The Virgin Mary

[Mannyfit75]

Here is what i was responding to:
“Originally Posted by jmcrae
Can sin and grace both occupy the same space?”

I took this to mean in this world. In this world it is true.
Even though we may repent and ask forgiveness we still struggle with sin in the flesh and will until we die.

I have seen the previous post. I don’t believe within a person, once God’s grace fills him or her after a deep conversion, all sin that he has committed in the past are wash away clean. In a spiritual sense, sin and grace cannot remain within us.

The tendency to sin, or the temptation remains do to the effects of original sin of our first parents. Grace strengthen us.

I believe God’s grace preserve Mary from original sin and she willing obey’s God’s will by not falling into sin. If you take God’s grace out of the Immaculate Conception, then we have issues.

I am pleased that the Church affirms that God intervene in saving Mary. Mary did say, “My soul magnify the greatness of the Lord, My Savior.”

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2662994]I have seen the previous post. I don’t believe within a person, once God’s grace fills him or her after a deep conversion, all sin that he has committed in the past are wash away clean. In a spiritual sense, sin and grace cannot remain within us.

When you sin and are forgiven and go and sin again where does the power to sin come from then?

The tendency to sin, or the temptation remains do to the effects of original sin of our first parents. Grace strengthen us.

But does it make it impossible to sin again?

I believe God’s grace preserve Mary from original sin and she willing obey’s God’s will by not falling into sin. If you take God’s grace out of the Immaculate Conception, then we have issues.

The problem is that there is no evidence that Mary was conceived without sin or kept from sin. The scriptures certainly do not teach such a thing about her.

I am pleased that the Church affirms that God intervene in saving Mary. Mary did say, “My soul magnify the greatness of the Lord, My Savior.”

What has this to do with being without sin?

 

[apophasis]

No one said the text mentioned Mary. Guanophore (please stop the childish shortening to “guano”…grow up) said that Mary fulfills Peter’s statement. IOW…she is an example of someone who has been granted “His precious and very great promises.” You are using a straw man argument.

Actually, it’s not at all “a straw man argument.” It’s a very strong argument and impossible to be refuted. Peter teaches absolutely nothing about Mary in that text. In fact he states that it is by God’s own glory and excellence (virtue) He has granted TO US His precious and magnificent promises (the promises have already been granted to the believer). And it is by these (i.e., His own glory and virtue) that we (born again, fully redeemed believers) might become partakers of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world by lust."Now for this reason also apply all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence (virtue), and in your moral excellence (virtue), knowledge…"I see nothing being taught here about Mary fulfilling anything or she being our heavenly example as “guano” has taught. Only that the believer is to supply moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love to his faith walk. Now any Marian doctrines must be imposed upon the text.

You seemed to understand what he was saying in this post… forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2660762&postcount=198 . Now, you are characerizing his statements incorrectly. Perhaps, you have confused yourself.

Perhaps you are confused. I fully understood what he was saying; but it’s what he was saying that I had the problem with. I thought that was quite clear in my posts.

This is not the first time “quano” and I have encountered on this forum. We have a history. He has never complained about me abbreviating his name. Now why should that offend you? There’s nothing malicious about it. Many have addressed me as “Apo.” Might you be a little too sensitive?

 

[apophasis]

Wrong. Without specific information to the effect that you can ONLY buy McD’s burgers at McD’s I COULDN’T properly conclude that you could only buy McD’s burgers there. Or that you can’t buy them anywhere else.

Any more than I could assume that you can only buy Coca-Cola there or that you can’t buy Pepsi or other brands. Having brands of food restricted to only the one chain of stores is the minority exception, not the rule, therefore it isn’t the correct assumption to make in such cases.

