The Big Lie

[GaryTaylor]

This is actually quite thought-provoking. In attempting to learn other areas of Christianity, the most difficult concept that I have personally encountered is the level at which Mary is sometimes placed. Someone once mentioned that Mary redeemed women while Jesus redeemed men. I’m not certain if that is truly a Catholic stance, but I was a little shocked to hear that. This gives a well-written argument for the other side while allowing for respect for a beloved Biblical figure.

I’ve never heard this DElia. Not Catholic anyway. What I have seen in the Catholic Church from years back is the woman were more likely to embrace the recitation of the Rosary. In my own family mother, grandmother, and my wife, and her mother, grandmother. The guys were much more resistant to this. As was I for a very long time.

The men had more of a “I’m not doing all that” which in truth was a combination of human flaw such as male ego, pride, the idea we can live Christ Orientated etc. Today I see many more men seek the intercession of Mary. And in turn become convinced in the BVM and in aspect regret their prior thinking. As I do now. There was a lack of humility, male ego and pride on my part which became at some point obvious to me. That interest brought me to the truth of these Souls.

I’m convinced St Louis de Montfort was correct when he stated Mary is a Blessing not all receive. And the resaon they don’t receive the Blessing is their own resistance to the will of God and his Holy Family. She no-doubt has the ability to bring your spiritual life in front of the Trinity. Mary speaking for you to God, without a doubt has an impact that you yourself may not acheive.

God Bless, Gary

 

[zz912]

huh?

It is very important that Christ was a perfect, unblemished Paschal lamb. That He was pure and without any sin. If Mary was a sinner, or had Original Sin, Jesus would have had to purify Himself, to cleanse Himself of this sin in the flesh He received from Mary. As such, He would have been applying His grace to cleanse Himself. And His claim to be God would have been in question. Why would God need to be cleansed? Why would God need to be purified?

Additionally, it was very important that Jesus not testify on His own behalf. As He said, the Father testified to who He was. Pouring His grace on Himself to purify would be also a form of testifying for Himself.

I know it is convoluted, and I am trying to put it together as best as I can.

 

[jnpl1185]

zz912, I am genuinely confused by your reasoning. I happen to agree that Mary was, one way or another, without sin (even if we are only talking about actual and not original sin). But it seems to me that God can do whatever the heck he wants to do. To say that Jesus could not have been without sin if Mary was not without sin is problematic as it starts an infinite regress–by that logic, Mary could not have been without sin if her parents had not been without sin, and then their parents, and then their parents. I think it’s simpler than you are making it maybe–Jesus didn’t need protection from sin because he was God, plain and simple. Mary may have needed protection from sin to make her a worthy vessel to bear the Christ child, but I think you are confusing the nature of Christ’s sinlessness.

If God can make Mary without sin, certainly He can make Jesus without sin without all the big to-do? To say that God *can’t *is problematic, no?

Maybe we just misunderstand where you are coming from. Maybe if you can find some material to back up your argument it would help us.

 

[DElias]

I’ve never heard this DElia. Not Catholic anyway.

It’s actually my first initial colliding with my middle name. It took a while to find a screen name that wasn’t taken considering both names are Biblical, the latter being in German form.

What I have seen in the Catholic Church from years back is the woman were more likely to embrace the recitation of the Rosary. In my own family mother, grandmother, and my wife, and her mother, grandmother. The guys were much more resistant to this. As was I for a very long time.

The men had more of a “I’m not doing all that” which in truth was a combination of human flaw such as male ego, pride, the idea we can live Christ Orientated etc. Today I see many more men seek the intercession of Mary. And in turn become convinced in the BVM and in aspect regret their prior thinking. As I do now. There was a lack of humility, male ego and pride on my part which became at some point obvious to me. That interest brought me to the truth of these Souls.

I’m convinced St Louis de Montfort was correct when he stated Mary is a Blessing not all receive. And the resaon they don’t receive the Blessing is their own resistance to the will of God and his Holy Family. She no-doubt has the ability to bring your spiritual life in front of the Trinity. Mary speaking for you to God, without a doubt has an impact that you yourself may not acheive.

God Bless, Gary

I am taking that the Catholic stance is indeed as I had originally believed in that Jesus came to save all? Another forum post seemed adamant in Mary being the redeemer of women, not Jesus, as the Catholic’s perspective.

 

[guanophore]

Protestants do whole Mary in high regard. There is uneasiness when there are prayers like ‘Holy Mary, save us!’ or hear things like that Mary in some way redeemed us, greeting people with ‘Ave Maria’ instead of ‘the peace of the Lord be with you.’

