E
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? A Mormon or Muslim will claim they have writings inspired by God too. Does the falseness of that claim (from a Christian perspective) therefore prove that the bible is also not inspired by God?
Just because you’re not the Emperor Napoleon doesn’t mean that the Emperor Napoleon didn’t exist.
Really, you’ll have to offer up a much more compelling argument than that.
BTW, a JW or Muslim or Jew would also say that God exists. Does that prove the non-existence of God in your mind?
E
emeraldisle
Guest
Christians should love and respect all Christians. Also believing Gods Truth about Mary that she was part of sinful humanity is not being disrespectful to her.
I firmly and totally believe that Mary is truly blessed to be the Blessed Lord Jesus’ mother. Also Mary was truly blessed when she believed in the Lord Jesus as her Saviour and He forgave her sin.
.
D
Della
Guest
Considering this is a Catholic forum and the OP was asking for a Catholic response, your posts are OFF TOPIC.
If you want to discuss the validity of Catholic teaching on any topic, start a thread of your own instead of high-jacking someone else’s. Now that’s good Christian behavior.
And you merely stating what you believe does not make it the truth. Nor is your interpretation of the Bible equal to God’s voice among us. The Catholic Church’s members wrote the NT, compiled the NT, translated the NT into vernaculars long before Luther was born, kept the NT from being lost to mankind through the Dark Ages, used the OT and NT in its liturgies since the late 300’s (when the books of the Bible were first compiled for that purpose) and now, suddenly we need YOU to tell us what it means? Nope. :nope: Don’t think so. Ain’t what’s gonna happen.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
How do you come to this conclusion. Is God entirely revealed truth limited to a book?!?
Jesus spent 40 days teaching the Apostles of the Kingdom (between His Resurrection and Ascension). Did He simply recite the Old Testament, since that was the only Scripture?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This is an interesting post, when you consider that its only two posts after this one:
O
OldeThom
Guest
Thank you Della, some of the responses have been off-topic.
I just saw the The Footprints of God: Mary production. It was very well done. A bit elementary, but for me it was just perfect. I took notes and have a number of questions which, after I sort a few things out and get a handle on my thoughts, I will share.
My first observation, however, was, and maybe this is all too obvious: Catholics certainly spend a great deal of time on Mary in oration and literature, while Protestants nary (or so it seems) a word; where Catholics “begin” with Mary before her birth and “end” with her as Queen in heaven, Protestants start and stop at “Mother of Jesus”. I find this very interesting … and perplexing.
Again, and maybe an incorrect or naive observation, just as that acorn that Steve Kay uses as an example in how the revelation of Marian Doctrine came about, so too it would seem she is the proverbial heart and soul of the Catholic Church, i.e., rejecting Mary, as the Catholic Church sees her, is rejecting the Church itself. Something I will take to heart.
Respectfully,
Thom
I just saw the The Footprints of God: Mary production. It was very well done. A bit elementary, but for me it was just perfect. I took notes and have a number of questions which, after I sort a few things out and get a handle on my thoughts, I will share.
My first observation, however, was, and maybe this is all too obvious: Catholics certainly spend a great deal of time on Mary in oration and literature, while Protestants nary (or so it seems) a word; where Catholics “begin” with Mary before her birth and “end” with her as Queen in heaven, Protestants start and stop at “Mother of Jesus”. I find this very interesting … and perplexing.
Again, and maybe an incorrect or naive observation, just as that acorn that Steve Kay uses as an example in how the revelation of Marian Doctrine came about, so too it would seem she is the proverbial heart and soul of the Catholic Church, i.e., rejecting Mary, as the Catholic Church sees her, is rejecting the Church itself. Something I will take to heart.
Respectfully,
Thom
D
Della
Guest
You’re welcome. I felt something had to be said to keep us all on track.
Yes, Steve Ray’s series is rather elementary because he was presenting basic lessons for those who know next to nothing about the teachings of the Church, including the Marian teachings. And please, ask all the questions you want/need to.
