Why the hostility toward Mary?

[Janet1983]

Yet Canon Law 1247 states Required belief of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and places December 8th as the day required to attend Mass. I could be wrong l’m not positive how it is today, it may have changed but when I attended Catholic-School we were told this is a mortal sin or grievous sin not to attend. Matter of fact All 6 US Holy Days of Obligation for that matter. So we are on the same page this is required Catholic teaching right? Is it required anyone in particular must believe? Everyone through free-will is intitled to there own belief. What the teaching is, it is. Sort of like the leading one to water quote.

Well I don’t feel myself bound by these obligations anymore and some here never have. It is not a requirement for a non-Catholic to attend at all and it is not a requirement for me as an ex-Catholic, though some might want to debate that.
Whatever the teaching is, she did not have to be sinless in order to become the mother of Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Next… Is the teaching Mary had to be sinless? Thus why a Virgin? Its Bible and teaching. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

She was required to be a virgin as that was foretold. That was the sign the Lord gave, that He was to be born of a virgin. That does not mean that it was a requirement for her to be immaculate also. We do not find this in Scripture. It does not say that He was to be born of a virgin who was perfectly alighned with the Lord’s standard and completely sinless.

Mary born of a Sinself vessel? Well if St Anne had conceived Mary as we all were conceived. Then this would be correct. But alas she didn’t so Mary wasn’t conceived with sin which relates back to the ex-cathedra letter and speech of the 1850’s and Canon Law etc.

Where do you find Anne or any of Mary’s personal history prior to the annunciation in Scripture? If God was incapable to raise perfection (Jesus) out of imperfection (Mary), then why should He be capable to raise perfection out of imperfection in the case of Mary and her mother? Was Mary’s mother an IC as well and her mother before her and so on? If not, why should it be impossible for God to be born of a virgin who is not an IC? There is no necessity for Mary to be the IC.

But that could have fulfilled their responsibilty of raising Jesus Christ without error? Tough questions.

Jesus Christ lived a live like every man of His time and He was tempted in all things as we are, yet He remained without sin. (see Hebrews 4:15) Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, though He was tempted like we are and that temptation starts with having imperfect parents.
I do not submit myself to Church teaching, accepting it because they said so.

To me the IC does not make sense, because it was not neccessary and not practical. I consider it unbiblical to assume that He lived a sinless life without being tempted, even when this is just about the first few years of His life within His family.

I do not bow to Church authority. I do however submit myself to and bow to my Lord and I wish to serve Him alone.

 

[Roy5]

The real problem for those wrestling with Mariology is that the emphasis on Mary] seems to have gone too far. Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary played a central role when it comes to Christ. She was, after all, his mother, and what an honor and responsibility that was. But it simply seems that she was increasingly elevated in the early centuries to a level that is neither justified by scripture or found among the first Christians… Apart from the virgin birth, the other major Catholic doctrines re Mary appear to come from tradition and papal fiats. Certainly there is nothing in the Bible that provides evidence that she was conceived and born other than the rest of humankind, there is no evidence that she lived a sinless life, and there is no indication of the miraculous assumption upon her death. There is the suggestion that she married Joseph and that they may have had other children. See especially, of course, Matt. 1:25.

** Personally, why shouldn’t Mary and Joseph lived fully as husband and wife**, enjoying the intimate life that helpd bond normal couples?

 (Of course, I've always been struck that both geneaologies of Jesus, found in Matt. 1 amd Luke 3, trace Christ back to David through Joseph. That is a peculiar way of doing it when Joseph was not his biological father.)

** In addition, the only two references to Mary** between the trip to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12, can actually seem to an objective readers as dismissive of Mary. See Matt, 12:46-50 and John 2:4.

