Some examples of ECF's (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733).....

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Some examples of ECF’s (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733) - supporting the belief that Mary was in fact sinless. For those non-Catholics who do not believe this to be true: were they wrong?

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“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),in THEO,132

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

“As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine,Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135 Augustine

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay” Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation” Andrew of Crete,Sermon I,On the Birth of Mary(A.D. 733),in THEO,180

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all,not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as ecelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople,Marracci in S. Germani Mariali(ante A.D. 733),in ULL,98

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus,Homily I in Nativ.(ante A.D. 749),in THEO,200
 
joe370 said:
Some examples of ECF’s (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733) - supporting the belief that Mary was in fact sinless. For those non-Catholics who do not believe this to be true: were they wrong?
Click to expand...
This seems pretty straight-forward Joe. If they:

a) claimed that Mary was in fact sinless; and

b) I don’t believe that Mary was in fact sinless; then

c) they must be wrong in that regard.

I prefer the earlier (and more reliable) view of Tertullian:
But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work?* On the Flesh of Christ 7

Tertullian questions Mary’s faithfulness to the Lord at the time of John 7:5…doesn’t sound as if he knew of any apostolic tradition that held that Mary was sinless or perfect
 
Radical said:
This seems pretty straight-forward Joe. If they:

a) claimed that Mary was in fact sinless; and

b) I don’t believe that Mary was in fact sinless; then

c) they must be wrong in that regard.

I prefer the earlier (and more reliable) view of Tertullian:
But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work?* On the Flesh of Christ 7

Tertullian questions Mary’s faithfulness to the Lord at the time of John 7:5…doesn’t sound as if he knew of any apostolic tradition that held that Mary was sinless or perfect
Click to expand...
Mary was born with sin? Explain the logic behind as to why God who is perfect and pure,would want a defiled creature to conceive His Son-who by the way is God? God Incarnated and conceived by a sinner? :confused:
 
Radical said:
This seems pretty straight-forward Joe. If they:
a) claimed that Mary was in fact sinless; and
Click to expand...
Radical, do you trust the Catholic church made the correct decisions below?

Codification of scripture. The canon of Scripture was not finalized until 397.

The 2 Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills (Monothelitism; the orthodox doctrine holds that He had two wills) went on for a few centuries more.

Original sin: this was finalized in dogma so late that it wasn’t part of the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that the fathers wrote much more about purgatory than about original sin.
Click to expand...
 
You know what’s funny. As a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, I took the belief that Mary was sinless on faith. I mean sure it was uncomfortable for me and I couldn’t find it spelled out in Scripture. But when do we stop depending on our own intellectual faculties and knowledge and start depending on the God whom we cannot see and can’t possible fully understand?
 
Radical, here are some more early church leaders who must be wrong as well??? :confused::confused::confused:

St. Athanasius

. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8; Gambero, 102)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216; Gambero, 106)

St. Ephraem

Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life (Op. syr. II, 327; Ott, 201)

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8; Ott, 201)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)

St. Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)

[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)

St. Ambrose

. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)

What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity, II, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 374)

St. Epiphanius

Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion, 30, 31; Gambero, 127)

St. Jerome

‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39; cf. Gambero, p. 213: “whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord”)

Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos, 1, 16; Gambero, 212)

St. Augustine

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)
Augustine went a step farther. In an incidental remark against Pelagius, he agreed with him in excepting Mary, "propter honorem Domini," from actual (but not from original) sin. This exception he is willing to make from the sinfulness of the race, but no other. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception. . . . The reasoning of Augustine backward from the holiness of Christ to the holiness of His mother was an important turn, which was afterward pursued to further results. The same reasoning leads as easily to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, though also, just as well, to a sinless mother of Mary herself, and thus upward to the beginning, of the race, to another Eve who never fell.
 
Radical said:
This seems pretty straight-forward Joe. If they:

a) claimed that Mary was in fact sinless; and

b) I don’t believe that Mary was in fact sinless; then

c) they must be wrong in that regard.

This is a perfect example of the use of the protestant term “necessary inference”. One must assume something can’t be true if they, in the privacy of their room, interpret that what is said can’t be correct. They make a moral decision outside the expertise and Holy Spirit guided Church authority. The fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of John Chapter 6 is a perfect example as well.
Click to expand...
 
