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

[CentralFLJames]

This is a good point and it shows us why Gods written Word is so very important because God tells us the truth so we don’t get into dangerous speculation.

When we search God written Word we find out that Mary wasn’t sinless but when we go outside of Gods written Word we get into all sorts of dangerous speculation about Mary.

Please don’t use the term “we” because you are not in communion with us Catholics and are nearly obdurate in embracing grave error. Or if you must do so first make the distinction that “we” means the followers of Luther rather than the followers of Christ and His vicar.

When we search Sacred Catholic Tradition, Catholic Teaching and Scriptures we have ample prefiguring of Mary’s special role - in fact to the enlightened mind there are many dozens of scriptural references. I can quote them all if you want them.

I might as well tell you that Scripture has its own safeguards to prevent those that are spiritually short-sighted or utterly deaf and blind by reason of grave sin (often hubris) or are very new to the faith in “neophyte status” with minimal teaching from entering the Full Truth. God wants His children to come to The Kingdom by cooperating with His grace and His Teaching through His Church.

This is all consistent with the scripture verses indicating that Kingdom of Heaven being hard to enter without entering through the narrow gate. The gate is Jesus operating through His Church. The narrow gate is NOT scripture - though scripture leads the way to those who have spiritual eyes and ears. No thief can steal the keys entrusted to the Apostolic Church and sneak into Heaven through scripture. Obedience and a childlike faith and trust is required.

Do you think Jesus would permit the likes of Simon Magus to steal or buy the Kingdom by simply possessing The Bible (if had been available then)? No, scripture interpretation, like God, hides itself from those who are unworthy and insincere and who think they can enter into The Truth by working around His Church, Such are thieves who would rather not make the commitment to The Church and her sacraments. No such, want the human way and want to use scripture inappropriately as some sort of magic portal. Nope - The Kingdom does not work this way. Sin places scales over one’s spiritual eyes. God uses the natural consequence of disobedience, sin, to hide His truth right under the noses of those who would like to steal it. Sin becomes the very thing that prevents one from entering into the Kingdom illicitly since they can not see the truth. Faith and the trust of a child is required.

Yes, men are sinners (with the exceptions others have previously mentioned). And that fact of sin and inclination to sin is the thing that insures that sola scriptura can never be the key to salvation or the way to sneak into heaven, Blindness and the scale of sin is only overcome by God’s revealing light.

Come to The Catholic Church to receive God’s light through her sacraments and through her teaching.

James

 

[sandusky]

JoeyWarren:

I don’t think I ever stated the “Continuously” argument. You are reading much more than what I wrote.

Nevertheless, you are inconsistent, and use a double standard with the respect to the tense of kecharitomene.

You say the verb tense means one thing when applied to Mary, and something else when it is applied to the saints; namely, sesodzmenoi.

An inconsistent, double-standard-employing-apologetic.

Any thinking person is right in dismissing it, IMO.

Furthermore, the main thrust of the perfect participle apologetic is that it states a continuous action.

JoeyWarren:

Am I? And who is Ludwig Ott that I should listen to him?

Whether or not you know of him is of little consequence.

The fact remains that you are taught by your 2,000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium that God will justify men, and that some of those men, whom God justifies, will, by some means or other, lose that justification.

That directly contradicts Rom 8:30: …these He justified, He also glorified….

 

[guanophore]

The Bereans were noble because they searched the scriptures, as well as caring for Paul’s safety. :tsktsk:

Acts 17:11
11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness,

I think you left out part of that verse. The Bereans did examine the Scriptures, but their nobleness was also based on their openess to God’s word.

Protestants no longer demonstrate this nobility, since they do not receive the Apostolic Teaching with all eagerness. That is why using this as an example and role model is disingenuous. What Sola Scriptura folks do is refuse to hear the Word from the Church, and searche the scriptures with all eagerness. I don’t doubt that such persons are very passionate to know Christ, but they fail to come to Him, so that they might find life.

When the Church tells them that Jesus’ body and blood really present, they turn a deaf ear. There is nothing noble in that.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:23

So the written Word of God clearly shows us that Jesus isn’t included in the “all” but all the rest of humanity is and that includes Mary.