There is a difference between Marian teachings and Marian devotions within the Church–not that they disagree with one another, but they have different functions, which ought to be noted. We can discuss those as we go along here.
The near total disregard of Mary by various Protestants denominations/sects was a gradual process following the Reformation. The further away from their Catholic roots a denomination/sect goes the more they reject Marian teachings. Now, to me, that is the most telling thing of all. Why all the hostility towards Marian teachings, and in some extreme cases, hostility towards Mary herself? That is the odd thing here, but having once been in a sect that all but rejected any Marian teaching (all except the Virgin Birth) I experienced the deep-seated mistrust many Protestants have of the Church’s emphasis on her. As Ronald Knox observed, those who take their theology primarily from the atoning death of Jesus over and against the Incarnation of Jesus tend to want to see him as an entity devoid of humanity except what was absolutely necessary for the atonement to take place. The Catholic Church, OTOH, sees the atonement as a part of the total life and mission of Christ, and so value his humanity in all its fullness. This means embracing the flesh and blood from which he came–his mother, Mary.
Well, this is where we must differentiate between love of Mary (devotion) and belief in the Marian teachings of the Church. The first is commendable and proper, not not necessary. The second is necessary. So, if one rejects the Marian teachings one is rejecting the Church, just as rejecting the Incarnation or the Resurrection would be. Mary’s place in salvation is unique, one chosen by God to accomplish his will. He revealed this to his Church, and all those who accept the Church must accept its teachings as a whole. This does not mean we must have total understanding of those teachings. I’m not certain anyone can claim to have that, not even the pope, for we humans are finite and can only take in so much. It’s rather like expecting every physicist to have complete knowledge of the universe before accepting known scientific facts.
E
emeraldisle
Guest
The op address his thread to everyone;
I have addressed the op’s topic, which is “Thoughts on Mary: sinless.” So I’m being respectful to the op in addressing his topic.
.
D
Della
Guest
Not quite. You started a debate where none was asked for.
As to your ideas, well, I’ve answered you–we all have. Start a new thread if you want to debate, ad nauseum, what has been answered on CAF a thousand times, if it makes you happy.
E
emeraldisle
Guest
I just presented Scriptural evidence for Mary not being sinless.
I have answered the idea that Mary was sinless, I have presented evidence from the Scriptures that clearly say all of humanity is sinful and of course we know that Mary is part of sinful humanity.
Now you’ll be glad to know that this is my last post in this thread.
.
D
Della
Guest
And you were refuted, also with Scripture. Have a nice day.I just presented Scriptural evidence for Mary not being sinless.
I have answered the idea that Mary was sinless, I have presented evidence from the Scriptures that clearly say all of humanity is sinful and of course we know that Mary is part of sinful humanity.
Now you’ll be glad to know that this is my last post in this thread.
.
I
imroc
Guest
Adam = “Old Adam”
Christ = “New Adam”
Eve = “Old Eve”
Mary = “New Eve”
Aside from Christ being fully human and fully God, the other 3 were all created without sin. I pondered the purpose of Mary’s sinlessness quite a few times. After all that, I came to the very quesion: “why not?!” Looking back, it’s all too simple and only makes sense. She’s my mother and I love her! There’s no doubt that her intercessions have worked in my life.
Christ = “New Adam”
Eve = “Old Eve”
Mary = “New Eve”
Aside from Christ being fully human and fully God, the other 3 were all created without sin. I pondered the purpose of Mary’s sinlessness quite a few times. After all that, I came to the very quesion: “why not?!” Looking back, it’s all too simple and only makes sense. She’s my mother and I love her! There’s no doubt that her intercessions have worked in my life.
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
Exactly!
Why do humans keep thinking: True is, what we fully understand – doubtable what we don’t understand.
That’s so ridiculous and brainless.
No-one ever did or will understand God. But do we, presuming we’re all real Christians – doubt God?
