Was Mary Sinless? Fav Arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter PietroPaolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before I was compelled by God to convert (‘come home’ is the term I prefer), I was doing a lot of research. I read everything I could on my scholarly quest to “find God” once I learned about changes to scripture and prayer and worship. I was raised as a protestant and I believed that I knew everything there was to know about God (anyone who is or was a protestant can relate to that statement) through scriptural memorization and frequent bible study.

After I learned of those changes which I mentioned, and began to study all that I could, on my own with no influence from anyone, a small part of what I discovered came from my study of history outside of the bible which pertained to the bible.

In addition to the fact (which can be verified on kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ ) that the King James Bible was edited 274 years after its publication in 1611, in the year 1885, in the United States, without the blessing of Martin Luther who surely was aware of Deuteronomy 12:32;
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it, and Revelation 22:19; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, was another set of facts regarding Martin Luther: his feelings about Our Blessed Mother.

Martin Luther was quoted to have said in; Luther’s Works American edition, vol.43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

And in his Commentary on the Magnificat, Martin Luther also said, “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her.” Also from this source Martin Luther said, “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. It’s certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”

These are quotes from the ‘Father of the Protestant Reformation.’ These are HIS thoughts, HIS beliefs, and HIS understanding. I learned a lot when I studied BEFORE I even looked at the Catholic faith. There are many more similar opinions which Martin Luther had that confused me as a protestant but which still did not move me in that direction. I was on a mission to find God and all that was true through research. Finally, 22 years after I started researching within and outside of the bible, my wife told me to pray. I did. Here I am. Praise be to The Most High for His mercy and enlightenment. Peace be with you.
 
PaulScotus said:
Before I was compelled by God to convert (‘come home’ is the term I prefer), I was doing a lot of research. I read everything I could on my scholarly quest to “find God” once I learned about changes to scripture and prayer and worship. I was raised as a protestant and I believed that I knew everything there was to know about God (anyone who is or was a protestant can relate to that statement) through scriptural memorization and frequent bible study.

After I learned of those changes which I mentioned, and began to study all that I could, on my own with no influence from anyone, a small part of what I discovered came from my study of history outside of the bible which pertained to the bible.

In addition to the fact (which can be verified on kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ ) that the King James Bible was edited 274 years after its publication in 1611, in the year 1885, in the United States, without the blessing of Martin Luther who surely was aware of Deuteronomy 12:32;
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it, and Revelation 22:19; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, was another set of facts regarding Martin Luther: his feelings about Our Blessed Mother.

Martin Luther was quoted to have said in; Luther’s Works American edition, vol.43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

And in his Commentary on the Magnificat, Martin Luther also said, “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her.” Also from this source Martin Luther said, “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. It’s certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”

These are quotes from the ‘Father of the Protestant Reformation.’ These are HIS thoughts, HIS beliefs, and HIS understanding. I learned a lot when I studied BEFORE I even looked at the Catholic faith. There are many more similar opinions which Martin Luther had that confused me as a protestant but which still did not move me in that direction. I was on a mission to find God and all that was true through research. Finally, 22 years after I started researching within and outside of the bible, my wife told me to pray. I did. Here I am. Praise be to The Most High for His mercy and enlightenment. Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
Paul, welcome home brother, welcome home.
 
PaulScotus said:
Before I was compelled by God to convert (‘come home’ is the term I prefer), I was doing a lot of research. I read everything I could on my scholarly quest to “find God” once I learned about changes to scripture and prayer and worship. I was raised as a protestant and I believed that I knew everything there was to know about God (anyone who is or was a protestant can relate to that statement) through scriptural memorization and frequent bible study.

After I learned of those changes which I mentioned, and began to study all that I could, on my own with no influence from anyone, a small part of what I discovered came from my study of history outside of the bible which pertained to the bible.

In addition to the fact (which can be verified on kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ ) that the King James Bible was edited 274 years after its publication in 1611, in the year 1885, in the United States, without the blessing of Martin Luther who surely was aware of Deuteronomy 12:32;
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it, and Revelation 22:19; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, was another set of facts regarding Martin Luther: his feelings about Our Blessed Mother.