Have you ever considered the context of this verse? Do you realize that the passage begins “for it is written”? Do you know where Paul took that passage? If you explore this, I think it will be easy to see that he is talking about a specific group of people here.

Besides, how can a person be righteous and blameless before God, and still be a sinner?

BTW a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. Do you believe in the fundamentals of your faith?

Sure. The difference would be that Catholic receive the fundamentals from the Apostolic Teaching, and those who are Sola Scriptura reject such things, and derive their own ideas of what is “fundamental” by reading the Bible out of context.

Sorry, let me clarify, There is Zero evidence that ANYONE for the first 200 years after the resurrection mentioned any RC Marian or papal doctrines.

I don’t your assertion about the doctrines in the fort 200 years, but I do agree that there was no separate Roman Rite before about the year 600. This is why the doctrines are considered Catholic, not "Roman’. In fact, the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness is shared by all the Apostolic Churches, Chaldean, Syriac, Byzantine, Maronite, etc etc. So, not what we can agree it did not come from the “Romans” but from the Apostles, does that change anything?

We can more likely deduce that since there was silence for many hundreds of years concering these RC doctrines that the Apostles knew nothing about them.

There was not silence, but since they are not “Roman”, is it still relevant?

Repeated assertions might convince some in the choir.

Or the peanut gallery? Let’s hope so!

It seems GOD puts a high premium on the written WORD. Can you recall any scripture where GOD lifts oral tradition to the same heights?

Yep!

Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it problematic for Mary to be sinless? Does that invalidate your faith?

Once you see that Mary is human you will then see that she is included in the following;

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:23

.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with Mary being human. Is it your impression that Catholics think she is not?

I think it would be instructive to look at the passage from which Paul took this quote. It is clear that he is talking about a certain group of people.

 

[sandusky]

kaycee:

The Holy Spirit inspired the writers to WRITE about the teachings of the Savior. That is not oral tradition.

So, you would NOT agree with Cardinal Newman who had to concede there was zero historical evidence that Paul taught anything like the Marian doctrines and papal infalibility.

Newmans unique development of doctrine theory exists to spin away the fact that there are NO writings containing any mention of those “oral” traditions until 200 to 800 years after the resurrection.

How do you know that Paul taught those doctrines?

Hi kaycee.

FYI: 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.”**

 

[sandusky]

LilyM:

There is such evidence, and Apostolic traditions have been identified by the Catholic church - things like the ECFs ARE evidence of extrabiblical traditions of the Apostles, since the early ECFs were taught by the Apostles themselves and passed that Apostolic teaching down to succeeding generations.

I’m still waiting for an answer, Lily.

Will you list all of the ECFs who were personally taught by the apostles, and provide specific sources stating which ECF(s) was taught by which apostle(s), please?

 

[LilyM]

I’m still waiting for an answer, Lily.

Will you list all of the ECFs who were personally taught by the apostles, and provide specific sources stating which ECF(s) was taught by which apostle(s), please?

Off the top of my head St Ignatius of Antioch and St Polycarp of Smyrna were both taught by St John the Beloved himself. And I’m sure Sts Peter and Paul, while in Rome, would’ve taught St Linus, Peter’s successor in the Papacy. The Roman community would’ve been too small at that stage that they didn’t.

I ain’t gonna do your homework for you on the rest, mainly because I don’t have time to spare for it. You look them and the other ECFs up if you’re more interested.

A further point - if I were you I’d be careful about daring to suggest that the Apostles were such poor teachers, or the Holy Spirit so poor a guide, that only the Apostles and their immediate pupils can be trusted to have faithfully passed on their teachings. It leaves you in deep deep trouble if the Holy Spirit hasn’t guided the Church for every single second of the last 2,000 years as Christ promised.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3572512]
Acts 17:11
11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness,

I think you left out part of that verse. The Bereans did examine the Scriptures, but their nobleness was also based on their openess to God’s word.

It also appears that you to did not go far enough with this verse. Just after “eagerness” they were “**examining the Scriptures **daily to see whether these things were so.” They compared Paul’s teachings not with church teachings or traditions but Scripture.