Nicea325 said:
Mary was born with sin? Explain the logic behind as to why God who is perfect and pure,would want a defiled creature to conceive His Son-who by the way is God? God Incarnated and conceived by a sinner? :confused:
Click to expand...
In my opinion, I don’t think Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus. If you’re looking for a reason as to why God might allow a sinful Mary to give birth to Jesus, you should probably look to the same reason he allowed Him to be born in a manger in a stable. Jesus did not come to be high and exalted. Rather he came to be a servant to all from the humblest beginnings. I think part of Jesus’ humble beginnings was that the woman who gave birth to him was most likely just as scared and messed up as any other girl her age. Though if Mary’s sinful nature had been a barrier to the birth of Christ, I doubt it remained unforgiven for very long since God has the authority to do that for people who come face to face with Him (Isaiah 6)

The scriptural evidence for a sinless Mary is not abundant. From a solo scriptura perspective, an assertion of a sinless Mary is not the most logical assertion. Though there are verses that have led Catholic theologians to make that conclusion. However, it seems that the assertion that Mary was sinless is more based on Church tradition than scriptural evidence.

Overall, I don’t think the sinless/sinful nature of Mary is really that important of an issue. It doesn’t change who Jesus is or the sacrifice he made. It also doesn’t change that he was the only one who could make that sacrifice for us. While it’s an interesting discussion to have, I urge everyone not to get too worked up about a minor disagreement. We should follow the instructions of Paul in Romans 14 and not allow ourselves to become stumbling blocks to our brothers and sisters in Christ even as we disagree.

Further reading: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
 
Talking about theological concepts is great. I accept the teachings of the ancient Catholic/Orthodox faith. That said, I also don’t squirm over Protestant beliefs having grown up Protestant. In fact, we (Protestants from my faith) really didn’t have any issues with the perpetual virginity of Mary. We placed that idea in the area of non-salvation issues.

The problem is that it becomes obvious to me that since many people on forums misunderstand each other’s writing it is interpretation that becomes an issue more than what is written. I recognized over the years the problems associated with interpretation of God’s Word (the bible). This brought me to the concept that someone had to play leader in order to take a stance on some of the salvation issues. Those things that fell under opinion dictated silence on the matter. But that typically meant we had to follow a church teaching. I watched our congregations divide and divide multiple times. It shocked me and this made me think, why not be Catholic then, or even Jewish or Muslim, if we can simply pick and choose. HOw do we know?

Discovering the ECFs opened up a world I never knew. However, the issue remains. That’s what opened the door to learning more about Judaism and the various beliefs of the early Christian. I thought to myself, if we only knew what the ancient Christians believed then we would have a pattern to follow. We tried to follow the pattern of the first century Church. But there was so much ambiguity in scripture that needed clarification to truly understand without claiming some sort of magisterial authority. But I had to open my heart enough to read these documents first. From there, scandalized by what I discovered, I read more and more and felt prone to drop a belief in God altogether. But then I realized I was reacting to what I believed as a result of a small group of people I was currently following. So, as I studied apolgetics and read more I realized that we could have been wrong and opened my heart even further, testing every teaching to the best of my ability. "Is it rational to believe the things I read?, I asked myself. So far, yes.

Some of the Catholic beliefs seems to depend more upon Jesus claiming Peter to be the rock and thus has the authority to bind us to what he along with the other bishops say. This is disturbing in light of the recent revelation that some bishops are exhibiting poor, if not sinful, behavior publically. This is the part causing me to struggle right now. How can God allow this? How can this be true then? etc. So getting into ECF doesn’t always help in today’s world. How does anyone know for sure? How can anyone believe the other group is not saved? How can anyone determine who is culpable? etc.
 
PbloPicasso said:
Talking about theological concepts is great. I accept the teachings of the ancient Catholic/Orthodox faith. That said, I also don’t squirm over Protestant beliefs having grown up Protestant. In fact, we (Protestants from my faith) really didn’t have any issues with the perpetual virginity of Mary. We placed that idea in the area of non-salvation issues.

The problem is that it becomes obvious to me that since many people on forums misunderstand each other’s writing it is interpretation that becomes an issue more than what is written. I recognized over the years the problems associated with interpretation of God’s Word (the bible). This brought me to the concept that someone had to play leader in order to take a stance on some of the salvation issues. Those things that fell under opinion dictated silence on the matter. But that typically meant we had to follow a church teaching. I watched our congregations divide and divide multiple times. It shocked me and this made me think, why not be Catholic then, or even Jewish or Muslim, if we can simply pick and choose. HOw do we know?

Discovering the ECFs opened up a world I never knew. However, the issue remains. That’s what opened the door to learning more about Judaism and the various beliefs of the early Christian. I thought to myself, if we only knew what the ancient Christians believed then we would have a pattern to follow. We tried to follow the pattern of the first century Church. But there was so much ambiguity in scripture that needed clarification to truly understand without claiming some sort of magisterial authority. But I had to open my heart enough to read these documents first. From there, scandalized by what I discovered, I read more and more and felt prone to drop a belief in God altogether. But then I realized I was reacting to what I believed as a result of a small group of people I was currently following. So, as I studied apolgetics and read more I realized that we could have been wrong and opened my heart even further, testing every teaching to the best of my ability. "Is it rational to believe the things I read?, I asked myself. So far, yes.

