What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Amen. This is why we call her the great example. Not the great exception.

Amen again. This shows that she cooperated with God’s grace [SIGN]to remain sinless [/SIGN]throughout her life. She was the greatest ascetic!!!

Where did this teaching come from Mickey? The Church that is where it came from.

 

[Mickey]

WOW. You just said she cooperated with God’s grace to remain sinless throughout her life. How could she REMAIN sinless is she ever had sin

She was born with original sin (fallen human nature like every other human). Yet by the grace of God…through her own free will…she did not sin. She is the great example for us…the greatest of ascetics. Do you not see the beauty of this? All of us are capable of achieving a stage of sinlessness via perfect obedience to God in co-operation with His Grace. She was unique in that she was capable of achieving this sinlessness in her entire lifetime.

 

[Mickey]

Where did this teaching come from Mickey? The Church that is where it came from.

The IC did not come from the early undivided Chruch. It came from the post schism RC church.

 

[Mickey]

How can you say that she was sinless agree with it, and then turn around and say we have no scriptural support.

You have no Scriptural or patristic support for the doctrine of the IC.

 

[Mickey]

The Church regards Mary without sin of any kind. This is what all the quotes I can find from Justin Martyr,Tatian the Syrian, and others say. However, it would be very enlightening if you could produce one from the Ancient Chruch that said she was with sin. Or is your proof light?

Nice try. Is that another one of your logic diatribes? We know she was without sin. But you will not find support that she was spared from original sin in the womb (IC).

However, believe it or not, there were fathers who said that she did sin! St Basil, Sy John Chrysostom, and Origen come to mind. This further proves that the early Church had no such inkling of the modern day RC doctrine of the IC. Let us see what St John wrote since you have asked me to provide such evidence:

"That which I was lately saying, that when virtue is wanting all things are vain, this is now also pointed out very abundantly. For I indeed was saying, that age and nature, and to dwell in the wilderness, and all such things, are alike unprofitable, where there is not a good mind; but to-day we learn in addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. “For while He yet talked to the people,” it is said, “one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. **For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. **See at all events both her self- confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, “While He yet talked to the people;” as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private? (St John Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)

 

[adrift]

Early Church.
Logic. Hmmmm. You must be a student of scholasticism. Is the trinity logical in human terms…how about the hypostatic union? Is it logical that God would remove a part of St Mary’s humanity in the womb? Is it more logical that God left her humanity intact and allowed his Son to be born completely human without the propensity to sin?
But is it logical?
But he was completely divine. It was the hypostatic union.
Your premise fails on all fronts…logic, lack of Scriptural support, lack of patristic support…etc
Fall back? Are you kidding? He was completely human and completely divine. Lacking in neither.

St Mary was not given a modified or altered nature…this sets apart her humanity from the rest of us fallen humans, and has grave Christological and Soteriological implications, for it means that the humanity that Christ took from Our Lady was not in fact the one and same humanity as the rest of us.

Logic is not your strong point so if I were you I would stop saying logic since you do not adhere to it.
If you believe that to be conceived without os is an altered nature than you must believe Jesus had an altered nature.

That by the way is a logic statement.
And the statement in the early Church (what age period is that btw 32-?) that Mary any kind of sin?

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Mickey where in the world did ANYONE say she was IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED? WE NEVER said that.

We said that she was SAVED from SIN at the MOMENT of her CONCEPTION. what does the moment of her CONCEPTION have to do with her ACTUAL conception?

What are you talking about?

So “Immaculate Conception” does not mean she was immaculately conceived?..odd.

 

[Mickey]

So “Immaculate Conception” does not mean she was immaculately conceived?..odd.

I’m glad I’m not the only one mired in confusion here.

 

[Hesychios]

Hail Mary full of Grace. What does that mean Mickey, It means if you are FULL of Grace you have no Sin.

Grace is God, not a thing.

To be full of grace would be to be God-filled. One is not guaranteed salvation, and one can lose it. We strive for this.

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever” (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).

What does you have found FAVOR with God nean?

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

 

[Mickey]

Logic is not your strong point

Funny…I was going to say the same thing to you.

If you believe that to be conceived without os is an altered nature than you must believe Jesus had an altered nature.

No…he did not. He was completely human because his mother was completely human. Is that enough logic for you.

 

[rinnie]

She was born with original sin (fallen human nature like every other human). Yet by the grace of God…through her own free will…she did not sin. She is the great example for us…the greatest of ascetics. Do you not see the beauty of this? All of us are capable of achieving a stage of sinlessness via perfect obedience to God in co-operation with His Grace. She was unique in that she was capable of achieving this sinlessness in her entire lifetime.

No this is not possible if she was to REMAIN sinless it means she was in the same state. If she had original sin she could have never remained sinless it would mean she would have HAD to have been touched with sin.

I do see the beauty in this Mickey. The Blessed Mother was conceived just like you and I. By Human Parents who had contracted Original SIn from Adam and Eve.

But the BEAUTY that I SEE and you cannot see is that at the MOMENT of her Conception our DEAR GOD MOVED in and made sure no EVIL could ever TOUCH HER.

That is the complete beauty of her and what God did. He did not let sin TOUCH her, He moved in before the stain or O.S. could ever touch her.