** You also cannot find any reference to Mary** in all the epistles of the great evangelist St. Paul.

** There have been countless apparitions of Mary** that continue until this day, most of which have not been officially validated by the church, suggesting that a good deal of superstition, false visions, or deliberate deception may have been involved in many of them. This, to me, casts a shadow over all of them. And some of them are absolutely wild, such as the assertion that Mary and the Infant Jesus were seen by shephards on the roof of their Nazareth home when it was transported by angels in about 1300 AD from the Holy Land to Loreto, Italy! It’s such stories as these that tend to create doubt when it come to Mariology as it is practiced among some devout and well-intentioned Catholics.

  **There is no hostility toward Mary** except perhaps among some atheists and perhaps  other non-Christians. Mary is honored by all Christians, and by Muslims as well, incidentally, but some Catholics have carried the matter from proper love and respect to what would appear to be an abject adoration that should be directed to God alone. 
 
  **But, here's my real point. Christianity should be broad enough to permit difference of opinion on such questions. **Catholics are given latitude to accept, reject or remain neutral when it comes to many of - for example - the apparitions of Mary. Catholicism would seem less medieval and more in line with reason and science if it permitted greater leeway when it comes to other questions re Mary. Did she live a long life without commiting a single sin? I don't know why Catholics are required to believe that. What would be so outrageous if she was truly human and occasionally fell into error, perhaps not deliberately, as we all do? Why couldn't she get moody and maybe speak harshly now and then, or perhaps tells somebody a 'social fib' out of kindness on occasion? If God kept her sinless, I rather assume he arranged for her to bear Christ, which suggests that she really didn't have any choice on her part.

  **All this is secondary compared to the call of Christ to follow him,** to love God and one another, to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and encourage those who are battling to keep afloat as the storms of life rage around them.

 

[PRmerger]

BTW I do think you have interesting take on all of this.

It is not my “interesting take” but that of Catholic apologists.

So we are on the same page this is required Catholic teaching right?

Yes.

Next… Is the teaching Mary had to be sinless? Thus why a Virgin?

The second question does not follow the first. Being a virgin has nothing to do with her being sinless. There are lots of virgins who have sinned.

Mary did not HAVE to be sinless. It was FITTING that she was.

yes God had to be born of a Virgin.

Indeed. It was to fulfill the OT prophesies, and to leave no doubt that God was the Father, and thus the Son was Divine.

Now lets look at this, God being God and aside from whats stated in the Bible. Could he came to earth through a women conceived as you and I?

Absolutely he could have.

Maybe he can maybe he can’t if we think about the old testament said and the Ark.

Then if he “can’t” then he is not OMNIPOTENT.

Mary born of a Sinself vessel? Well if St Anne had conceived Mary as we all were conceived. Then this would be correct. But alas she didn’t so Mary wasn’t conceived with sin which relates back to the ex-cathedra letter and speech of the 1850’s and Canon Law etc

What do you mean here?

Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb in the normal way, through marital relations. But from the moment of her conception she was sinless.

Now, if you believe that sinlessness cannot be in the presence of sin (as you have stated is the reason why Mary HAD to be sinless, otherwise it means Jesus couldn’t enter), then how could Mary be in the presence of her mom’s sinful womb???

You must then claim that Mary’s mother was also sinless. And then you have to claim that her mother was also sinless. And then you have to claim that …:whacky:

So if you believe that Mary HAD to be sinless, rather than it was FITTING that she be sinless, then you have to explain the above.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The real problem for those wrestling with Mariology is that the emphasis on Mary] seems to have gone too far.

Catholics and Protestants agree that Mary played a central role when it comes to Christ. She was, after all, his mother, and what an honor and responsibility that was. But it simply seems that she was increasingly elevated in the early centuries to a level that is neither justified by scripture or found among the first Christians… Apart from the virgin birth, the other major Catholic doctrines re Mary appear to come from tradition and papal fiats. Certainly there is nothing in the Bible that provides evidence that she was conceived and born other than the rest of humankind, there is no evidence that she lived a sinless life, and there is no indication of the miraculous assumption upon her death. There is the suggestion that she married Joseph and that they may have had other children. See especially, of course, Matt. 1:25.