Martin Luther was quoted to have said in; Luther’s Works American edition, vol.43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

And in his Commentary on the Magnificat, Martin Luther also said, “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her.” Also from this source Martin Luther said, “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. It’s certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”

These are quotes from the ‘Father of the Protestant Reformation.’ These are HIS thoughts, HIS beliefs, and HIS understanding. I learned a lot when I studied BEFORE I even looked at the Catholic faith. There are many more similar opinions which Martin Luther had that confused me as a protestant but which still did not move me in that direction. I was on a mission to find God and all that was true through research. Finally, 22 years after I started researching within and outside of the bible, my wife told me to pray. I did. Here I am. Praise be to The Most High for His mercy and enlightenment. Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing, Paul Scotus, and welcome home!

PAX
:grouphug:
 
Thank you. The journey home is a blessing each and every day. Glory to God in the highest.
 
siamus2k13 said:
Don’t let the words of a simple man sway you.

Catholicism seems very human focused. ]
Click to expand...
I don’t know who the “simple man” is that you mention, Martin Luther? Someone else who has posted in CAF? Not that it matters to me, and I am sincerely not asking who that person is. I just hope that it wasn’t a “dig” at anyone for the purpose of negative criticism. If it was, then I pray for peace for you. If it wasn’t, then my apologies for making a negative assumption.

As for saying that the Catholic faith seems “very human focused,” I have been to many protestant churches of different denominations. Most of those churches use different “versions” of the bible. These bibles (THE Word of God, THE Truth) were ALL changed (books removed, words edited, etc) by “human focus,” by man. My question when I learned the history behind the different VERSIONS of GOD’S word was, “why would anyone change what God said?” And, “how could there be VERSIONS of THE Truth?”

As I searched for the one church where I could feel the TRUE, “inerrant” word of God, I refused to even look at the Catholic church as I had always heard through my protestant family and preachers, ministers, reverends, etc., that the Catholics were polytheists, pagans, and idolaters. Long story short, at the suggestion of my compliment, I prayed for God to lead me to a church, any church, where I could believe that I was being taught God’s intentions for me without those teachings being touched, inspired, or guided by the hand of man. I will tell you that I felt compelled, with complete clarity, to go to the Catholic church. The church started by God the Son. And yes, I was told of the indiscretions throughout history, of the Catholic church. And like ALL churches, which are ALL filled with MAN, the sinner (for NONE of you are worthy, no not one), the Catholic church, led by man the sinner, made mistakes. Like the Catholic church had the inquisition, the protestant church had the Salem witch trials. Like the Catholic church sold indulgences (“tickets” that the wealthy could afford) to have a free pass to heaven, the protestant church had pastors, deacons, and parishioners who were openly affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. People are bad. God is NOT. God started a church that some men have departed from, believing that THEY had a better plan! And what about St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians 1:10, “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

I will be swayed be the man who is simply human and divine. The Catholic church is the least “human focused” church I have encountered, and now that I am home, I will never be “swayed” to “human focus” again. For, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15.

Peace be with you.
 
PaulScotus said:
As for saying that the Catholic faith seems “very human focused,” I have been to many protestant churches of different denominations. Most of those churches use different “versions” of the bible. These bibles (THE Word of God, THE Truth) were ALL changed (books removed, words edited, etc) by “human focus,” by man. My question when I learned the history behind the different VERSIONS of GOD’S word was, “why would anyone change what God said?” And, **“how could there be VERSIONS of THE Truth?” **.
Click to expand...
Good question! 👍

I believe that some people have changed what God said as a reaction against what the Catholic Church teaches and to express what many Protestants of modern time wish to believe. Let us take Luke 1:34 as an example.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
[DRB] (Catholic)

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
[KJV]

Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
[NKJV]

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
[RSV]

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I am a virgin?"
[NRSVA]

And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’
[YLT]