Some of the Catholic beliefs seems to depend more upon Jesus claiming Peter to be the rock and thus has the authority to bind us to what he along with the other bishops say. This is disturbing in light of the recent revelation that some bishops are exhibiting poor, if not sinful, behavior publically. This is the part causing me to struggle right now. How can God allow this? How can this be true then? etc. So getting into ECF doesn’t always help in today’s world. How does anyone know for sure? How can anyone believe the other group is not saved? How can anyone determine who is culpable? etc.
Click to expand...
I am going to defend the Catholic church here, please try to read with an open mind. The church has never claimed to be impeccable, which is incapable of moral failure. It only claims to be infallible, meaning when it teaches on faith and morals, it teaches truth without error. The Catholic church is far from the only church that has had moral failures. The Episcopal church is ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood. In the Pentecostal tradition you had the scandles of Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Bakker in the 80s. The Southern Baptist convention broke away from Northern Baptists in the AnteBellum period for many reasons, including the fact that the Northern Baptists opposed slavery.

The ECFs provide context to what the church believed at the time. They like anyone else are giving their theological opinion. When they are quoted, they are often not speaking for the church, but only for themselves. Their opinions can show us what the earliest Christians believed, but they are not infallible. I take scripture above what they say if what they say clearly contradicts it, but rarely, if ever, it does. I find their opinions useful when showing that the earliest Christians believed Christ had two natures, and believed in the Trinity.
 
GeorgeTheWild said:
Overall, I don’t think the sinless/sinful nature of Mary is really that important of an issue. It doesn’t change who Jesus is or the sacrifice he made. It also doesn’t change that he was the only one who could make that sacrifice for us. While it’s an interesting discussion to have, I urge everyone not to get too worked up about a minor disagreement. We should follow the instructions of Paul in Romans 14 and not allow ourselves to become stumbling blocks to our brothers and sisters in Christ even as we disagree.
Click to expand...
I disagree. By making this claim you are assuming that the Church Jesus founded for the salvation of souls and to bestow His grace necessary for salvation, and to combat evil in this world is in error. It may seem like a minor point to you but it points to a much greater problem in which souls are affected.
 
JohnnyReb said:
I am going to defend the Catholic church here, please try to read with an open mind. The church has never claimed to be impeccable, which is incapable of moral failure. It only claims to be infallible, meaning when it teaches on faith and morals, it teaches truth without error. The Catholic church is far from the only church that has had moral failures. The Episcopal church is ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood. In the Pentecostal tradition you had the scandles of Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Bakker in the 80s. The Southern Baptist convention broke away from Northern Baptists in the AnteBellum period for many reasons, including the fact that the Northern Baptists opposed slavery.

The ECFs provide context to what the church believed at the time. They like anyone else are giving their theological opinion. When they are quoted, they are often not speaking for the church, but only for themselves. Their opinions can show us what the earliest Christians believed, but they are not infallible. I take scripture above what they say if what they say clearly contradicts it, but rarely, if ever, it does. I find their opinions useful when showing that the earliest Christians believed Christ had two natures, and believed in the Trinity.
Click to expand...
👍 agreed
 
Joe, I appreciate all of the work going into this. It is a lot of good information and very interesting. The sad thing is there will be many Protestants here and in the world that will dismiss this and any credible source that supports the Blessed Mothers Sinless state and perpetual virginity. It is beyond their ability to comprehend that that it is conceivable that someone could live a celibate life (perpetual virginity) and that God has the ability to create a life that could walk this earth in a sinless state.

This goes to PbloPicasso’s statement (me paraphrasing now) that many Protestants use their own fallible private interpretations to formulate their own personal brand of theology. They take their Bible and read it in a vacuum, all the while lacking the one true authentic authority that can validly interpret Sacred Scripture.

And because of the vacuum in which they get their religion they inadvertently put limits on God and His abilities. When they come away they then attack the Blessed Mother at every opportunity simply because it escapes their comprehension and that because if the Catholics believe it, then by God it must be wrong. I know, been there done that.
 
wmscott said:
Joe, I appreciate all of the work going into this. It is a lot of good information and very interesting. The sad thing is there will be many Protestants here and in the world that will dismiss this and any credible source that supports the Blessed Mothers Sinless state and perpetual virginity. It is beyond their ability to comprehend that that it is conceivable that someone could live a celibate life (perpetual virginity) and that God has the ability to create a life that could walk this earth in a sinless state.