This makes Protestants really nervous.

Yes, I can understand that. But I think that some Protestants do not have much regard for Mary at all. I used to engage in threads about Mary, but some of the comments made about her are so disrepectful I have come to avoid them. Some “bible christians” talk about her almost as if she is just a tube through which Christ came into the world, then treated as if she were a meddler, and had to “put her in her place”. I think all these misunderstandings result from the error of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

Mary was human and not Divine. She sinned just like us. Show me in Scripture that she was sinless.

This is one of the points of theology that emerged during the Reformation that represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. I don’t mean about Mary, as all the original Reformers affirmed her All Holy nature, but the idea that sin is inherently a part of human nature.

Humankind was not created with sin. Why is it so difficult to believe that God would create the New Eve without sin, when He had already done so with the first Eve?

Jesus came to deliver us from sin, and He delivered His mother at the moment of her conception, so as to create for Himself a perfect Ark for the new Covenant. That is why, when the angel greeted her, he referred to her as “Kecharitomene”. She had already previously been filled to the brim with God’s saving grace before the angel’s coming. Where the soul is full of grace there is no room for sin.

We are not required to sin, and indeed, are expected not to sin. The idea that all people have to sin, or do sin is not accurate. It is not possible to be righteous and blameless before God when we are living in sin.

 

[guanophore]

God seriously liked Moses too, but we know how that ended.

Really? How was that?

The Bible does state that "all have sinned".

It does, but if you look at the context, it is not talking about every human person. It is comparing Gentiles to Jews, and Paul is making the point that the Jews don’t have a ticket to heaven just because they are Jews. “All” does not always mean “all”.

It goes back to Protestants being cautious.  You ask for a Biblical proof.

I commend your caution but you are proceeding from a false foundation. The Apostles made no effort to commit all their Teachings to the Scripture.

The burden should fall to those who claim she was perfect.

We have recieved this truth from the Apostles as part of the “once for all” divine deposit of faith that was given to the Church. We have preserved it just as the Apostles commanded us to do. I realize that there are some mysteries about God that are not subject to the restrictions of fallible human “proofs” but the Revelation of God by Himself to man is not a matter of scientific proof, but what He has imparted to us. Why should we abandon this treasure, just because you cannot “prove it” from your bible?

We assume that Mary, as a mortal person, was like others in regards to temptation and sin. Many Protestants come here curious and, at times, eager to learn. Should not the burden be on you?

This would be an inaccurate assumption.Eve was human, but she was not created with concupiscence. Mary did not have concupiscence either.

I am glad you are curious and eager to learn. However, asking us to embrace false premises like Sola Scriptura to accomodate you is not going to happen.

Instead, you may want to find out what the Reformers thought of Mary, and explain why your modern faith community has abandoned those beliefs.

 

[guanophore]

Because she was a person like you and I, and despite the fact she bore our Lord and Savior, Evangelicals believe that she was not sinless. Evangelicals generally do not question how Mary could have borne Jesus if she didn’t sin, it is simply assumed that God can do anything. Additionally, no scripture seems to support the belief that she sinless.

It is interesting that you would say “God can do anything”, because it is based in part upon this notion that Catholics believe He created His own mother without sin.

Can you give a biblical example of Mary sinning?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by DElias
The Bible does state that “all have sinned”.

Babies have sinned too? Jesus too? Is He not part of “all have sinned?”

 

[guanophore]

Once again, most Protestants are on here to learn the other side of things. What is said is not meant to be taken as an insult.

If this is true, and I have no reason to think it is not, then maybe you will be able to learn that Catholics have followed the Apostolic command to preserve that which was given to us, whether it was in writing, or by word of mouth. For us, the Revelation of God by Himself to man that comes to us through the Apostles is equally present in the Sacred Tradition (TEaching of the Apostles) as it is in the Scriptures. We do not elevate one over the other, nor does one conflict with the other.

 

[guanophore]

Er, didn’t Luther say this?

Edit: Apparently Luther changed his mind:shrug:

MJ

Many modern day Lutherans have never read Luther’s writings. If they had, they might not be so anxious to call themselves after him.

 

[DElias]

Babies have sinned too? Jesus too? Is He not part of “all have sinned?”

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Jesus would be considered God. Jesus is not included.

As for babies, there is the long Jewish concept of age of accountability. Babies don’t count either.

Clear?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am taking that the Catholic stance is indeed as I had originally believed in that Jesus came to save all? Another forum post seemed adamant in Mary being the redeemer of women, not Jesus, as the Catholic’s perspective.

