Where Did I Go Wrong In This Article About Mary?

[deb1]

On my blog I wrote an article about the Catholic views on Mary. I wrote the article in two parts and tried to keep it simple. I realize that Protestants often have problems with Catholic beliefs. I am not trying to convert anyone just to explain what Catholics actually believe and why. The problem that I am running into is that some of the Protestant commentors on my site seem more confused by my article.

debrasrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/07/whos-afraid-of-mother-of-god-part.html

Could some of you look over it and determine where I have gone wrong. For example, I have included bible verses but I keep getting asked for more. Please look over the article on Mary’s SInlessness.

If you want to comment on my site that would be nice too.

 

[TOME]

Deb1,
I think you wrote a very good article and what some may forget is you, as well as everyone else, are sincerely trying to make sense of the whole thing in order to make what you already accept truly your own (i.e. Faith seeking understanding).

My only advise right now is if you haven’t already, go and purchase two works of Pope Benedict XVI. The first is “Daughter Zion” and the second is “Mary, the Source of the Church”. If I was god I would make these two works, among other writings of our Holy Father. mandatory. But, much to my suprise and sometimes chagrin, I am not, so all I can do is recommend these two works to help you with your studies.

 

[deb1]

Hopefully, one of you will be able to help me out. I have a lot of respect for the people on this forum.

 

[deb1]

Deb1,
I think you wrote a very good article and what some may forget is you, as well as everyone else, are sincerely trying to make sense of the whole thing in order to make what you already accept truly your own (i.e. Faith seeking understanding).

My only advise right now is if you haven’t already, go and purchase two works of Pope Benedict XVI. The first is “Daughter Zion” and the second is “Mary, the Source of the Church”. If I was god I would make these two works, among other writings of our Holy Father. mandatory. But, much to my suprise and sometimes chagrin, I am not, so all I can do is recommend these two works to help you with your studies.

Thank you very much. I really try to make my articles easy to understand, although I fear that I just confused certain Protestant visitors to my site. I will look into those books tomorrow.

 

[Cattitude]

There is a good apologetics free audio download at
biblechristiansociety.com/download
that discusses Mary’s sinlessness. The title is “Mary & The Bible; Plus Purgatory & The Bible” It also discusses the so-called “brothers of Jesus”.

You may find some good stuff in there for your discussion. Plus, lots of scriptural back up. And the whole thing is not very long.

Hope that helps!

 

[tito]

To DEB1 . From a non-catholic point of view let me see if I can convey how a protestant may understand this. At the Fall, both spiritual death (immediate) and physical death entered into mankind and the curse of original sin permeates all humanity, passed on to descendants via the seed of the man. Mary had human parents and in this view she was born with this stain of sin and with a sinful nature (inclined to sin); no sin= no death (spiritual or physical). Jesus was conceived by the overshadowing of Mary by the HS and therefore there was no transmision of any seed of guilt to Him because of the Spirit. Being the most blessed woman would not reach the perfection of the nature of Jesus.
Protestants understand the analogy of the arc differently, the arc of salvation being Jesus, and the water of the deluge being judgment, not baptism. Therefore an exposition of how the Church arrived at the pronouncement of the dogma of the Im. Conception in 1854 (by Pios IX?) and/or how it was possible for Mary to be excluded from such a sinful nature (noted others also have provided web sites sources) will explain to others the reasons for your faith. I read your article and commend your effort.

 

[deb1]

To DEB1 . From a non-catholic point of view let me see if I can convey how a protestant may understand this. At the Fall, both spiritual death (immediate) and physical death entered into mankind and the curse of original sin permeates all humanity, passed on to descendants via the seed of the man. Mary had human parents and in this view she was born with this stain of sin and with a sinful nature (inclined to sin); no sin= no death (spiritual or physical). Jesus was conceived by the overshadowing of Mary by the HS and therefore there was no transmision of any seed of guilt to Him because of the Spirit. Being the most blessed woman would not reach the perfection of the nature of Jesus.
Protestants understand the analogy of the arc differently, the arc of salvation being Jesus, and the water of the deluge being judgment, not baptism. Therefore an exposition of how the Church arrived at the pronouncement of the dogma of the Im. Conception in 1854 (by Pios IX?) and/or how it was possible for Mary to be excluded from such a sinful nature (noted others also have provided web sites sources) will explain to others the reasons for your faith. I read your article and commend your effort.

Thank you Tito. I guess that my goal of having just two or three articles on Mary to explain beliefs was a bit naive on my part. It looks like I will have to continue with this subject for a long time.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Deb,

The fundamental problem is that you can prove from scripture that it was appropriate that Mary should be sinless, but you cannot prove that she actually was.

If you read Ineffabilis Deus, the document iln which Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate conception, you will find that the Pope uses mostly arguments from tradition, and when he uses scripture, it is to illustrate how the Fathers saw in scripture numerous illustrations of Mary’s sinlessness.

In the same way, in Munificentissimus Deus, proclaiming the Assumption, the proof is from tradition, and the use of scripture is seen as a testimonial of belief rather than as proof…

1. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,[20] have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.

So scripture is used to EXPLAIN rather than prove.

Deb, as Catholics we have to realize that none of our beliefs contradict scripture, better still, they are in perfect accord with scripture, but we must also realize that not all our beliefs can be proved from Scripture. Holy Tradition and Scripture are one and the same thing : the word of God as revealed by Jesus Christ and passed on to his apostles.

Verbum

 

[deb1]

Deb, as Catholics we have to realize that none of our beliefs contradict scripture, better still, they are in perfect accord with scripture, but we must also realize that not all our beliefs can be proved from Scripture. Holy Tradition and Scripture are one and the same thing : the word of God as revealed by Jesus Christ and passed on to his apostles.

Verbum

Do you mind if I partially quote you on my blog?

I assumed that I had supported my article with bible verses, but he/she wishes a specific verse saying that Mary is sinless. I can’t provide this, of course I can’t I provide a verse that specifically says that the Trinity is exists either.

I was trying to think of a polite way to explain what you just wrote.

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you mind if I partially quote you on my blog?

I assumed that I had supported my article with bible verses, but he/she wishes a specific verse saying that Mary is sinless. I can’t provide this, of course I can’t I provide a verse that specifically says that the Trinity is exists either.

I was trying to think of a polite way to explain what you just wrote.

Your blogger is suffering from “Sola Verse-ura” which means that unless its spelled out in a single Scriptural Verse, then it ain’t Scriptural. I call it “losing the forest for the tree”.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Deb,

You certainly can quote me, if it will help. Also a great illustration of how Catholics approach things is given by Ineffabilis Deus, mentionned above. Munificentissimus Deus is an even better illustration, but its main object is not the sinlessness of Mary, but how it made the Assumption almost a necessity.

Verbum

 

[Ron_Conte]

Good article.

 

[Spirithound]

Could some of you look over it and determine where I have gone wrong. For example, I have included bible verses but I keep getting asked for more. Please look over the article on Mary’s SInlessness.

Hi Deb! Really great article! You went wrong absolutely nowhere. The “fault” only lies with God (please don’t smite me! ) for being so much deeper than we can ever fathom.
Specifically about the situation you have found yourself in on your blog, “Anonymous” needs to first accept that the efficacity of Jesus’s atoning sacrifice does not equal the sufficiency of it.
Anyways, you write well, but some people will not be satisfied with anything short of (what they perceive to be) an explicit Biblical statement.

 

[deb1]

Thank you all. The good thing about annoymous’ question is that I know have almost too many ideas for new articles.

 

[notsmart]

Thank you all. The good thing about annoymous’ question is that I know have almost too many ideas for new articles.

I had no idea the question of sinlessness was so abhorrent. I am not sure if Mary was even the only one who was.

I did not know this was a major point of dispute with christians.

God says he can do the impossible, and anything is possible with him.

To me, that leaves the doors wide open, if its something he would will for the good of the ones he loved enough to create.

 

[deb1]

I had no idea the question of sinlessness was so abhorrent. I am not sure if Mary was even the only one who was.

I did not know this was a major point of dispute with christians.

God says he can do the impossible, and anything is possible with him.

To me, that leaves the doors wide open, if its something he would will for the good of the ones he loved enough to create.

Out of all my articles on Catholic beliefs, this one is getting the most responses. The poster also has surprised me in being very hung up on Mary’s humblenss. To him that is proof that she wasn’t sinless. I have tried to point out to him that humbleness is a virture and pride would be a sin but he(could be a she) just doesn’t get it. For some reasons this really, really, bothers Protestants and I think that it must have something to do with the way they view salvation or their own relationship with God.

Are Saints sinless? I almost pointed out to him, that when we come from confession and have recieved absolution we are sinless. But I am not certain if that was technically true.

I think that the newly baptized are sinless also.

 

[NotWorthy]

Out of all my articles on Catholic beliefs, this one is getting the most responses. The poster also has surprised me in being very hung up on Mary’s humblenss. To him that is proof that she wasn’t sinless. I have tried to point out to him that humbleness is a virture and pride would be a sin but he(could be a she) just doesn’t get it. For some reasons this really, really, bothers Protestants and I think that it must have something to do with the way they view salvation or their own relationship with God.

Are Saints sinless? I almost pointed out to him, that when we come from confession and have recieved absolution we are sinless. But I am not certain if that was technically true.

I think that the newly baptized are sinless also.

Saints are not sin-less. When are sins are forgiven, we can say we are sins are removed, but to say one is sinless implies that one has never sinned.

But to the babies, and those with mental incapacities, since the Church teaches that one must knowingly sin, I would call them sinless. Of course, through no fault of their own, they are still saddled with Original Sin, but that’s a whole different topic.

In regards to Mary’s humbleness… “Blessed are the meek…” You are dead on with that judgment. It is pride that leads to sin. One that is sinful should be as humble as humanly possible.

 

[boppaid]

Saints are not sin-less. When are sins are forgiven, we can say we are sins are removed, but to say one is sinless implies that one has never sinned.

But to the babies, and those with mental incapacities, since the Church teaches that one must knowingly sin, I would call them sinless. Of course, through no fault of their own, they are still saddled with Original Sin, but that’s a whole different topic.

In regards to Mary’s humbleness… “Blessed are the meek…” You are dead on with that judgment. It is pride that leads to sin. One that is sinful should be as humble as humanly possible.

I don’t think baptized babies are sinless. If you think about it, even babies have a sinful nature. Just think about the baby who takes what he wants out of another baby’s hand. Or the 18 month old who hit his brother because he is angry. Does the baby know he is sinning? Of course not. Does it demonstrate a sinful nature (instinct)? I think so.

 

[deb1]

Saints are not sin-less. When are sins are forgiven, we can say we are sins are removed, but to say one is sinless implies that one has never sinned.

But to the babies, and those with mental incapacities, since the Church teaches that one must knowingly sin, I would call them sinless. Of course, through no fault of their own, they are still saddled with Original Sin, but that’s a whole different topic.

In regards to Mary’s humbleness… “Blessed are the meek…” You are dead on with that judgment. It is pride that leads to sin. One that is sinful should be as humble as humanly possible.

Thank you. I am glad now that I did not write that Saints are sinless.

 

[notsmart]

Thank you. I am glad now that I did not write that Saints are sinless.

What I read about it, they are worthy of emulation. The cannonized ones. But, there are saints right here now. All christians are referred to as such in the bible, but not each one is scrutinzed like the ones declared a saint by the Church.

Okay, I just read that so I could be wrong.

But, I cant for the life of me understand why the Mary topic is so contentious and causes such a reaction like this. To me, it seems like a silly thing to protest. I dont think the objection to her being sinless is as solid as the assertion she is.

Unless, one holds a very negative view of Gods abilities.

Plus, didnt the timeline in christian history to reject her sinlessness only come in more recent history?