Isn’t it clear, that God chooses this one and only person who is absolutely sinless to be Mother of Jesus – of Jesus who had been, as we read in Joh 8,58, long before Abraham was,
Now, who are we to stand up and say; May was not sinless, Mary was not virgin, Mary had other children as well, She can’t be in heaven including her human body. How dare we to put our ill presumings above the Church’s teaching and above all common sense. Yes, faith is and has a lot to do with common sense, wit, esprit and open mindedness. And we all know that St. Paul put faith far above all philosophic understanding.
Why do we continuously try to subordinate faith to human understanding. It’s the same as if you’d try to convince a toddler who’s just learned how to walk, why not to cross the road when it shows “red”. He’s got to believe you, because you love that Child. We have got to believe God, because He loves us. Gods (and Hs Church’s) prohibitions are there to protect us; not to annoy us. When a child loves his mom or dad, he’ll accept what they say even as he doesn’t understand why. When we love God, we accept what He and His Church say, even if we don’t understand some of it.
We will see in heaven that it was of course so, and all our doubts where just blindness to Gods word, and we’ll slam our forehead in saying: OH, OF COURSE – HOW STUPID OF ME.
Code:
**
A
akmiecik
Guest
I have this discussion with my Baptist mother-in-law every now and then.
For me, it is not difficult to believe that, since God chose Mary to be the Mother of His Son, He also chose her to be the one exception to the rule that all are born with sin.
For me, it is not difficult to believe that, since God chose Mary to be the Mother of His Son, He also chose her to be the one exception to the rule that all are born with sin.
B
bernardinelee
Guest
I believe that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was free from sin. This is what my heart tells me. Of all women, God chose Mary to be the mother of His only-begotten Son. Before she was conceived in St. Ann’s womb, Mary was chosen. Then, at the time of St. Ann’s conception, she conceived a child free from the stain of original sin. Mary was immaculately conceived. In Lourdes, France our Lady told St. Bernadette, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” I believe this is confirmation of this supernatural occurrence. With God, all things are possible.
This quote helps me to understand this better: Mary is the Immaculate Conception which means, she is full of grace, redeemed from the moment of her conception, born without original sin. Mary is the Mother of Jesus according to the flesh, but since Jesus is the Father’s eternal Son, the Church acknowledges Mary as the 'Mother of God [Catechism of the Catholic Church].
By faith, I believe that Mary was a pure temple of the Holy Spirit, the perfect vessel to carry the Christ child. He who is divine dwelled within the body of Mary for those 9 months of her pregnancy. What a beautiful Mother our Father in heaven chose for His Son and what a beautiful Mother God chose for mankind.
I believe the holy mystery of Mary’s purity continued after the birth of her Son Jesus and even aftter her death when she was given the privilege of being assumed into heaven in both body and soul. I believe she was sinless - (a Divine Mystery). In order for there to be perfect charity in the home at Nazareth, there would have to be a sinless environment (like a little church or sanctuary I imagine their dwelling to be).
I believe Mary was human, yet sinless. She must have been a very beautiful person. When I thinks of the saints like Mother Teresa and how grace filled their lives were, I think Mother Mary would have been like an “angel.”
Thank you for pondering this mystery with me. I have enjoyed this sharing with you immensely. God bless you. Take care.
Bernardine Lee
D
Dannyc
Guest
Thom,
The Catholic Church has established only three dogmas that pertain to Mary that all Catholics must believe.
Actually I would think it would be more difficult to accept and believe in the Virgin birth or the Trinity than that Jesus kept his mother free from sin. She has been given to us as a gift from her son and she mirrors Him in her life and by her example.
She gave him his humanity…his hands, his feet, his smile. She spent more time on earth with him than any other human being.
If anybody ever knew Jesus, it was his mother. When you are in the presence of Jesus Christ for any period of time, you are apt to become like him.
Since she always leads us to her son in any and all Marian devotions, we take her hand and allow her to lead us to a life that helps us to become holy and sinless. Something that we can only hope for, but something she has already received from her Son.
Remember, we believe all of the saints in heaven have attained holiness through martyrdom and or conversion. So even though they sinned during their life on earth, this sin has been removed so that they may enter into heaven.
Mary just received that gift a little sooner than the rest of us.
When we ask in our prayers, for the intercession of all the angels and saints in heaven, she is leading the charge.
Jesus, Mary & Joseph, pray for us.
DannyC
The Catholic Church has established only three dogmas that pertain to Mary that all Catholics must believe.
- She is Ever-Virgin
- She was Immaculately Conceived
- She was assumed into heaven.
We don’t have to pray to her or use the rorsary or practice any other Marian devotion if we choose not to do so.
Actually I would think it would be more difficult to accept and believe in the Virgin birth or the Trinity than that Jesus kept his mother free from sin. She has been given to us as a gift from her son and she mirrors Him in her life and by her example.
She gave him his humanity…his hands, his feet, his smile. She spent more time on earth with him than any other human being.
If anybody ever knew Jesus, it was his mother. When you are in the presence of Jesus Christ for any period of time, you are apt to become like him.
Since she always leads us to her son in any and all Marian devotions, we take her hand and allow her to lead us to a life that helps us to become holy and sinless. Something that we can only hope for, but something she has already received from her Son.
Remember, we believe all of the saints in heaven have attained holiness through martyrdom and or conversion. So even though they sinned during their life on earth, this sin has been removed so that they may enter into heaven.
Mary just received that gift a little sooner than the rest of us.
When we ask in our prayers, for the intercession of all the angels and saints in heaven, she is leading the charge.
Jesus, Mary & Joseph, pray for us.
DannyC
M
mpartyka
Guest
The main problem I’ve always had with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that most of the arguments in favor of it are emotional rather than logical: “This was Jesus’ mother! Would you make your mother sinless if you were God?” “Isn’t it only fitting that the Mother of God should be sinless?” These kinds of arguments always ring hollow to me.
Doctrinally, the reason for the Immaculate Conception depends upon the Augustinian demand for the presence of guilt in conjunction with the consequences of sin. Augustine’s reasoning was, “Babies are born mortal, and mortality is the consequence of sin; therefore, babies must be guilty of sin, therefore babies must receive Adam’s guilt as well as his mortality, or else God would be punishing innocent babies with death.” Thus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, by clearing Mary of any effect of Adam’s sin, also clears her of any guilt due to Adam’s sin, and therefore Christ, in deriving his flesh from Mary, derived no Adamic guilt through her.
It’s interesting to note that the Eastern fathers of the Church never felt inclined to make the leap from our suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin to our being a partaker in Adam’s sin. In the mind of the Easterns, Adam sinned, and we suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but we did not ourselves commit the sin of Adam and are thus blameless in that regard. This is one reason the Orthodox do not have a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and most Orthodox actually hold the doctrine to be a heretical innovation. The other reason is the Orthodox premise that “whatever is not assumed is not healed” – i.e., the whole point of Christ’s uniting fallen humanity to himself was to take was was damaged in the Fall, soul and body alike, and heal it. Concupiscence, consequently, is one of those things which Christ healed in us through his obedience, i.e., by experiencing it and overcoming it himself. As stated in Hebrews, Christ knows how to minister to us because his pre-resurrection flesh was indeed our flesh, with all the inherent weaknesses which are common to human beings. I don’t know whether this is to say that Christ himself experienced concupiscence, but it is at least to say that Christ’s flesh was the same as Mary’s flesh, which was the same as our flesh.
That being said, whether Mary actually ever sinned mortally is something the Orthodox Church still holds as debatable, but if you ask most Orthodox, the answer will be, “No,” simply out of reverence for Mary.