Then Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen since** I** **haven’t had sexual relations **with a man?”
[CEB]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this happen? I am not married!”
[CEV]

Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen? **I am **still a virgin.”
[ERV]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? **I’ve **never had sexual intercourse.”
[GWT]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”
[HCSB]

The original Greek translated into English literally is: “How will (shall) this be, since I do not know a man?” This unadulterated reading may exegetically support Catholic belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her perfect chastity. Mariologist, Father Rene Laurentine, states that “we must recognize the present tense as having to do with a condition rather than an instant of time. If someone to whom a cigarette is offered replies, 'I don’t smoke, ’ he is understood to mean ‘I never smoke’ and ‘I’m not smoking now’.” And, if I may add, he is understood to imply ‘I have no intention of starting to smoke now or at any time in the future’. In other words, he is asserting that he is a ‘non-smoker’ just as Mary asserts that she is a virgin, meaning in her state she has no marital relations with any man or ‘never smokes’.

There are many Protestant versions of the NT which misinterpret what Mary means to tell the angel Gabriel and reflect what many Protestants have told me in our debates over this Marian dogma of the Catholic Church. The RSV, YLT, and the CEV suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she couldn’t possibly have had any marital relations with Joseph until then, since their marriage hadn’t yet been consummated. Until then she was simply betrothed to Joseph. But this interpretation makes no sense, since the angel doesn’t tell Mary that she has conceived by this time. On the contrary, the angel tells Mary that she will conceive a child at some indefinite time in the future. And Mary did indeed intend to consummate her marriage with Joseph, but only insofar as living under his roof with him. She had no intention of having marital relations with Joseph or any man for that matter in accord with the Law of Moses. The transition from the simple present to the perfect tense and from a genre to the individual radically alters the meaning of the text and consequently favours the Protestant persuasion. The CEB, ERV, GWT, and HCSB suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she hasn’t had any sexual relations at all by then; she is presently or “still” a virgin, implying that it doesn’t necessarily mean that her condition will never change. But if this were true, why would she ask how it could be possible (“How can this be?”) that she will have conceived a child at some point in the future? Obviously Mary knew about the facts of life.

I’m afraid that unless Scripture is interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the authority of the Catholic Church as the Rule of Faith, the written word becomes fallible as a medium of divine revelation, since it proceeds from human preconceptions, having been divorced from sacred Tradition in the deposit of faith. These particular Protestant versions have proceeded from “traditions of men”. They certainly contradict what the Church Fathers taught with regard to Luke 1:34 in its original Greek form.

PAX
:heaven:
 
Good_Fella said:
The lowly handmaid who had found favour with God for whom God did great things had much in common with the early Church. Christians in the 1st century regarded Mary as being the most blessed among women, including Eve, not only because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord, but more importantly because she was blessed by being without sin. “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1:42). They praised her for her merits and celebrated the many graces she had received by her collaboration with God. Mary wasn’t perceived as only humble, but as a woman whom God had exalted because of her humility. For the early Christians she was the sinless new Eve by the grace of God.

*The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”

To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children."*
Genesis 3, 12-13, 16

*“The report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain.’” *
Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]

*“So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . ” *
Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]

PAX
:heaven:
Click to expand...
Mary wasn’t the one without sin.

That is the Catholic teaching.

The way it should be said is this:

“Mary was blessed to be with, without sin.”

Jesus is the one that was sinless.

…
 
siamus2k13 said:
Mary wasn’t the one without sin.

That is the Catholic teaching.

The way it should be said is this:

“Mary was blessed to be with, without sin.”

Jesus is the one that was sinless.

…
Click to expand...
Well that is quite novel. Throughout christian history, including the early protestants, Mary was unequivicably regarded as sinless and now she is a sinner. I continue to marvel at how the so called “Reforming” of Christianity takes it further and further away from the early church. Pretty soon, if this trend continues, the term protestant will have the same connotation as nonchristian. All siamus can offer is his own opinion unsupported by scripture or history.
 
siamus2k13 said:
Mary wasn’t the one without sin.