Did you not understand my point? Peter was very specific.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, it’s not at all “a straw man argument.” It’s a very strong argument and impossible to be refuted. Peter teaches absolutely nothing about Mary in that text. In fact he states that it is by God’s own glory and excellence (virtue) He has granted TO US His precious and magnificent promises (the promises have already been granted to the believer). And it is by these (i.e., His own glory and virtue) that we (born again, fully redeemed believers) might become partakers of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world by lust."Now for this reason also apply all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence (virtue), and in your moral excellence (virtue), knowledge…"I see nothing being taught here about Mary fulfilling anything or she being our heavenly example as “guano” has taught. Only that the believer is to supply moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love to his faith walk. Now any Marian doctrines must be imposed upon the text.Perhaps you are confused. I fully understood what he was saying; but it’s what he was saying that I had the problem with. I thought that was quite clear in my posts.

It is a straw man argument, because guanophore has not written that Peter claimed that Mary fulfilled Peter’s text. You repeated again, what no one is claiming. The fact that Peter didn’t write anything in that text abour Mary fulfilling it does not mean Mary doesn’t fulfill it.

You can keep arguing with yourself if you like, because you haven’t refuted anything guanophore has actually written.

 

[rlg94086]

Did you not understand my point? Peter was very specific.

Let’s see if you can understand basic logic.

You quoted:

Peter said that the things that pertain to life and godliness (which is our partaking of the divine nature) are achieved “through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence.” In fact Peter ends his letter with that very instruction (see 2 Pet. 3:18).

Now, of course that is 100% true. Did Peter write that it is the only way to achieve the things that pertain to life and godliness? Nope. Even if that is the case, it is not what you quoted.

Now, the argument that guanophore made is that Mary achieved “the life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence.” IOW…she fulfilled what Peter wrote. Is that so hard to believe? Or do you believe no one can achieve these things? If so, you are saying Peter was wrong.

You pick. Either it is possible that Mary achieved what Peter wrote, or no one can achieve what Peter wrote. Which is it?

 

[guanophore]

And there is no protestant lexical conspiracy against the BVM.

One does wonder.

Howeve, Jerome DID have more original documents from which to translate, and all of us need to remember that the Angel probably spoke to Mary in Aramaic, which may make this whole arguement moot.

 

[guanophore]

I was just wondering about you today, Apo, and realizing I had not had a good spar in a long time!

Guano, this last statement contradicts what Peter wrote in vss. 3 & 4. Peter said that the things that pertain to life and godliness (which is our partaking of the divine nature) are achieved “through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence.” In fact Peter ends his letter with that very instruction (see 2 Pet. 3:18).

In other words, it is by the believer focusing on and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ that he may escape the corruption that is in the world in which he is now living - not Mary.

Perhaps I was unclear in expressing myself. No one who has ever lived, or ever will live, has the intimate knowledge of the HS as Mary did, as the spouse of the HS. But she continued to grow int he knowledge of Jesus throughout His life, and with the disciples, until she was to leave the earth. She is our example of how to know the Lord.

Peter, in his letter, nowhere encourages those to whom he is writing to look to Mary as their prime example and “fulfillment” of this goal (in fact, no writer of the N.T. ever does), but to Christ alone and His glory and excellence.

We ae encouraged to look to those who have gone before us in the faith. Jesus never intended to build His Kingdom “alone” but wanted to give us apostles and prophets as the means of His grace. To say we should not emulate them is to spurn His plan!Peter, out of concern for Mary’s safety, would never say anything to draw attention to her, especially after He witnessed what happened to her Son, and how the believers were persecuted. Furthermore, she was still living in secret when he was writing,and had not entered her heavenly glory.

You say Mary is [the] “fulfillment” of the “promises” in 2 Peter. Can you show us where this is an actual Apostolic doctrine? Certainly Peter himself taught no such notion in his letters. Where can this “Apostolic” teaching be found?

In the Sacred Tradition of the Church! Didn’t you read the thread? Mary, being "yes’ always to the Father, demonstrates in her life what Jesus wants to be for all of us.

Also, you seem to be saying that becoming “partakers of the divine nature” is a future reward based on one’s conduct here - presenting Mary’s “Assumption” and present position in heaven as the ultimate example. Is this what you’re espousing?

No, it begins with being predestined by God, before we are born, then His grace entering our lives while still on this earth, then persevering by His grace unto death, after which we are glorified by Him, through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

May I ask what do you think “becoming partakers of the divine nature” means to you?