Well, the Bible isn’t about Mary necessarily…interesting enough the trinity is not specifically mentioned in there either. Does that mean you don’t believe in the trinity? If she didn’t have a miraculous assumption then where is her body? Why couldn’t she have been…there are other people in the OT and NT that were. Do you not think that Jesus would have done so for his beloved mother?

** Personally, why shouldn’t Mary and Joseph lived fully as husband and wife**, enjoying the intimate life that helpd bond normal couples?

 (Of course, I've always been struck that both geneaologies of Jesus, found in Matt. 1 amd Luke 3, trace Christ back to David through Joseph. That is a peculiar way of doing it when Joseph was not his biological father.)

Why would they necessarily have? Mary was set apart by her parents when she was a child. Would Joesph have found that fitting for the Mother of God?

** In addition, the only two references to Mary** between the trip to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12, can actually seem to an objective readers as dismissive of Mary. See Matt, 12:46-50 and John 2:4.

You have to take them in the context of what was going on there. It does not mean that Jesus did not love his mother.

** You also cannot find any reference to Mary** in all the epistles of the great evangelist St. Paul.

** There have been countless apparitions of Mary** that continue until this day, most of which have not been officially validated by the church, suggesting that a good deal of superstition, false visions, or deliberate deception may have been involved in many of them. This, to me, casts a shadow over all of them. And some of them are absolutely wild, such as the assertion that Mary and the Infant Jesus were seen by shephards on the roof of their Nazareth home when it was transported by angels in about 1300 AD from the Holy Land to Loreto, Italy! It’s such stories as these that tend to create doubt when it come to Mariology as it is practiced among some devout and well-intentioned Catholics.

But the very fact that the Church does not validate all of them and is very careful in the ones they do should lend additional credence to the ones that are validated by them.

There is no hostility toward Mary except perhaps among some atheists and perhaps other non-Christians. Mary is honored by all Christians, and by Muslims as well, incidentally, but some Catholics have carried the matter from proper love and respect to what would appear to be an abject adoration that should be directed to God alone.

Not adoration, but a love and respect. I love and respect my husband. I like to look at his picture…does that mean that I adore him more then God? Absolutely not!

  **But, here's my real point. Christianity should be broad enough to permit difference of opinion on such questions. **Catholics are given latitude to accept, reject or remain neutral when it comes to many of - for example - the apparitions of Mary. Catholicism would seem less medieval and more in line with reason and science if it permitted greater leeway when it comes to other questions re Mary. Did she live a long life without commiting a single sin? I don't know why Catholics are required to believe that. What would be so outrageous if she was truly human and occasionally fell into error, perhaps not deliberately, as we all do? Why couldn't she get moody and maybe speak harshly now and then, or perhaps tells somebody a 'social fib' out of kindness on occasion? If God kept her sinless, I rather assume he arranged for her to bear Christ, which suggests that she really didn't have any choice on her part.

Mary wasn’t saved out of sin, but rather saved from sin. The rest of us have been delivered out of original and actual sin, while Mary was preserved from it. Her salvation was God’s gracious gift through the merits of her Son.

I find it interesting that some Christians who believe in Calvanistic or Armenism can deal with the fact that God knows who will accept him ahead of time but they don’t agree that God knew Mary was going to say yes. Arguing instead that it doesn’t give Mary free will.

  **All this is secondary compared to the call of Christ to follow him,** to love God and one another, to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and encourage those who are battling to keep afloat as the storms of life rage around them.

I can’t do both? That’s like saying I can’t love my parents and my spouse.

 

[Janet1983]

Do you not think that Jesus would have done so for his beloved mother?

There is no mentioning of that in Scripture. Had there been such a glorious event as the assumption of Mary it would have been included in Acts.

Mary was set apart by her parents when she was a child.

And where does it say that in the Bible? As far as I know her parents are not even mentioned.

Mary wasn’t saved out of sin, but rather saved from sin. The rest of us have been delivered out of original and actual sin, while Mary was preserved from it. Her salvation was God’s gracious gift through the merits of her Son.

It is neither necessary nor practical for her to be sinless. Jesus Christ was tempted in all things, but He remained sinless. Why should that exclude His childhood? Even though He was born to normal earthly parents He remained sinless . He is the only one who ever did. He is the one who knew no sin (as described in 2 Corinthians 5:21).

 

[Cat_Herder]

(Part 1 of 2)

The real problem for those wrestling with Mariology is that the emphasis on Mary] seems to have gone too far.

According to who? What authority does this person have?

But it simply seems that she was increasingly elevated in the early centuries to a level that is neither justified by scripture or found among the first Christians.

The first prayer composed to her, the Sub Tuum Praesidium, is from 250 AD.

Apart from the virgin birth, the other major Catholic doctrines re Mary appear to come from tradition and papal fiats.

You have been misinformed.

Certainly there is nothing in the Bible that provides evidence that she was conceived and born other than the rest of humankind, there is no evidence that she lived a sinless life, and there is no indication of the miraculous assumption upon her death.

There is ample scriptural evidence for all of the above.

There is the suggestion that she married Joseph and that they may have had other children. See especially, of course, Matt. 1:25.

“Until” does not imply a later change in state.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]

It would be ridiculous to insinuate that because it says “until,” Jesus’s reign will come to an end after He has finished dealing with His enemies.

** Personally, why shouldn’t Mary and Joseph lived fully as husband and wife**, enjoying the intimate life that helpd bond normal couples?

Joseph could have been another Uzzah. 2 Samuel 6:6.

** In addition, the only two references to Mary** between the trip to Jerusalem (when Jesus was 12, can actually seem to an objective readers as dismissive of Mary. See Matt, 12:46-50 and John 2:4.

If you’re right, then Jesus violated the Fourth Commandment (“Honor thy father and thy mother”), He could not die for our sins, and we’re all done for. Thankfully, the Bible says in no uncertain terms that Jesus honored His Mother and otherwise was without sin. You are thus forced to change your position at the behest of Holy Writ.

** You also cannot find any reference to Mary** in all the epistles of the great evangelist St. Paul.

As Paul himself said, you must not rank his writings above the other Scriptures.
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

** There have been countless apparitions of Mary** that continue until this day, most of which have not been officially validated by the church, suggesting that a good deal of superstition, false visions, or deliberate deception may have been involved in many of them.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

This, to me, casts a shadow over all of them. And some of them are absolutely wild, such as the assertion that Mary and the Infant Jesus were seen by shephards on the roof of their Nazareth home when it was transported by angels in about 1300 AD from the Holy Land to Loreto, Italy! It’s such stories as these that tend to create doubt when it come to Mariology as it is practiced among some devout and well-intentioned Catholics.

I’ll tell you what’s even more wild: Some carpenter’s son from Jerusalem getting crucified and then busting out of His tomb three days later.

Christianity is a religion of miracles. I’m sorry that your life is devoid of them.

There is no hostility toward Mary except perhaps among some atheists and perhaps other non-Christians.

As I have said, Mary is a person. Calling Her a sinner is wrong and when it is done by someone who knows or should know better, then it is hostility. Whether you are hostile to the Blessed Virgin is not for me to judge, but as you have been pointed to the relevant Scriptures above, you are on notice.

Mary is honored by all Christians, and by Muslims as well, incidentally, but some Catholics have carried the matter from proper love and respect to what would appear to be an abject adoration that should be directed to God alone.

Judge not by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

(Continued…)

 

[Cat_Herder]

(Part 2 of 2)

**But, here’s my real point. Christianity should be broad enough to permit difference of opinion on such questions. **

According to the Bible, Christianity is not a broad faith.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 16:17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Philippians 2:22[/BIBLEDRB]

Catholics are given latitude to accept, reject or remain neutral when it comes to many of - for example - the apparitions of Mary.

No Catholic is required to accept any Marian apparition.

The Marian dogmas are a different question.

Catholicism would seem less medieval and more in line with reason and science if it permitted greater leeway when it comes to other questions re Mary.

Those wacky, superstitious medieval monks invented science, the university, the hospital; discovered electricity, germ theory, the Big Bang theory; etc.

Did she live a long life without commiting a single sin? I don’t know why Catholics are required to believe that.

Please review Genesis 3:15. The Woman and Her Seed are at the same enmity with the devil. If you need help figuring out who the Woman is, here’s a hint: Her Seed crushed the head of the devil on Calvary.

Did Her Seed ever sin? Did the Woman? How can you come to a different answer to those questions in light of Scripture?

What would be so outrageous if she was truly human and occasionally fell into error, perhaps not deliberately, as we all do?

The Bible expressly tells us that this is not Her style. She kept all things to Her heart.

Oh, by the way, Adam and Eve were completely human–and they were both immaculately conceived. Sin didn’t even exist when God formed them.

Oh, by the way, Jesus is fully human. And He didn’t sin.

If God kept her sinless, I rather assume he arranged for her to bear Christ, which suggests that she really didn’t have any choice on her part.

She had a free will like everyone else.

All this is secondary compared to the call of Christ to follow him, to love God and one another, to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and encourage those who are battling to keep afloat as the storms of life rage around them.

The Catholic Church is the world’s largest charity.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

There is no mentioning of that in Scripture. Had there been such a glorious event as the assumption of Mary it would have been included in Acts.

Really? Says who? The world according to Janet? I know…you don’t believe in tradition…

And where does it say that in the Bible? As far as I know her parents are not even mentioned.

Does that mean it’s not true? Go and read some of early history. Her parents names weren’t mentioned either…does that mean they didn’t have any?

It is neither necessary nor practical for her to be sinless. Jesus Christ was tempted in all things, but He remained sinless. Why should that exclude His childhood? Even though He was born to normal earthly parents He remained sinless . He is the only one who ever did. He is the one who knew no sin (as described in 2 Corinthians 5:21).

As someone already said…it is fitting that the Mother of God be sinless. It wasn’t necessary…Jesus would have been sinless anyway…but it was fitting. You don’t think that Jesus’s salvation was applied to Mary back in time? Well, what about revelation, with the resurrection of the dead…but then go and look at Matthew 27:52.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Re: Why the hostility toward Mary?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryTaylor
BTW I do think you have interesting take on all of this.

It is not my “interesting take” but that of Catholic apologists.

That the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary isn’t required by Catholics? I disagee totaly. And Canon Law and the ex-cathedra encycle and speech state otherwise.

Quote:
So we are on the same page this is required Catholic teaching right?

Yes.

Quote:
Next… Is the teaching Mary had to be sinless? Thus why a Virgin?

Well we sort of have a play on words here. Its where we are at, then let me explain. Definatly a Virgin and teaching is Mary Conceived without Sin.The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. Which is also the Canon Law. Also the verse from the Bible above coincides.

Now to take this even a step further which “isn’t” a Catholic teaching but non the less also coincides with this thinking. that is the Apocrypha. Here St Anne is steril, and Prays, Prenace, for years. Then through God she conceives without relation.

The second question does not follow the first. Being a virgin has nothing to do with her being sinless. There are lots of virgins who have sinned.

Yes heres the twist of Virgin after birth life without sin. No the Bible states no-where Mary did sin. Though should we both, considering all that is a sin, tyes this is very difficult. At this point I reserve judgement.

Mary did not HAVE to be sinless. It was FITTING that she was.

You mean after she bore Christ? Exactly

Quote:
yes God had to be born of a Virgin.

Indeed. It was to fulfill the OT prophesies, and to leave no doubt that God was the Father, and thus the Son was Divine.

Thats is the thinking. And as I was saying there are a few theories. I read them but don’t feed much into any.

Quote:
Now lets look at this, God being God and aside from whats stated in the Bible. Could he came to earth through a women conceived as you and I?

Absolutely he could have.

Quote:
Maybe he can maybe he can’t if we think about the old testament said and the Ark.

Then if he “can’t” then he is not OMNIPOTENT.

Oh without a doubt Omnipotent. My think is abstract here. The verse from Exodus; pure Gold within and without and a Crowm of Gold roundabout.In referrence to the Ark. And then the Bible with Mary, and then the Apocypha. This is what makes me wonder that though he is Omnipotent, if there is something we just don’t know, actually I"m postive thers much we don’t know concerning God. And also when it comes to seeing God. We know that the Bible states; “No man can look upon me. thus they shall die”. I’ve heard many good debates about this also. Here I fall back on that OT verse though.

Quote:
Mary born of a Sinself vessel?

Well if St Anne had conceived Mary as we all were conceived through two biological parents. Then this would be correct. But alas she didn’t so Mary wasn’t conceived with sin which relates back to the ex-cathedra letter and speech of the 1850’s and Canon Law etc

What do you mean here?

With Gods intervention

Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb in the normal way, through marital relations. But from the moment of her conception she was sinless.

Conceived in her mothers womb, yes, not through normal relations, well if God is though normal relations with Immaculate Conception than yes. St Anne was steril and couldn’t conceive. Her conceiving was a result or prayer. penance, devotion to God and a result of God.

Now, if you believe that sinlessness cannot be in the presence of sin (as you have stated is the reason why Mary HAD to be sinless, otherwise it means Jesus couldn’t enter), then how could Mary be in the presence of her mom’s sinful womb???

This answer I arrived at above. Yet through Gods interevention with Anne this is without doubt possible. What I do wonder is what other readings were actually used to come to these conclusions in Cathollic Doctrine. I know the Apocrypha reads as I stated. But I don’t knwon if in fact this is what was used in just relation to the Bible or if theres something else I haven’t read.

You must then claim that Mary’s mother was also sinless. And then you have to claim that her mother was also sinless. And then you have to claim that …

I hear you but again its the teaching from above which again isn’t clear in the Bible.

So if you believe that Mary HAD to be sinless, rather than it was FITTING that she be sinless, then you have to explain the above.

Yes were looking at this two different ways. If in fact we look at the Bible alone. It doesn’t state tothe contrary or either way. What I also have a concern about is the accuracy of the Apocrypha. But yet there has to be this here or something more we arn’t aware of.

Janet, I hear what your saying. I’m not even sure if this is strickly followed in catholic catechism or teaching now.

God Bless, Gary
Today 3:52 pm

 

[pismopal]

There is no mentioning of that in Scripture. Had there been such a glorious event as the assumption of Mary it would have been included in Acts.

And where does it say that in the Bible? As far as I know her parents are not even mentioned.

It is neither necessary nor practical for her to be sinless. Jesus Christ was tempted in all things, but He remained sinless. Why should that exclude His childhood? Even though He was born to normal earthly parents He remained sinless . He is the only one who ever did. He is the one who knew no sin (as described in 2 Corinthians 5:21).

There are many things that occurred that were not included in the Bible …this is mentioned in the Bible…I did not make that up. Although I am not a scholar…I understand that Mary’s assumption into heaven was not the first…or not without precedent. Christ broke precedent more than once…why not for His Mother?

The Bible is considered by many to be a handbook for salvation of sinners who are still on the earth. It is not( I think obviously…maybe not for you) a chronological listing of all events…such as a log at a police command post.

Mentally ill people are not sinners…so there goes your all inclusive list…unless you think someone who does not know better is sinful. We know that most humans besides Christ are sinful but we follow the Tradition that His Mother was not and if we are wrong…then we err on the side of Christ’s mother and you assume the worst of her without cause. I am very comfortable on the Catholic side…how about you?