That is the Catholic teaching.

The way it should be said is this:

“Mary was blessed to be with, without sin.”

Jesus is the one that was sinless.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is the early Church, at which time there was just one Church as our Lord intended.

The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary was sinless by a substantial grace of union with God as Jesus was, but by God’s intervening grace. Both Jesus and Mary were sinless, but in a different way. Jesus was preserved from original sin and personal sins for two reasons: the hypostatic union of his human nature with his divine nature and his virginal conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord did not descend from Adam by way of natural generation. Mary, on the other hand, was preserved from original sin at the first instant of her conception by a singular grace and privilege in view of the foreseen merits of her divine Son; she was redeemed by being preserved from contracting the stain of original sin rather than by being liberated from having contracted it unlike the rest of humanity. Because of the personal union between Jesus’ humanity and the Divine Word, Jesus wasn’t in need of redemption and so couldn’t possibly be redeemed by the merits of another person, unlike his mother who was a human being created by God and subject to inheriting all stain of original sin. And since Mary was God’s created handiwork, she consequently was freed from subjection to the law of concupiscence and the pride of life after having been preserved from the state of spiritual death upon her conception in a sanctified state. Upon the creation of her soul, Mary was endowed with a fullness or plenitude of habitual or sanctifying grace that lasted throughout her entire life (cf. Gen. 3:15; Lk 1:28). God’s efficacious actual graces helped preserve her from actual sins. Jesus never committed any personal sins because of the graces which flowed from his divine nature.

PAX
:heaven:
 
ezeekl said:
Well that is quite novel. Throughout christian history, including the early protestants, Mary was unequivicably regarded as sinless and now she is a sinner. I continue to marvel at how the so called “Reforming” of Christianity takes it further and further away from the early church. Pretty soon, if this trend continues, the term protestant will have the same connotation as nonchristian. All siamus can offer is his own opinion unsupported by scripture or history.
Click to expand...
As I noted in an earlier comment, Martin Luther was quoted to have said in; Luther’s Works American edition, vol.43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

The “Father of the Protestant Reformation” knew and proclaimed Mary’s sinlessness. Now, with literally hundreds of “versions” of God’s Word being “revised” and “new revised,” Martin Luther, I am sure, would be greatly distressed. How modern do you want God to be? To what lengths will you revise and edit HIS Word to fit YOUR ideals? Knowing that the Holy Bible is a “version” of what it was and should be, should that not be enough to compel you to investigate why the Father of your church believed as he did? Not only with regard for Mary, but on why the King James Bible had ALL of the books that the Catholic Bible has today and that those books were not removed until 274 years later? Does it not worry you that such a difference exists between the beliefs of the early Protestant Church and bible and those of today? I could not argue with history anymore than I could argue with a photograph. I am praying for clarity for all. Peace be with you.
 
Doctor Luther. (Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from a Catholic University) Changed his doctrines radically over his lifetime, contradicting what he first wrote in his later writings. He did so in almost everything except with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and her perpetual virginity as well as sinlessness (by God’s Grace).

Now modern day Protestantism takes the hint from Dr. L, and re-writes, edits, and changes the doctrines of the Apostles to fit what each new sect discovers, and the Holy Ghost forgot to preserve. Or what they say it should say.

I was amused at a Baptist Preacher who was being interviewed by Bill Maher, who told the “Pastor” , “well we agree on one thing, we hate the Catholic Church.” The pastor went on to say that he respected Luther, who unlike the Pope, one day opened the Bible for the first time, since it was forbidden for Catholics to read the Bible.

Well in the tradition founded by Luther, he omitted or was brought up to believe that the man who he referred to who was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, learned the Scriptures because he was a Catholic, and that several Catholic editions of the Bible in German existed before Luther was born. Nice re-writing of history.
 