Protestants no longer demonstrate this nobility, since they do not receive the Apostolic Teaching with all eagerness. That is why using this as an example and role model is disingenuous. What Sola Scriptura folks do is refuse to hear the Word from the Church, and searche the scriptures with all eagerness.

Nonsense. If you would have read the passage in context you would have noted that there is nothing in this passage about “hearing a word from the church”. Paul never exhorted them to go to the church to check things out but were commended for searching the scriptures and comparing them with what Paul taught.
This is the very thing protestants are doing in regards to the supposed sinlessness of Mary. We search the Scriptures for this claim and we don’t find it. You should be commending us instead of accusing us f alsely.

I don’t doubt that such persons are very passionate to know Christ, but they fail to come to Him, so that they might find life.

When the Church tells them that Jesus’ body and blood really present, they turn a deaf ear. There is nothing noble in that.

 

[bookgirl32]

Do you only want an answer that agrees with your point of view?

Why should I doubt Gods ability to reveal His truth in His written Word? I don’t, I know God has revealed His truth in His written Word.

Gods written Word doesn’t say Mary was sinless but it does say the following;

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:12

.

No, I want an answer, period. I’ll give it to you in a yes or no form. Does the Bible, anywhere, state that the Scriptures are the ONLY form of divine revelation, or that that are to be taken as divine revelation ALONE? Yes, or no?

 

[bookgirl32]

The only one was the Lord Jesus.

And you’re quoting from which scripture . . . .

 

[bookgirl32]

Admit it, you don’t know what they are.

So the idea of an oral tradition of the apostle is futile since we don’t know what it was exactly. All we know what Jesus and His apostles is to be found in the written Scriptrues.

Ja4, the Scriptures themselves are Tradition!!!

 

[clmowry]

When we search God written Word we find out that Mary wasn’t sinless but when we go outside of Gods written Word we get into all sorts of dangerous speculation about Mary.

Continuing to make this claim just makes you look foolish.

Please quote the verse of scripture that says: “Mary the mother of God sinned.”

If you cannot do so then please start stating the truth which is that scripture does not say explicitly whether Mary has or has not ever sinned.

Chuck

 

[justasking4]

Continuing to make this claim just makes you look foolish.

Please quote the verse of scripture that says: “Mary the mother of God sinned.”

If you cannot do so then please start stating the truth which is that scripture does not say explicitly whether Mary has or has not ever sinned.

Chuck

Can we use the same reasoning for others in scripture where their sins are never noted? Take Andrew for example. It never says he sinned so should we assume he was immaculately conceived and did not sin his entire life?

 

[guanophore]

Nevertheless, you are inconsistent, and use a double standard with the respect to the tense of kecharitomene.

You say the verb tense means one thing when applied to Mary, and something else when it is applied to the saints; namely, sesodzmenoi.

An inconsistent, double-standard-employing-apologetic.

Any thinking person is right in dismissing it, IMO.

Furthermore, the main thrust of the perfect participle apologetic is that it states a continuous action.

Gosh, I can’t believe we agree on something!

The fact remains that you are taught by your 2,000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium that God will justify men, and that some of those men, whom God justifies, will, by some means or other, lose that justification.

That directly contradicts Rom 8:30: …these He justified, He also glorified….

Actually, the Church does not teach that. The Church teaches that salvation begins at justification, but is not completed until glorification, which does not happen as long as we are in this world. The glorified are those who have passed from this world in Christ. It is more proper to look at it from the point of view that one has not been perfected in their justification.

Phil 3:12-16

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

The Church teaches that we are justified in baptism, and that, if we hold fast to what we have attained, we will run the race successfully, and win the prize. Being declared justified by God is not the same as being, in essence, just. The perfection of our faith continues until we are completely made His own.

 

[sandusky]

LilyM:

Off the top of my head St Ignatius of Antioch and St Polycarp of Smyrna were both taught by St John the Beloved himself. And I’m sure Sts Peter and Paul, while in Rome, would’ve taught St Linus, Peter’s successor in the Papacy. The Roman community would’ve been too small at that stage that they didn’t.