WHy do you have such a problem with God saving her from Original SIn, but yet have no problem with Eve having been born free from Original SIn and fallen into it. I do not get why this is so hard for you to accept.

And you still have not explained to me the scirpture of how if she was at a fallen State of Original SIn she could have had the DIVINE WISDOM which is God enter into her Body and Soul?

 

[adrift]

Nice try. Is that another one of your logic diatribes? QUOTE]

ad hominem attacks does nothing to suport your view.

 

[Mickey]

Now let us look at a statement from a saint of the Latin Church. Perhaps this will be more logical for adrift.

I believe he is considered a doctor of the Latin Church.

You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her.”
Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[rinnie]

Grace is God, not a thing.

To be full of grace would be to be God-filled. One is not guaranteed salvation, and one can lose it. We strive for this.

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever” (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

Exactly how can you be GOD FILLED and have SIN in you? Who ever said that you cannot lose your own salvation?

What does that have to do with the Blessed Mother being full of Grace:shrug:

 

[Mickey]

Logic is not your strong point

Ad hominems do nothing to support your view.

 

[rinnie]

Now let us look at a statement from a saint of the Latin Church. Perhaps this will be more logical for adrift.

I believe he is considered a doctor of the Latin Church.

You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her.”
Bernard of Clairvaux

Who in the world ever said that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit? Jesus was the only person who was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

 

[adrift]

Funny…I was going to say the same thing to you.
No…he did not. He was completely human because his mother was completely human. Is that enough logic for you.

Of course he was completely human, it is your logic statement that I am using. You are trying to make the case that Mary would have an altered state and therefore not human. You can’t just apply your statements of what makes a human just to her because it is convienent to your argument. Your arugment must be consistant. If it make Mary to be conceived without sin be altered than it also must mean that Jesus is altered. Your argument does not stand up so instead of showing where it is logical you just attack. Your argument that Mary wouldn’t be human without os doesn’t stand up to a logic statement. You say Jesus is human and then say that he doesn’t have os because he is God. We say Mary is without oc because of the action of God. That does not make her unhuman just like Jesus being without sin makes Him any less human.

 

[KathleenGee]

Here is a good case of the Church having two lungs…but we should have one heart and one mind.

I gave a list of early Church Fathers and writers who held the tradition we hold today that Mary conceived without original sin, and that this conviction was lived out for almost 2,000 years.

The Dominican charism focuses on the intellect and ascending to Christ. The Franciscans take the descent…down to Christ’s humanity, to His feet as servants.

It was the Franciscans who elucidated Mary’s humanity. Theologians were continuing to debate this in the Roman Catholic Church in the 1800’s.

Subsequently, the Schism between East and West in the 1800’s over defined doctrine regarding whether or not Mary was conceived without original sin was not definitely defined. So there were only debates. The Roman Catholic Church witnessed the authentic apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes in the 1850’s. When St. Bernadette asked who she was, what was her name, Mary looked up to heaven and said, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’.

So this debate of whether or not Mary was conceived without sin is disputed since this declaration was defined in the early 1950’s between the Orthodox and Catholics. Since the Catholic Church spent 1,950 years pondering this, and I don’t, and you don’t have all the information and debates, and conclusions coming to this dogma, I would prefer to stand by my Church. This was no shotgun dogma.

Mary did not make herself immaculate. That is humanly impossible; no saint has reached such a perfection as Mary. St. Francis was highly sanctified, and he was the first of all Latin saints to focus on the Cross vs the Orthodox who focus on the Transfiguration of Christ–foretelling His new ministry in the divine as well as strenghtening the apostles to endure in faith while He was in His Pasch.

The Cross also symbolizes the spiritual walk and all the teachings therein, of how one denies one’s self to follow Christ. We must all take the same steps.

But Mary’s was different. And because she did not sin, she was assumed into heaven, following Our Lord. There is no burial place of the body of Mary. We have St. Peter’s remains, and the various other apostles…but not Mary’s. You would think with all the great documentation and traditions, one would be most interested in Mary, the Mother of Jesus who was most close to Him.

She was resurrected directly up into heaven. We do not know whether she died or was taken up alive…but she was resurrected directly into heaven because she had no sin…as Christ.

Mary is the link between humanity and Christ. She is unique.

 

[Mickey]

If she had original sin she could have never remained sinless it would mean she would have HAD to have been touched with sin.

Huh?

But the BEAUTY that I SEE and you cannot see is that at the MOMENT of her Conception our DEAR GOD MOVED in and made sure no EVIL could ever TOUCH HER.

That would have removed her free will. This is why she is our great example. She shows us how to fight the passions being born with a fallen human nature.

He moved in before the stain or O.S. could ever touch her.

No.

WHy do you have such a problem with God saving her from Original SIn,

I do not adhere to concepts that were not handed to us from Scripture, the early Church/patristics, or the seven great councils.

And you still have not explained to me the scirpture of how if she was at a fallen State of Original SIn she could have had the DIVINE WISDOM which is God enter into her Body and Soul?

Yes I did. She lived a sinless life in preparation for the Anunciation and the Nativity of Jesus Christ. But she was not spared from os at conception.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mickey,

Gary was quite clear in what he gave you and it answered your question.