Why doesn't the Bible say that Mary was sinless?

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
i agree in part that the Scriptures are not an exhaustive revelation of God in Christ. However, they are the only records we have of Him and the apostles. There is no evidence of any extrabiblical traditions of the apostles. If there were they would have been identified by the catholic church.

po18guy
It IS the Catholic Church! Christ founded a church, not a bible. The Church is the living tradition of the elders, plus the bible. You can’t beat that. I couldn’t either, so I joined. Amen!

Your response doesn’t address the issue.

 

[LilyM]

Was this Holy Tradition oral or written? How do you distinguish between Holy Tradition and the written Scriptures?

Of course it could be either oral or written - Paul himself refers to both oral and written Tradition. Never says that all Tradition either was written or would eventually be written.

He and his followers obviously had no problem discerning both scripture and written and oral Tradition, and were exhorted to follow all permutations of the three. All three are products of the same Holy Spirit, no? He has plenty of ways to indicate to us what is what.

So I don’t know why you’re so hung up on writings of the Apostles, or why you insist (or seem to) on all Tradition having to be written down somewhere. Most people throughout history have been unable to read or write, including, I dare say, most of the Apostles themselves, so fat lot of good any writings would’ve done for them.

Why the written word is the be-all and end-all to you I don’t know. Fact is that we KNOW what they taught their followers and what those followers taught to theirs and on through the ages. Plenty of written and other material (art work in the catacombs, for instance) to show us what beliefs had been passed to them from the Apostles.

Having said that, scripture and Tradition aren’t entirely separate categories. Eg - since Jesus Himself didn’t write the Gospels and they were only written decades after His death, they come from second-hand accounts of His sayings and doings. In other words they began as oral Tradition about Jesus which later became written in the form of scripture.

 

[justasking4]

There is no evidence that you can accept, ja4, because you have chosen to limit yourself.

It does not count for ja4 because he has already decided that it is “speculation of men”.

I hope you will not fall for this, jmcrae. Not only is it an attempt to derail the thread (again!) but it is just bait. ja4 is not reallly interested in learning anything about the Sacred Tradition. If fact, he has made up his mind it does not exist, and therefore, has prevented himself from learning about it. Such questions are just a ruse to bait Catholics, so he can try to convert them into "bible christians’.

It is a circular method.

“All we have is in scripture”

“Or not? Is there something else”

“no, if it is not in scripture it is not valid”. It is on a lot of the threads already. Catholics are sensitive to it, so it is very effective in derailing threads.

Actually these discussion on tradition are important in helping us to determine where the idea of Mary being sinless comes from since its not in Scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually these discussion on tradition are important in helping us to determine where the idea of Mary being sinless comes from since its not in Scripture.

The idea of Mary being sinless comes to us from various hymns that were sung by the Apostles, things written by their successors, and various litanies that are often recited in her honour.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How does the catholic church define Tradition?

I’m making this a new thread. See you there!

 

[justasking4]

Of course it could be either oral or written - Paul himself refers to both oral and written tradition. Never says that all tradition either was written or would eventually be written.

He and his followers obviously had no problem discerning both scripture and written or oral tradition, and were exhorted to follow all permutations of the three. All three are products of the same Holy Spirit, no? He has plenty of ways to indicate to us what is what. Chiefly through the Apostles and their successors, since they received the Spirit in full measure.

Having said that, scripture and Tradition aren’t entirely separate categories. Eg - since Jesus Himself didn’t write the Gospels and they were only written decades after His death, they come from second-hand accounts of His sayings and doings. In other words they began as oral Tradition about Jesus which later became written in the form of scripture.

We agree that the apostles did speak and teach orally. They may have written somethings but we don’t know what either of these things were since there is no record of them. This is a limitation that we all have to live with. We know that many early fathers did not think she was sinless. No early church father taught that she was immaculately concieved.

 

[jmcrae]

We agree that the apostles did speak and teach orally. They may have written somethings but we don’t know what either of these things were since there is no record of them.

Of course there is a record of them - just not a written record.

Have you ever asked yourself how every child on the whole planet knows the same tune to the “na na” song? That’s “oral tradition” in action - they hear it and repeat it, and other kids hear them, and repeat it, until every kid in the whole world knows that song.

That’s also how the Oral Tradition of the Apostles is passed on - by hearing and repetition.

This is a limitation that we all have to live with. We know that many early fathers did not think she was sinless.

The majority did.

No early church father taught that she was immaculately concieved.

No, they were just comparing her as the Second Eve for the sake of their health.

 

[LilyM]

Actually these discussion on tradition are important in helping us to determine where the idea of Mary being sinless comes from since its not in Scripture.

Yes, and they’ve been explained to you in mind-numbing detail already on numerous other threads as well as this one. If you don’t understand by now, and it’s very clear you absolutely don’t, you probably never will. In any event you appear to be no closer to understanding, through no fault or lack of effort in explanation of ours.

So this whole exercise would appear to be completely futile for you and annoying to no end for us.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3567960]

Originally Posted by justasking4
We agree that the apostles did speak and teach orally. They may have written somethings but we don’t know what either of these things were since there is no record of them.

jmcrae
Of course there is a record of them - just not a written record.

Have you ever asked yourself how every child on the whole planet knows the same tune to the “na na” song? That’s “oral tradition” in action - they hear it and repeat it, and other kids hear them, and repeat it, until every kid in the whole world knows that song.

That’s also how the Oral Tradition of the Apostles is passed on - by hearing and repetition.

Then you should be able to give me a couple of examples of these oral traditions of the apostles. Can you name 2 that are not written down by them?

 

[po18guy]

Your response doesn’t address the issue.

You cannot have the full revelation of Christ outside of His church. Not if you base your entire world view on a mere synopsis of his life. How can you understand Him based solely on that? You cannot. You have only a taste of Christ, Good as it is! That is why you can’t understand His church.

Instead of asking millions of questions here, have you ever thought of watching a mass? Asking a priest questions? Opening your mind? Until you do, your spirit will be hobbled.

May the fulness of Christ be yours.

 

[Jennifer123]

Im just trying to find out if the teaching that Mary is sinless is in the Bible and if it isn’t, why not.

All the major issues are addressed in Gods written Word so why not the issue of Mary & her supposed sinlessness.

BTW I don’t want this thread diverted/hi-jacked by a “Trinity” debate, because anyone who seriously studies Gods Word can clearly see the truth of the Trinity in the Scriptures.

HI-

I don’t know if anyone’s touched on this but Mary gave birth to as much a human man as a divine one. To deny that is to deny the nature of Christ. A human baby assumes and inherits the mother’s DNA, and yes, humanity’s stain of original sin. If Mary wasn’t saved from humanity’s stain of original sin, Jesus would also have inherited it.
We know Jesus was without sin .

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;3567960]

Then you should be able to give me a couple of examples of these oral traditions of the apostles. Can you name 2 that are not written down by them?

I can name dozens, and have done so for you many times. Your standard response is, “But that’s not in Scripture.” And we roll right back around to where we started again.

 

[LilyM]

jmcrae;3567960]

Then you should be able to give me a couple of examples of these oral traditions of the apostles. Can you name 2 that are not written down by them?

Pixiedust gave you a long list of them! You saw it, put it in a quote but totally ignored it as if you hadn’t read it at all. All of them (except the coffee and donuts of course ) unwritten Traditions of the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Pixiedust gave you a long list of them! You saw it, put it in a quote but totally ignored it as if you hadn’t read it at all. All of them (except the coffee and donuts of course ) unwritten Traditions of the Apostles.

That’s true. Absolutely none of those things are found in Scripture.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Thr Scriptures never speak of another “layer” between us and Christ. We can pray directly to Christ without having to have to go through another “intercessor” between us and Him.

Tobit 12:12 I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Pixiedust gave you a long list of them! You saw it, put it in a quote but totally ignored it as if you hadn’t read it at all. All of them (except the coffee and donuts of course ) unwritten Traditions of the Apostles.

Note the little “t” in tradition after coffee and donuts. We have those, too (traditions that are not Traditions). In fact, coffee and donut time was my favorite part when I was 4-5 years old at the Methodist church. It doesn’t sound very spiritual to say that my Methodist upbringing developed in me a love for the smell of coffee brewing, though, does it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There were fathers who did not believe she was sinless.

Do you accept them as infallible? Of course not.

Clearly, the Church has listened to what these Fathers had to say, determined that they were in error on this point, and chosen to uphold what other Fathers had to say instead.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Bible is Gods written Word, He alone is the true owner of His written Word.

There is no Scriptural proof for the IC.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading, Proof from Scripture, states,

"No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Luke 1:28

.

The Holy Spirit is the author. The Catholic Church is the earthly custodian of cannon. It is part of the authority of loosing and binding to discern what was inspired. Nor is scripture all of God’s word. God’s word is also present in the Catholic liturgy and Tradition. Protestants have no authority whatsoever to teach scripture and will be held accountable as false teachers for so doing.

There is no proof of immaculate conception in scripture? There is no proof that there is God either. What is your point? The Bible has always been a book of faith - it was not meant to be a proof text. Have Protestants invented a new “sola”? When does this nonsense run its self to ground. Do we have a new erroneous Protestant teaching here - *sola argumentum *- we are saved by proof alone?

I can appeal to reason - but you will have to run with it or run from the truth depending on who’s child you are.

There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
positive examples of why Mary was sinless:

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence

IDo you object due to Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

More Here

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, Mary’s name isn’t in that specific verse (see the translation of your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible), and there’s nothing in the Greek text to indicate a “filling” of grace, or anything else.

The literal translation of kecharitomene is, [the]** one being favored/graced,** so it is a substantive, and functions as both a verb, and a noun in the passage.

Nothing about full of anything in the passage.

If you read the scripture carefully, James, you will find myriad warnings of false teaching creeping in.

Correct, the name “Mary” is not present but its all part of the angle’s message to Mary from context - you know that. I suppose I should have used a bracket to show an insertion of her name since I used it to simplify having to post the entire passage.

Here is the correct way to understand the Greek word kecharitomene Immaculate Conception.
" Full of Grace:

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Went to Catholic school, and served as an altar boy, here, many years ago, and for many years.

Time to get back to The Church.

As a reminder, Ott states that, “…individual Greek Fathers (Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity…” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Ill, Tan Books, 1974). 203 (are ambition and vanity sins?). The Catholic Encyclopedia states that as well, all the while attributing error to those Fathers who taught that. Ott also states, “Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary,” (Ibid, 203).

Schaff also mentions the different historical oppositions and opinions concerning the sinlessness and IC of Mary.

Be careful who you quote and which works as well as the context since Origen was deemed to be a heretic and believed in reincarnation and other strange things.

Here are other Church Fathers all supporting Church Doctrine in Marian Dogma:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
(Note that the pain of childbirth was associated with original sin Early Church fathers and writing attest that Mary suffered no pain at Jesus’ birth).

The Odes of Solomon
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]) (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].
Ephraim the Syrian (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).
Ambrose of Milan (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).
Augustine (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396])., (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]), (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Timothy of Jerusalem (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).
Gregory of Tours (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).

Also, I want to caution you that when you challenge the teaching of The Catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ you challenge the soul and divinity of Jesus Himself. Unless you are infallible you better learn the virtue of learning truth rather than teaching error or be subject to being counted among the false teachers and Church persecutors.

James

 

[sandusky]

po18guy:

Point being missed: The bible is not complete. It is missing an amazing amount of the Word. (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25 to mention a few) It amounts to the Cliffs Notes of the life of Christ.

For you the scripture is nothing but “Cliff Notes”—amazing.

Be that as it may, all Scripture was written under the inspiration of the HS (2 Pet 1:20-21), and, the HS was very gracious in letting us know through John, that not everything the Lord spoke while He was here on the earth was recorded for us, but the HS was equally gracious, even more gracious, in assuring us through Paul of the profitableness of scripture to equip every worker in His church for every good work (2 Tim 3:17).

You’re church rejects the need of scripture alone to equip the saints, and it insists on the need of its “oral tradition” to equip its members. Because of that position, your church cannot be the one true church, as it proclaims itself to be, IMO.

po18guy:

It was never intended to be separated from the Traditions that were handed on to Paul, and which he, in turn, handed on.

What oral traditions, specifically, did Paul hand on?

po18guy:

This is the tragic legacy of the reformation. 50% of Christian practice was lost to those who separated. Is it any wonder they cannot understand Christ’s church without the illumination of the Holy Spirit? Pray for Christian unity. Amen.

There is no tragedy in Christ’s true church.

As Paul says, there is one body and one Spirit, in one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all (Eph 4:4ff).

Christ instructs His church to preserve its unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). He does not instruct His true church to pursue unity with false churches.