It probably needs its’ own thread, but for this thread, I would say that the vision that John sees of Mary in heaven is a good description.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Note the dictionary definition. Apparently it can also apply to some sea bird excrement. dictionary.reference.com/browse/guano

Obviously I am not the only one who recognized it or I would not have got the complaint.

A new account with a different name is an option, but not necessary.

Since he was ignorant of the meaning of the term I’ll reverse the infraction with the understanding that he not use it again.

I’ll reopen the thread as well and you guys can party on.
MF

 

[holy_wood]

IX**. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (“All have sinned”)**

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see
Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.
Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

 

[apophasis]

IX**. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (“All have sinned”)**

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

And you know this bit of information about her how?

Why would Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, write “all” (in the context of meaning all Jews and Gentiles of Adam’s fallen posterity) if both he and the Holy Spirit allegedly knew Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth?

One person on this thread said “all” would then have to include Jesus. But that’s hardly true, and a normal (honest) reading of the passage would not conclude such an notion. Jesus was not in need of justifying Himself, nor did He redeem Himself on the cross.

“All sinned and (are continually) falling short of the glory of God” includes all, excludes none of Adam’s race.

The doctrine that Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth is extra-biblical. Only God would have known such information about her. So who, may I ask, was personally given that bit of information; and when; and by what means?

This is important because what separates the true Christian faith from all others in this world is that it is based solely on divine revelation, not on man’s imagination or speculation.

 

[guanophore]

And you know this bit of information about her how?

This is the teaching we have received from the successors of the Apostles.

Why would Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, write “all” (in the context of meaning all Jews and Gentiles of Adam’s fallen posterity) if both he and the Holy Spirit allegedly knew Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth?

Paul himself, in other passages, speaks about the righteous that do not sin. The context of this is a quote from the OT, taken from a passage that is referring to fools, who in their heart, do not believe there is a God. Remember, it begins “as it is written”? One must go back to where that is written, and understand the context from which it is taken.

One person on this thread said “all” would then have to include Jesus. But that’s hardly true, and a normal (honest) reading of the passage would not conclude such an notion. Jesus was not in need of justifying Himself, nor did He redeem Himself on the cross.

An example of why “all” in this passage does not mean “every single person ever born”.

“All sinned and (are continually) falling short of the glory of God” includes all, excludes none of Adam’s race.

This statement is a good example of the differences between the way Catholics and Protestants interpret scripture. When Catholics read this verse, we read it in conjunction with all the other passages to see how they fit to gether and thereby we glean the meaning. Catholics know from other verses that there are some of Adam’s race who are not continually sinning and falling short of the glory of God, and therefore we know that “all” in this passage is qualified.

The doctrine that Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth is extra-biblical. Only God would have known such information about her. So who, may I ask, was personally given that bit of information; and when; and by what means?

LOL well, there is no “mud puddle” doctrine, but it is called the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is not “extra biblical”, but it does not rely solely on scripture either, but on Sacred Tradition. Here we are again Apo!

This is important because what separates the true Christian faith from all others in this world is that it is based solely on divine revelation, not on man’s imagination or speculation.

Wel, no, we just understand God’s revelation to be equally present in Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition.

Thanks for posting.

Your Guan

 

[Ginger2]

concerning Guanophore and the abbreviating of his handle:

I believe I also abbreviated once or twice in the same manner. I apologize.

I was totally unaware the abbreviation was a word in itself.

But I have to add that I think whoever reported this was looking to be offended. Surely this can’t be considered a common term.

I think the person reporting this should have sent a private message first, instead of assuming the worst.

I have a friend who everyone calls Gordo, short for Gordon. I met a Mexican who’s name I was told was gordo, so I called him Gordo. In Spanish gordo means fat. I was very embarassed when I found out and immediately apologized and asked what he would like to be called.

Again, to Guanophore, I apologize if I offended you. I meant no disrespect and would never intentionally behave so crudely and immature

Ginger

 

[jmcrae]

And you know this bit of information about her how?