Good_Fella said:
Good question! 👍

I believe that some people have changed what God said as a reaction against what the Catholic Church teaches and to express what many Protestants of modern time wish to believe. Let us take Luke 1:34 as an example.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
[DRB] (Catholic)

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
[KJV]

Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
[NKJV]

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
[RSV]

And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I am a virgin?"
[NRSVA]

And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’
[YLT]

Then Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen since** I** **haven’t had sexual relations **with a man?”
[CEB]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this happen? I am not married!”
[CEV]

Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen? **I am **still a virgin.”
[ERV]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? **I’ve **never had sexual intercourse.”
[GWT]

Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”
[HCSB]

The original Greek translated into English literally is: “How will (shall) this be, since I do not know a man?” This unadulterated reading may exegetically support Catholic belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her perfect chastity. Mariologist, Father Rene Laurentine, states that “we must recognize the present tense as having to do with a condition rather than an instant of time. If someone to whom a cigarette is offered replies, 'I don’t smoke, ’ he is understood to mean ‘I never smoke’ and ‘I’m not smoking now’.” And, if I may add, he is understood to imply ‘I have no intention of starting to smoke now or at any time in the future’. In other words, he is asserting that he is a ‘non-smoker’ just as Mary asserts that she is a virgin, meaning in her state she has no marital relations with any man or ‘never smokes’.

There are many Protestant versions of the NT which misinterpret what Mary means to tell the angel Gabriel and reflect what many Protestants have told me in our debates over this Marian dogma of the Catholic Church. The RSV, YLT, and the CEV suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she couldn’t possibly have had any marital relations with Joseph until then, since their marriage hadn’t yet been consummated. Until then she was simply betrothed to Joseph. But this interpretation makes no sense, since the angel doesn’t tell Mary that she has conceived by this time. On the contrary, the angel tells Mary that she will conceive a child at some indefinite time in the future. And Mary did indeed intend to consummate her marriage with Joseph, but only insofar as living under his roof with him. She had no intention of having marital relations with Joseph or any man for that matter in accord with the Law of Moses. The transition from the simple present to the perfect tense and from a genre to the individual radically alters the meaning of the text and consequently favours the Protestant persuasion. The CEB, ERV, GWT, and HCSB suggest that Mary is telling the angel that she hasn’t had any sexual relations at all by then; she is presently or “still” a virgin, implying that it doesn’t necessarily mean that her condition will never change. But if this were true, why would she ask how it could be possible (“How can this be?”) that she will have conceived a child at some point in the future? Obviously Mary knew about the facts of life.

I’m afraid that unless Scripture is interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the authority of the Catholic Church as the Rule of Faith, the written word becomes fallible as a medium of divine revelation, since it proceeds from human preconceptions, having been divorced from sacred Tradition in the deposit of faith. These particular Protestant versions have proceeded from “traditions of men”. They certainly contradict what the Church Fathers taught with regard to Luke 1:34 in its original Greek form.

PAX
:heaven:
Click to expand...
Yackety yak.

This overall is a non-argument.
 
siamus2k13 said:
Yackety yak.

This overall is a non-argument.
Click to expand...
I can’t say much for this. At least I aim to clarify what I mean to say. I get the impression that you have no argument by such a response as yours.

PAX

:harp:
 
siamus2k13 said:
Yackety yak.

This overall is a non-argument.
Click to expand...
A “non-argument”? You mean you have no rebuttal??? Your response is very telling. At the very least face the facts. History is not on the side of the protestants. First, you got a 1500 year hole between Jesus and the “reformists” that you can’t fill in. Then you have definite changes in teaching from the early church as well as novel doctrines that defy both the teaching of the early church as well as scripture. The changes are there They are real. They are documented. Maybe, just maybe, “Yackety-yak” is the best you can do.
 
siamus2k13 said:
Yackety yak.

This overall is a non-argument.
Click to expand...
And this overall is a statement of someone who has thrown reason out the window in favor of smug comfort.

Yackety-Yak indeed sunshine.

Let us know when you want to continue a debate with a spirit of charity amongst fellow Christians.
 
siamus2k13 said:
Mary wasn’t the one without sin.

That is the Catholic teaching.

