choosing what one personally wants to believe, according to her private interpretation of Scripture, is the underlying principle of a divided and fragmented Protestant movement. When do you think you’ll found your own church and add a new denomination to the list of thousands? Christianity is divided because individuals presume they are their own authority. Ironically each dissenting individual mistakenly believes her authority is the written word of God and she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Call it religious free enterprise.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth…proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not always keeping to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 (A.D. 180)

PAX :harp: