J
Janet1983
Guest
Oh. I’m sorry. I did not see either of those, even though I roam outside of the non-Catholic religions forum once in a while. I will certainly have a look at them.
Thank you for telling me.
- Status
Thank you for telling me.
P
PRmerger
Guest
J
Janet1983
Guest
I didn’t even need the link… I know this hymn, though I did learn it in German. It was actually a nun who taught it to me…
As far as I know however this Marian antiphon doesn’t date further back than the 3rd century (or 4th depending on who you are talking to).
BTW… This and other Marian antiphons can also be found in the breviary I used to use…
J
Janet1983
Guest
That one is closed, but I will still have a look at it… just not now as I need to get some sleep.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
"Hold fast to the traditions that we have taught you, both by word of mouth and by letter.” -2 Thess. 2:15
D
dianaiad
Guest
No, actually, I’m not. Although since you bring them up, ok…
That’s interesting. Not who I was talking about, specifically, but it’s interesting!
Actually, as far as I’m aware there is no specific requirement for a pastor of the FLDS to marry only a virgin…
Again, all that is interesting, but…I wasn’t speaking of these folks. Rather, I was referring to my own beliefs. I am not a Trinitarian (Mormons aren’t, y’know…) but we are quite aware that Jesus is God. God the Father, Jesus Christ, His Son and the Holy Ghost make up the Godhead; each fully God, but absolutely separate Persons, sharing only their purpose, and that thing…“God.” We do not believe that they share a ‘substance,’ being completely separate one from the other.
As you can see, there are more than one way to deal with this issue, and yes, it is perfectly possible to consider that Jesus Christ is divine without being Trinitarian.
Learning new things is always good; thank you for your information.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Nope, I wasn’t referring to anything specific that you wrote, at all. In fact, I didn’t remember (if I had actually read) that you had done so. (sigh) I was simply sharing my own linguistic quirk, since you shared yours. I will admit that I’m a little anal about using ‘Hypothetical’ as a noun–it got so pounded into me way back during the OJ murder trial that it became fingernails-on-the-chalkboard annoying. It just felt so…pretentious. Legalize gone steroidal. Drove me nuts–rather like the word ‘gravitas’ did a few years ago. Over used, and used incorrectly.
It was, in fact, simply a joke. I had no idea that you had actually USED it as a noun. Now that I know this, well…
awkward.
E
elvisman
Guest
Thank you for making my point about the different applications of "full of grace".
And your point was . . .
R
rinnie
Guest
What does the teaching of Jesus Christ have to do with you submitting to the Pope?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Return to the subject of the OP please
R
rinnie
Guest
I agree. We know Jesus and the Blessed Mother for sure were free from sin. And I am wondering what about John the Baptist. Because here is why I think so. In the scripture it says when Elizabeth conceives him, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even in the womb. And he would have the power of Elijah to turn the heart of the fathers towards children and te disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.I know Mary was sinless because it’s part of the Teaching of the Apostles. And it has been ever since the beginning.
If you mean “where is it written in the Bible”, then you’ll have to show me where it says in Scriptuer that all of God’s revelation has to be written. Chapter and verse, please.
Otherwise, if you cannot show me that verse (and, of course, you cannot) then I won’t indulge your question, for it’s nonsensical. (Tribute to you, diana!)
I’d like a verse for that, too, BW. “Only Jesus was sinless” or “the only sinless person was the Son of God” would be good. Chapter and verse, too, please (with emphasis on the “only”, 'kay?)
Now I don’t think we can say that he was born without original sin, because the scripture does not say he was filled with the Holy Spirit at the moment of his conception like the Blessed Mother, but it does say he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. So I feel we could for sure say he lived a sinless life. So I would say he was free from sin in this world for sure! Any thoughts??
R
rinnie
Guest
We also know that Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived also. Because God created them in the beginning without sin.
Now we know that because of Jesus the Blessed Mother was also saved from any kind of sin at the moment of her conception, simply because God picked her to be the Mother of Jesus.
Which is why she is called the New Eve as we talking about earlier. What the first Eve lost for us the New Eve the Blessed Mother gained back for us by her Sons death on the cross.
Now we know that because of Jesus the Blessed Mother was also saved from any kind of sin at the moment of her conception, simply because God picked her to be the Mother of Jesus.
Which is why she is called the New Eve as we talking about earlier. What the first Eve lost for us the New Eve the Blessed Mother gained back for us by her Sons death on the cross.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This is another excellent point. And also most definately scripture. I’m also begining to realize that the reverence for the John the Baptist is very deep in the Orthodox Church.
And also believe PR brings up very interesting points. And I do understand her thinking. And she is 100% right with wording being of utmost importance.
The thought that continued to go around and around in my head is “fitting but not required”. I was also thinking about this in the broader spectrum of belief systems and the BIble itself. Getting ahead of myself.