 

[Janet1983]

Really? Says who? The world according to Janet? I know…you don’t believe in tradition…

You can mock me if you wish. I will not hold it against you.
It does however not change the fact that I don’t believe in the IC, in Mary being sinless, nor in the assumption of Mary.
Mary is only mentioned in Acts 1. I do believe that she was with the believers (as she lived with the disciple Jesus loved). It would have been mentioned if she had been taken up to heaven. Instead we don’t hear anything else about her in Acts…
Instead we see that there was doubt about the assumption even when it was proclaimed in the 4th century. In 377 Epiphanius lived near Palestine and he would have affirmed it if there had been a tradition in the Church regarding the assumption of Mary. Instead he wrote that nobody knows her end…
Epiphanius of Salamis:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40)

Here is what you find in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)

It is not at all obvious what happened to her. It is clear that there is no reference to what happened in Scripture and all we have is the knowledge of the mystery via tradition?
That is certainly not making me believe otherwise.

Does that mean it’s not true? Go and read some of early history. Her parents names weren’t mentioned either…does that mean they didn’t have any?

It means that we do not know what the names of her parents were and we do not have a reliable source of information about her infancy, childhood and youth up until the time that she was betrothed to Joseph and visited by the angel.

As someone already said…it is fitting that the Mother of God be sinless. It wasn’t necessary…Jesus would have been sinless anyway…but it was fitting. You don’t think that Jesus’s salvation was applied to Mary back in time? Well, what about revelation, with the resurrection of the dead…but then go and look at Matthew 27:52.

I do believe that Jesus’s salvation was applied to Mary, but I do not believe that this was done at the moment of her conception. She did not have to be sinless and I don’t see how her being sinless would be fitting either.

 

[Janet1983]

I am very comfortable on the Catholic side…how about you?

I am very comfortable on the Protestant side. Thank you.
I do not believe that I am doing myself a disservice or that I am insulting my Lord, by not believing that Mary was immaculately conceived, lived a sinless life or experienced an assumption.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Janet,

I don’t know and can’t say for “positive” what is taught in Catholic Catechism or Catholic School today. I went to Catholic School pre V-II. The Holy Days are as I stated with Dec 8th being the Immaculate Conception and it most definatly is a Mortal or Grievous Sin not to attend the Holy Day Mass’s. I have it in writting now as we speak from school in the early 60’s.

We have a loose, fast teaching today, be careful what you believe as fact. I go to Mass weekly and confession often. So I don’t have to fall back on what one can or can’t do.

The Father at my Parish just spoke on weekly Sunday Mass attendence at church Sat NIght. The idea is to receive weekly blessing from Christ. And to thank Christ for the past weekly Blessing received.

Listen, I’m not here to condemn your belief or faith. Merely point out what I was taught Pre-V-II. If there has been a change in anything I typed. I haven’t heard about it. I don’t doubt there are many different teaching today though. Though I don’t believe anything changed.

I “think” I may have misunderstood what PR was talking about with Mary. I assume he’s referring to Mary remaining sinless through life is not required. I don’t dwell on this. Whats the point? Mary was seriously, seriously Blessed by God. I have not a doubt in my mind she remained sinless through life. The Bible doesn’t state Mary did have any sin. Very much on the contrary. Though at this point specifically I agee that its not required Catholic teaching. Its fitting and I do believe it. As a said, I reserve judgement here. Who am I to judge Mary or anyone for that matter? I’m a simple human being as we all are. And this is the Holy family we are talkimg about. I believe in time we’ll fully come to understand Marys reality though.

Gary

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You can mock me if you wish. I will not hold it against you.
It does however not change the fact that I don’t believe in the IC, in Mary being sinless, nor in the assumption of Mary.
Mary is only mentioned in Acts 1. I do believe that she was with the believers (as she lived with the disciple Jesus loved). It would have been mentioned if she had been taken up to heaven. Instead we don’t hear anything else about her in Acts…
Instead we see that there was doubt about the assumption even when it was proclaimed in the 4th century. In 377 Epiphanius lived near Palestine and he would have affirmed it if there had been a tradition in the Church regarding the assumption of Mary. Instead he wrote that nobody knows her end…

Here is what you find in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is not at all obvious what happened to her. It is clear that there is no reference to what happened in Scripture and all we have is the knowledge of the mystery via tradition?
That is certainly not making me believe otherwise.

It means that we do not know what the names of her parents were and we do not have a reliable source of information about her infancy, childhood and youth up until the time that she was betrothed to Joseph and visited by the angel.

I do believe that Jesus’s salvation was applied to Mary, but I do not believe that this was done at the moment of her conception. She did not have to be sinless and I don’t see how her being sinless would be fitting either.

I’m not mocking you…I’m just saying that just because YOU say it would be in Acts doesn’t make it so. But we do know who the names of her parents were. That’s my whole point. Too bad for you that you don’t see how her being sinless would be fitting…but that doesn’t mean that the Catholic position of it being fitting is wrong.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I am very comfortable on the Protestant side. Thank you.
I do not believe that I am doing myself a disservice or that I am insulting my Lord, by not believing that Mary was immaculately conceived, lived a sinless life or experienced an assumption.

But do you call her blessed?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism. It was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

Now we conclude that Catholic teaching is…NO Stain, NO Sin. not just Virgin. The Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The only point of contention I see in Catholic teaching is if indeed Mary remained sinless through life. Which I posted on already.

As I stated if there is a Cathoic teaching other than this? I’d love to see it. I’ll wait while someone finds it.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet,

I don’t know and can’t say for “positive” what is taught in Catholic Catechism or Catholic School today. I went to Catholic School pre V-II. The Holy Days are as I stated with Dec 8th being the Immaculate Conception and it most definatly is a Mortal or Grievous Sin not to attend the Holy Day Mass’s. I have it in writting now as we speak from school in the early 60’s.

We have a loose, fast teaching today, be careful what you believe as fact. I go to Mass weekly and confession often. So I don’t have to fall back on what one can or can’t do.

The Father at my Parish just spoke on weekly Sunday Mass attendence at church Sat NIght. The idea is to receive weekly blessing from Christ. And to thank Christ for the past weekly Blessing received.

Listen, I’m not here to condemn your belief or faith. Merely point out what I was taught Pre-V-II. If there has been a change in anything I typed. I haven’t heard about it. I don’t doubt there are many different teaching today though. Though I don’t believe anything changed.

If there is one thing I am not absolutely familiar with (unless I research for a detail) then it is things that were before the Vaticanum. In my time as a Catholic I did not miss any Mass (to my father’s dismay sometimes), so I am sure that I did attend Mass.
From what I have learned however (and from what I have researched concerning the specifics for the US) the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic Church till today. The present list of these days was established in 1917 (Codex Iuris Canonici canon 1247).

By the way… I didn’t think that you were trying to condemn my faith in this, but I am certainly thankful that you mentioned it.

I “think” I may have misunderstood what PR was talking about with Mary. I assume he’s referring to Mary remaining sinless through life is not required. I don’t dwell on this. Whats the point? Mary was seriously, seriously Blessed by God. I have not a doubt in my mind she remained sinless through life. The Bible doesn’t state Mary did have any sin. Very much on the contrary. Though at this point specifically I agee that its not required Catholic teaching. Its fitting and I do believe it. As a said, I reserve judgement here. Who am I to judge Mary or anyone for that matter? I’m a simple human being as we all are. And this is the Holy family we are talkimg about. I believe in time we’ll fully come to understand Marys reality though.

Gary

I agree that the Bible does not state that Mary had any sin and it does not state that she was sinless. I don’t believe that my unbelief concerning her IC, her sinless life or her assumption do in any way affect my salvation.

 

[Janet1983]

But do you call her blessed?

Yes, of course I call her blessed. Who wouldn’t?
She bore Jesus Christ, what need I say more?
She definitely was blessed among women and Mary rightly stated that all generations would regard her as blessed.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, of course I call her blessed.

Then why wouldn’t you pray the Hail Mary?

 

[Janet1983]

Then why wouldn’t you pray the Hail Mary?

Why should I pray the HM?