I didn’t ask for an “off the top of my head” answer; I asked for specifics, and sources.

You are unwilling to do that; that’s fine.

LilyM:

A further point - if I were you I’d be careful about daring to suggest that the Apostles were such poor teachers, or the Holy Spirit so poor a guide, that only the Apostles and their immediate pupils can be trusted to have faithfully passed on their teachings.

I have no idea what you’re talking; you’re not addressing anything specific.

 

[LilyM]

Can we use the same reasoning for others in scripture where their sins are never noted? Take Andrew for example. It never says he sinned so should we assume he was immaculately conceived and did not sin his entire life?

Well the scripture doesn’t say that Andrew was Jesus’ mother either. Nor that he was full of grace, to be called blessed by all generations, that he and his seed would be at total enmity with Satan, that he and his seed would crush Satan’s head. Nor does Revelation show Andrew in heaven crowned with the stars etc etc.

 

[sandusky]

Pixie Dust:

Another point to ponder: Didn’t God create Adam and Eve without sin? They spent quite a bit of time in the presence of God, we don’t know how long they were in the Garden before the Fall, but we know that they were sinless at their creation. If God could do that for Adam and Eve, why couldn’t He do that for the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary?

Sin was not in the world until Adam sinned:**Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world…**Therefore, the choice was Adam’s and Eve’s; however, since then, man has no choice with respect to sin.

Because, in Adam, all sinned (the very same Rom 5:12, cited above).

 

[LilyM]

I didn’t ask for an “off the top of my head” answer; I asked for specifics, and sources.

You are unwilling to do that; that’s fine.

I have no idea what you’re talking; you’re not addressing anything specific.

I’m addressing the fact that you appear to think, based on your request for lists of those whom the Apostles taught directly, that only they, or primarily they, are worthy of belief and that they alone, or primarily they, successfully preserved Apostolic teaching.

Which is quite wrong and unscriptural, since the Holy Spirit ensures that their teachings will be preserved in their entirety for all time, whether by oral or written means, whether by their direct disciples or others of later generations.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;3572648]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can we use the same reasoning for others in scripture where their sins are never noted? Take Andrew for example. It never says he sinned so should we assume he was immaculately conceived and did not sin his entire life?

LilyM;
Well the scripture doesn’t say that Andrew was Jesus’ mother either. Nor that he was full of grace, to be called blessed by all generations, that he and his seed would be at total enmity with Satan, that he and his seed would crush Satan’s head. Nor does Revelation show Andrew in heaven crowned with the stars etc etc.
All of these things are not necessary for Andrew to be sinless. Maybe God made it possible for him to be born without sin but never told anyone. Or since he was evenutally going to be a disciiple-apostle of Christ he was born without sin. Or God kept him from sinning so that he could be an apostle.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Can we use the same reasoning for others in scripture where their sins are never noted? Take Andrew for example. It never says he sinned so should we assume he was immaculately conceived and did not sin his entire life?

LilyM:

Well the scripture doesn’t say that Andrew was Jesus’ mother either. Nor that he was full of grace, to be called blessed by all generations, that he and his seed would be at total enmity with Satan, that he and his seed would crush Satan’s head. Nor does Revelation show Andrew in heaven crowned with the stars etc etc.

All of these things are not necessary for Andrew to be sinless. Maybe God made it possible for him to be born without sin but never told anyone. Or since he was evenutally going to be a disciiple-apostle of Christ he was born without sin. Or God kept him from sinning so that he could be an apostle.

You are comparing apples and oranges. JA4 can speculate on Andrew being sinless. But JA4 is fallible. The Church is free to define what The Holy Spirit reveals because it has the authority and the assurances of Jesus that it may do so confidently.

It’s a difference in authority and pedigree. You have neither.

James

 

[bookgirl32]

Can we use the same reasoning for others in scripture where their sins are never noted? Take Andrew for example. It never says he sinned so should we assume he was immaculately conceived and did not sin his entire life?

It also never says that Andrew is “full of grace”. Secondly, we don’t need to provide a proof-text from the Bible for it to be true, you need it for you to be right.