This information comes to us via the same Oral Tradition that tells us which books belong in the Bible.

If you believe that the New Testament consists of 27 books, consisting of four Gospels, fourteen general Epistles, seven Catholic epistles, and one each of the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation (also sometimes called The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine) then you follow the same authority who also said that Mary is without sin.

Now, if you believe that he was correct about the one thing, but incorrect about the other, you need to have an external reason - some supporting bit of evidence that shows that although he had the ability to be wrong about Mary, he (somehow) was able to be correct about the Canon of the New Testament.

Why would Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, write “all” (in the context of meaning all Jews and Gentiles of Adam’s fallen posterity) if both he and the Holy Spirit allegedly knew Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth?

Because St. Paul wanted each member of his audience to understand that they themselves were not exempted from sin. “All” is a polite way of saying “You.” You have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Even Protestant preachers use this device, saying “All” when they mean “you” - “All” are contributing to the decline of society by going shopping on Sundays and participating in base entertainments. Obviously, not “all” do these things - but everyone in that particular preacher’s audience is doing so - but he is too polite to say “You are contributing to the decline of society …” because he knows they will be offended to be singled out in such a way. “All” simply means “you and everyone else here” - which is easier to hear - one does not like to be singled out, after all, nor to have one’s sins announced in church.

The doctrine that Mary was spared a “mud puddle” birth is extra-biblical. Only God would have known such information about her. So who, may I ask, was personally given that bit of information; and when; and by what means?

Obviously, the Holy Spirit knew it, and gave it to the Church through the Magesterium - in exactly the same way that He inspired the Scriptures, and permitted the Church to know which books belonged in the New Testament.

This is important because what separates the true Christian faith from all others in this world is that it is based solely on divine revelation, not on man’s imagination or speculation.

The problem comes when we mistake the fruits of divine revelation (for example, the Bible) for the actual divine revelation itself, which comes to the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church from the Holy Spirit.

The Bible did not write itself, nor did it compile, translate, or publish itself. These were accomplished by human beings - the very same human beings who taught us the things that we believe about Mary.

Again, if they were right about the one, and wrong about the other, then we need to know why and how the Holy Spirit was inspiring them, in the one case, and yet abandoned them in the other - and we need to be able to show how we know they got the Bible right, but got the teachings about Mary wrong.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

My thinking has been that there is no Biblical evidence that indicts her, so the teaching of the Church is logical.

What of many church fathers in the first couple of centuries whom readily admit **ONLY **Christ was sinless?

 

[rlg94086]

What of many church fathers in the first couple of centuries whom readily admit **ONLY **Christ was sinless?

I have a couple of thoughts on that myfavoritmartin.

1. I’m not nearly as well read on the Church Fathers as you are. Is there a mix of viewpoints on Mary?
2. What context are the quotes in?
3. My understanding is that Mary was sinless because she was united with Christ in a special way.

 

[NonDenom]

My thinking has been that there is no Biblical evidence that indicts her, so the teaching of the Church is logical.

(Romans 3:9-10) - "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one.”
(Romans 3:23) - “for **all **have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Psalm 14:3) - “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

 

[Tomster]

(Romans 3:9-10) - "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one.”
(Romans 3:23) - “for **all **have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Psalm 14:3) - “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

As some non-Catholics ought to like proofs from Scripture we give the following as a proof for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The meaning of this text according to all the Fathers and ancient interpreters, and the proof drawn from it would be as follows. The serpent is Satan, the woman is Mary the mother of the Redeemer and the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. In this text there is said to be the same identity and of enmity between the woman and the serpent as between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But the enmity that exists between Christ (the seed of the woman) and the seed of the serpent is absolute. Therefore so too is the enmity between Mary and the devil; but if she were in sin for any length of time this could not be so. Christ and Mary are joined in the same enmity against the devil, but if she were subject to the poison of sin this would not be so on her part.