The way it should be said is this:

“Mary was blessed to be with, without sin.”

Jesus is the one that was sinless.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it’s unbecoming to say that Jesus was blessed for having had a sinless mother - a woman worthy enough to be his mother. This is what Elizabeth may have meant to say when she declared: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb,” after having proclaimed Mary to be the “most blessed among women”. The word blessed has a range of meanings which includes being in a state of holiness. Let us not forget that in the personal union between Jesus’ humanity and the Divine Word he was one divine Person in the flesh. The Divine Word eternally generates from God the Father who is all-holy. So it’s only fitting that in the Incarnation the Divine Word became man by being born of a holy (pure and spotless) woman who was endowed with a fullness of grace. Jesus himself has told us that a good tree produces good fruit. And all good things originate from God by His grace. We can apply this principle here.

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?”*
St. Ephraim the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]*

PAX
:heaven:
 
My dear Protestant bretheren,

Stop for a moment and compare and contrast God and Satan. God is truth and Satan is lies. God is holy and Satan is not. If God decided, and he did, to make Mary without sin then it is truth. To refute such claims puts you on the side of Satan who tears Mary down at every chance he gets. Jesus had the power to make his mother perfectly and he did because he wanted to. History and scripture support this. We have historical declarations by early Catholic Church fathers going back to the 2nd through 6th centuries refencing her holiness. For scripture support look to Genesis 3 and Luke 1. In Genesis God promises in the future to put enmity between Satan/the serpant and the woman/Mary and his seed (sinful men) and her seed (Jesus). Further, in Luke 1 the Angel Gabriel sent by God declares Mary to be full of Grace. To be full of something leads no room for anything else. Thus, being full of God’s grace not because of anything Mary did but rather because of a singular act done by God for her, there is no room for Mary to sin. Further, read up on what happened at Lourdes, France to a girl named Bernadette. Four years after the Catholic Church declared infallibly the teaching that Mary was Immaculately conceived, Mary appeared to Saint Bernadette and declared she herself was the Immaculate Conception to the young fairly simple girl. Bernadette didn’t even understand what Immaculate Conception meant or referred to but she declared it to her priest and historical documents attest to this true event.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will open your hearts to understand that while Mary is not a god nor do we worship her she is 2nd only to her son in Heaven. This is God’s will and to refute and argue against it is to offend Jesus and his mother. If nothing else you must admit that there is no Jesus without Mary. For this you should be grateful and thank her for saying “Yes” to God’s calling for her life. God bless.
 
This is a quite interesting new development.

Dear Pentecostal brother - I’m sorry I don’t have your screen name in front of me,

We have provided you with a myriad of Sacred Scripture verses which show a very special roll for the Blessed Virgin. If you are truly Pentecostal, then you believe those very same Scriptures to be your sole rule and authority of your Christian life.

However - and I find this extremely interesting - you start your objection with “I don’t believe it…” or something similar.

Begging your pardon, but as a former Sola Scriptura practitioner let me just say: “I” shouldn’t factor one iota into the equation; however again, that is the reality of Sola Scriptura: “I” is ALL that matters, even to the denial of Scripture.

Scripture shows an undeniable parallel between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary as New Ark of the Covenant.

Scripture shows that Mary is the New Eve.

Scripture shows that Mary was “blessed among all women” including Eve - who was created without sin. (If Mary was created with Original Sin how could she be more blessed than Eve?)

Scripture Prophesies that Mary will have “Enmity” with Satan. (Do I have Enmity with Satan? Do I still Sin? Yes… then there’s no way I have “Enmity” with Satan.)

A messenger from heaven entitled Mary: Kecharitomene or “Full of Grace”.
If Mary had sin, and she was entitled “Kecharitomene” by heaven, heaven would be lying. Grace is God’s Life essence… sin is absence of God.

We have shown you how the Bible predicted and shows The Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness from conception to dormition.

What do you believe: the Bible or your man-made tradition of Pentecostalism?

The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It…

God Bless you and your journey of faith,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church :signofcross:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top