Yes, Jesus is the redeemer. Actually this is the first I’m hearing of Mary the Redeemer of women. Sounds a little “fringe thinking” to me.

God Bless, Gary

 

[guanophore]

I have to agree that Luther’s understanding of Marian doctrine did change significantly throughout his life (there is abundant material on this on the internet you can google) making it problematic to attempt a response to protestant views of Mary based on one man’s writings and I’d like to add a couple of things from the Lutheran perspective.

Yes. You also make a good point why Jesus established a Teaching Authority, and promised to infallibly preserve His Word in the Church. This shifting of ideas can happen to anyone but the Divine Revelation is immutable.

1. We must first understand that the term “Lutheran” does not mean someone who follows everything that Luther ever said. After all, he said some nasty things about Jews toward the end of his life and his theology was in a state of constant revision as he came to be more and more bound to the notion of sola scriptura. Similarly, Catholics also do not take to heart everything that every Pope has ever said or preached if not spoken ex cathedra–otherwise it would be really easy to justify many of the horrors of european history.

This is certainly true, but I can assure you that I would not be found calling myself after them, either. I would not be named a “Leonite”.

(being that sola scriptura is what unites protestants)

Nothing could be further from the truth! Anglicans do not subscribe to SS.

And the lack of “unity” among Protestants that espouse this practice is ample evidence that it is an erroneous one. The vast fragmentation that we see today in Protestant Ecclesial communities is a direct reflection of SS.

1. We also have to consider that God’s protection of Mary from Original Sin (meaning propensity to sin) may be completely different from him protecting her from actual sin (particular, individual sins). I can’t find the reference right now, but I recall reading a sermon of Luther’s where he makes just this distinction, which might help to explain why Lutherans still understand Mary as being “full of grace”, but not without original sin.

Yes, I agree. However, if a person does not suffer concupiscence, they will be able to resist sin much more easily.

(the crux of this question depends on what "grace" means in the context of the annunciation).

I am curious to hear more about this. Do you think that a person can have been filled with grace and still persist in a sinful state?

Don’t Lutherans believe in the washing away of sin in baptism?

Therefore, salvation does not depend on holding this belief. It is the matter of Mary being without *Original *Sin which is problematic for Lutherans.

I have always found it curious that the children of the Reformers find it within their purview to slice up the Gospel, deciding for themselves which parts constitute matters “necessary for salvation” and which parts don’t. Apostolic Christians hold the entire faith as a seamless garment, and do not presume to have the authority to excise parts that appear to the individual as irrelevant.

If the doctrines about Mary were really irrelevant, the early Church would not have the need to labor over them as corollaries to the doctrines about the hypostatic union. Who are we, to decide they are not needed?

That said, Lutherans hold great respect for Mary and are often encouraged to pray the pre-trent Hail Mary, so this should not be mistaken by Roman Catholics as a lack of veneration for the Mother of God.

No. I have never met a Lutheran that carries on the despicable attitudes of some modern American Fundamentalists with regard to Mary.

 

[guanophore]

He did become incarnate, after all, taking on the human form and otherwise all aspects of humanity … and He is God so He can do what He wants.

If this is true, and I do agree, then why would He not create HIs Own Mother without sin? What purpose would be served, taking flesh from her flesh, tainted?

If you could create your own Mother would you create her with sin?

 

[Hesychios]

If this is true, and I do agree, then why would He not create HIs Own Mother without sin? What purpose would be served, taking flesh from her flesh, tainted?

If you could create your own Mother would you create her with sin?

If God can make a sinless Mary from the sinful tainted flesh of Joachin and Anna, why is it that He could not do the same for Himself?

To me that doesn’t really make any sense and I will not say it couldn’t be done.

 

[guanophore]

If God can make Mary without sin, certainly He can make Jesus without sin without all the big to-do? To say that God *can’t *is problematic, no?

What is “the big to-do”?

Only people suffering from SS have any such “to-do”.

 

[guanophore]

Another forum post seemed adamant in Mary being the redeemer of women, not Jesus, as the Catholic’s perspective.

No, I don’t think so.

No Catholic would say such a thing.

 

[hn160]

Many modern day Lutherans have never read Luther’s writings. If they had, they might not be so anxious to call themselves after him.

We don’t hold Luther up on a pedestal and hang on every word that he said or wrote, he was after all both a saint and a sinner like us all, I forgot Catholics don’t at saints like we do.
I’ll say again Christ did not give the Keys to St. Peter alone but to all the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Jesus would be considered God. Jesus is not included.

As for babies, there is the long Jewish concept of age of accountability. Babies don’t count either.

Clear?

It is clear that “all” in this passage does not mean “all”.