I will give the same argument in other words. The enmity which exists between Christ and the devil is perpetual and excludes sin of every kind. But in this passage of Scripture the same enmity is is declared to exist between the woman (the Blessed Virgin) and the serpent (that is Satan). Therefore it follows that there must be a perpetual enmity between the Blessed Virgin and the devil, and this could not be if she were subject to sin of any kind.

Tomster

 

[apophasis]

This is the teaching we have received from the successors of the Apostles.

In other words you admit it’s a post-Apostolic teaching. Yet according to RC’ism it’s “traditions” are suppose to be based on [the] non-written (oral) Apostolic teachings. IOW, Apostolic teachings that were passed down orally rather than Scripturally. So which of the “successors” of the Apostles claims he got this information (verbally) about Mary directly from one of the Apostles?

Paul himself, in other passages, speaks about the righteous that do not sin.

If so (where I don’t know), then Paul contradicts himself because in the Greek that passage states that “all sinned” (past tense) and are “falling short” (present tense) of the glory of God. Paul states in Rom. 3:9 that both Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) are ALL “under” sin according to the a direct indictment by God, followed by seven O.T. Scriptures (vss. 10-18). The first is quoted form Ps. 14 which statesPs. 14:2-3 "The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have ALL turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.Paul is not, as you say, restricting the great arraignment in vss. 10-18 to the fool who says in his heart there is no God. The indictment by God that ALL are “under sin” and the arraignment that follows extends to ALL Jews as well who not only knew there was a God but knew who He was, having revealed Himself to them.

The “all sinned” (i.e., in Adam) and are “falling short” in Rom. 3:24 refers to ALL the children (sons) of men whom the Lord looked down upon. It is God’s testimony concerning ALL of Adam’s fallen posterity (both Jews and Gentiles); which then MUST include Mary. Any exclusion would have had to have been noted. NONE are mentioned!

An example of why “all” in this passage does not mean “every single person ever born”.

The “all” does not refer to “every single person ever BORN” but ALL of Adam’s fallen posterity, Jew and Gentile alike.

Jesus was not one of Adam’s fallen posterity - He was/is Himself an “Adam.” Not simply a “living soul” but a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45) whose righteousness is imputed to the one who accepts the testimony God has given of Him concerning His Person and sacrificial work on behalf of all men - including Mary.

This statement is a good example of the differences between the way Catholics and Protestants interpret scripture. When Catholics read this verse, we read it in conjunction with all the other passages to see how they fit to gether and thereby we glean the meaning. Catholics know from other verses that there are some of Adam’s race who are not continually sinning and falling short of the glory of God, and therefore we know that “all” in this passage is qualified.

First of all the passage states (according to the Greek) that “all sinned” and secondly “are (continually) falling short of the glory of God.” It’s not an observation but a didactic statement concerning Adam’s race. IOW, when Adam had once sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did his race, by him and after him, Jew and Gentile alike.

LOL well, there is no “mud puddle” doctrine, but it is called the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is not “extra biblical”, but it does not rely solely on scripture either, but on Sacred Tradition.

Yes, I was just using her descriptive terminology. The doctrine is extra-biblical. The whole Catholic tradition of her IC is forced upon the Lk. 1:28
passage. And nowhere else does Scripture bear this Catholic dogma out.

So I ask again, to which Apostle was this bit of info. about Mary given personally by God. To which so-called church father was this Marian info. passed on? Which ECF taught the IC and claimed he got this revelation directly from one of the Apostles? Remember, Catholic “tradition,” by definition, is suppose to have its roots in verbal, Apostolic teaching.

 

[apophasis]

This information comes to us via the same Oral Tradition that tells us which books belong in the Bible.

If you believe that the New Testament consists of 27 books, consisting of four Gospels, fourteen general Epistles, seven Catholic epistles, and one each of the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation (also sometimes called The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine) then you follow the same authority who also said that Mary is without sin.

Can you tell me which of the Apostles, “orally,” gave a list of the Books of the N.T.? Catholic “oral tradition,” by definition, is rooted in [the], supposed, non-written Apostolic teachings. Can you tell me which of the Apostles orally taught the IC and sinlessness of Mary?

See my post to Guanophore above for a response to the rest of your message.