This goes to PbloPicasso’s statement (me paraphrasing now) that many Protestants use their own fallible private interpretations to formulate their own personal brand of theology. They take their Bible and read it in a vacuum, all the while lacking the one true authentic authority that can validly interpret Sacred Scripture.

And because of the vacuum in which they get their religion they inadvertently put limits on God and His abilities. When they come away they then attack the Blessed Mother at every opportunity simply because it escapes their comprehension and that because if the Catholics believe it, then by God it must be wrong. I know, been there done that.
Click to expand...
👍 Amen. Hit the nail on the head with words much better than -]me/-] mine.
 
wmscott said:
And because of the vacuum in which they get their religion they inadvertently put limits on God and His abilities. When they come away they then attack the Blessed Mother at every opportunity simply because it escapes their comprehension and that because if the Catholics believe it, then by God it must be wrong. I know, been there done that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s really what Protestants are doing. I don’t see how a woman who was born with sin and then gives birth to the Christ is any less awe inspiring or powerful than a pure woman who give birth to the Christ. I also think you are over estimating the anti Catholic vitriol of your average protestant. Largely I think Protestants, or at least sola scriptura protestants are baffled by the Roman Catholic insistence that it is such an important issue.

As an Anglican I don’t necessarily think its wrong but I am also of the opinion that its Adiaphora.
 
nhylan said:
I don’t think that’s really what Protestants are doing. I don’t see how a woman who was born with sin and then gives birth to the Christ is any less awe inspiring or powerful than a pure woman who give birth to the Christ. I also think you are over estimating the anti Catholic vitriol of your average protestant. Largely I think Protestants, or at least sola scriptura protestants are baffled by the Roman Catholic insistence that it is such an important issue.

As an Anglican I don’t necessarily think its wrong but I am also of the opinion that its Adiaphora.
Click to expand...
Imagine someone, coming from no where, insisting that your mother was not pure or virginal - something offensive. To us, it is vile to say such a thing when it is believed to not be true. Personally, I don’t have issues with whether or not she had children following Jesus. But for people to come out in a sort of way to insult Catholics by insulting one of their most valued Saints. Perpetual Virginity of Mary derived from anti-Catholicism resentment. Try walking up to an Orthodox Jew and speaking ill of Moses. Try going to a Muslim and insulting Mohammad. You conjure up seriously strong feelings. I remember seeing kids growing up insulting another’s mother which kicked off a fight. Also, back to Moses, most Christians don’t seem to realize that even Moses consecrated himself to God in celebacy once he spoke to God. He lived separate from his wife. And though remained married, abstained from the marriage act. I believe many Protestants just can’t fathom that someone would love God so much that they would consecrate themselves faithfully to God. This is something that has been passed down since the beginning. It only came into question in more recent years as the fundamentalism faction grew. My mother called the Blessed Mother a B _ _ CH and a W _ _ R _ :eek:just to hurt my feelings. Whether or not she really believed it didn’t matter. She claimed to be Christian but in reacting to my Catholicism after discovering I wanted to become a priest this is what she said to me. She did it at two different points in my life when I was forced to reveal my intentions. She was quite manipulative…hateful reactions to things she despised.
 
nhylan said:
I don’t think that’s really what Protestants are doing. I don’t see how a woman who was born with sin and then gives birth to the Christ is any less awe inspiring or powerful than a pure woman who give birth to the Christ. I also think you are over estimating the anti Catholic vitriol of your average protestant. Largely I think Protestants, or at least sola scriptura protestants are baffled by the Roman Catholic insistence that it is such an important issue.

As an Anglican I don’t necessarily think its wrong but I am also of the opinion that its Adiaphora.
Click to expand...
You may want to review many of the threads concerning the Blessed Mother to get an idea of what I am talking about. Also just a note I did not mean all Protestants think this way, just many. A long, long time ago in my personal life in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be just as blinded and bigoted towards anything Catholic and believed all the anti-Catholic falsehoods out there, and the Blessed Mother is in the top three for attack mode either subtlety or directly.
 
Nicea325 said:
Mary was born with sin? Explain the logic behind as to why God who is perfect and pure,would want a defiled creature to conceive His Son-who by the way is God? God Incarnated and conceived by a sinner? :confused:
Click to expand...
The logic involves the observation that sin isn’t like dirt…Mary’s sin couldn’t stain either Jesus’s soul or his flesh. It is exactly b/c God is perfect and pure that he doesn’t have to worry about being tainted by Mary’s imperfection…IIRC it is a sort of “logic” (coupled with the belief that a perfect and pure God could not involve himself with impure matter) that led to certain Gnostic views.
 
nhylan…See how Radical validates what I have stated. Typical anti-Catholic response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top