Doctrinally, the reason for the Immaculate Conception depends upon the Augustinian demand for the presence of guilt in conjunction with the consequences of sin. Augustine’s reasoning was, “Babies are born mortal, and mortality is the consequence of sin; therefore, babies must be guilty of sin, therefore babies must receive Adam’s guilt as well as his mortality, or else God would be punishing innocent babies with death.” Thus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, by clearing Mary of any effect of Adam’s sin, also clears her of any guilt due to Adam’s sin, and therefore Christ, in deriving his flesh from Mary, derived no Adamic guilt through her.
It’s interesting to note that the Eastern fathers of the Church never felt inclined to make the leap from our suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin to our being a partaker in Adam’s sin. In the mind of the Easterns, Adam sinned, and we suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, but we did not ourselves commit the sin of Adam and are thus blameless in that regard. This is one reason the Orthodox do not have a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and most Orthodox actually hold the doctrine to be a heretical innovation. The other reason is the Orthodox premise that “whatever is not assumed is not healed” – i.e., the whole point of Christ’s uniting fallen humanity to himself was to take was was damaged in the Fall, soul and body alike, and heal it. Concupiscence, consequently, is one of those things which Christ healed in us through his obedience, i.e., by experiencing it and overcoming it himself. As stated in Hebrews, Christ knows how to minister to us because his pre-resurrection flesh was indeed our flesh, with all the inherent weaknesses which are common to human beings. I don’t know whether this is to say that Christ himself experienced concupiscence, but it is at least to say that Christ’s flesh was the same as Mary’s flesh, which was the same as our flesh.
That being said, whether Mary actually ever sinned mortally is something the Orthodox Church still holds as debatable, but if you ask most Orthodox, the answer will be, “No,” simply out of reverence for Mary.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Coincidentally, I had been reading the letters of St. Leo the Great and found a couple of pertinent quotes:
Letter 31:2 – “For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil’s yoke, and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror’s victory, if it had been won outside our nature.”
Letter 35:3 – “For although the Lord’s nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences.”
The thing I find interesting about both quotes is that not only is Christ stated to be “alone free from sin” and “alone conceived and born without concupiscence”, but his Mother also makes an appearance in both of these passages without being assigned the same attributes of sinlessness by St. Leo. One would think that if sinlessness and being altogether free from concupiscence were qualities that Mary shared with Christ, that fact would have been brought up in both passages.
Letter 31:2 – “For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil’s yoke, and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror’s victory, if it had been won outside our nature.”
Letter 35:3 – “For although the Lord’s nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences.”
The thing I find interesting about both quotes is that not only is Christ stated to be “alone free from sin” and “alone conceived and born without concupiscence”, but his Mother also makes an appearance in both of these passages without being assigned the same attributes of sinlessness by St. Leo. One would think that if sinlessness and being altogether free from concupiscence were qualities that Mary shared with Christ, that fact would have been brought up in both passages.
D
dnlyle53
Guest
I’m into this discussion late, but carried away by the love I sense for our blessed mother. I accept Mary as sinless because of her particular situation; she knew from the beginning that she was chosen among all women to bear the son of the most high. She spent more time with Jesus than any other person. If you have children can you imagine your child being Christ, can you imagine yourself involved in anything at all that would take you away from this child, and then as a man? All through scripture Mary is there, humble and watching, tending to her son. At Cana, Mary tells Jesus, “they have no wine”, Jesus says, “what is this to me, my time has not yet come.” And them Mary speaks her last line is scripture, “do whatever he tells you”. Jesus honored his mother, by producing wine, but also by stepping out and literally beginning his ‘time’, his mission because Mary asked him to. Would this woman ever turn away from her son with full knowledge and forethought to act against his will? Sin as we all know is just that, turning from God’s will. OldeThom, this is part of the Tradition of our faith, Mary couldn’t possibly turn away from her son, the Christ, she was totally focused on him. This is our calling to totally focus our lives on God (1st commandment). My faith tells me that Mary could never have turned away from her son, Jesus.
Tiber swim team 1985
Tiber swim team 1985
- Status