And oh I can hard-headed, yet I’m happily hard-headed in faith.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
You seem to be ignoring the fact shown clearly by the statements “feminine of charitoo” and “Third Person Singular of” signifying that they are breaking down the word. Greek was a building language that used prefixes and suffixes extensively to modify words, such as kecharitomene having modified charitoo. See elvis’s post above.
The two mean DRASTICALLY different things despite having the same root, somewhat akin to awesome and awful both having awe as the root word but having been modified meaning two different concepts.
lol, I dislike generalizations as well, but am sometimes required to use them for the sake of brevity.
Point of order, Adam and Eve were not immaculately conceived since no conception occurred (neither had a belly button apparently
). They were created sinless.The problem, as I see it, some people have with our prayer to Mary and the saints is a poor understanding of the words prayer and worship. There exists more than one use for each word as was very clearly shown above. I attribute much of this problem to English being such an inexact and, arguably, “dirty” language, in addition to the inculcation by many protestant sects that each has but one meaning and can have but one direction, toward God.
A similar analogy would be (I am assuming here so correct me if I am wrong) the Mormon view that baptism may be applied to anyone, on earth or in heaven, since God is the God of the living. They feel that since heaven is another stage of life it is permissible to baptize in someone elses name that they might attain a higher place in the heavenly kingdom.
I assume that they look at us on this issue like we look at protestants on the prayer issue…
But to bring this up again, there is no biblical assertion that it is improper to ask the dead to pray for the living so long as one is not asking them to do something earthly under their own power. That would be necromancy. There is also no biblical assertion of which books are inspired, whether the word of God is expressed only in written form, and whether the scriptures only contain truth and nothing/nobody else can teach the word of God without having it be explicit in the written word.
Unless someone can show me where the bible addresses any of those things above, I will hold to my Catholic Faith and trust in the three legs of the Church, the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.
FSC
P
PRmerger
Guest
shaw:Yes! That Mary was immaculately conceived is a Truth that ought not be denied. But when we provide apologia for it, we must be clear in saying that it was not a NECESSARY grace given to Mary (in order for Jesus to enter her womb), but a FITTING grace.
R
rikkk1958
Guest
I admire those who defends the Church on Marian Doctrine. It seems that some Catholics still have doubts. I never doubt because I for one was taught that it is our faith, more so happens to believe more every time I looked and study about the subject.
The discussions were centered mostly about sin, and I think we have to define what is “Sin”. We know that sin comes in only when a person is to have reached the age of reason for an infant child is sinless. If we apply sin to Mary because of her flesh, then Jesus will inherit sin because He is half human and half God. The scripture tells us that Jesus is sinless therefore Mary has no sin.
We have to go back to the time of creation when God created Adam and Eve. They were sinless, but because of their disobedience they committed the original sin, so God gave them the knowledge and free will. This is parallel to the second Eve who is Mary, the Ark of the new Covenant (Jesus) who carried in her womb the most precious Being. She was conceived in the womb of her mother Saint Anne, but during that conception, she was freed from original sin. Mary was saved even before she gets into full reason.
We have to note that the “Hail, full of grace” was only pronounced to Mary. This is different than the one used to Stephen which is “filled with grace and power”. The greek word “kecharitomene” means full of grace 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.
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The discussions were centered mostly about sin, and I think we have to define what is “Sin”. We know that sin comes in only when a person is to have reached the age of reason for an infant child is sinless. If we apply sin to Mary because of her flesh, then Jesus will inherit sin because He is half human and half God. The scripture tells us that Jesus is sinless therefore Mary has no sin.
We have to go back to the time of creation when God created Adam and Eve. They were sinless, but because of their disobedience they committed the original sin, so God gave them the knowledge and free will. This is parallel to the second Eve who is Mary, the Ark of the new Covenant (Jesus) who carried in her womb the most precious Being. She was conceived in the womb of her mother Saint Anne, but during that conception, she was freed from original sin. Mary was saved even before she gets into full reason.
We have to note that the “Hail, full of grace” was only pronounced to Mary. This is different than the one used to Stephen which is “filled with grace and power”. The greek word “kecharitomene” means full of grace 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.
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
J
Janet1983
Guest
All of this is directly related to my beliefs about Mary.What does the teaching of Jesus Christ have to do with you submitting to the Pope?
I am not hostile towards her (in no way), but I do not share the same belief the Catholic Church does.
The Church demands not only the acknowledgement of their role within Christianity and thereby their teachings and it also demands that I submit to the pope.
The fact that the Church declares, pronounces and defines something is not a basis upon which I ground my faith. Therefore it is a matter of authority. If I would submit to the pope, I would also follow these teachings that have been proclaimed about Mary. I do not however submit to such authority.
My faith in Jesus Christ however is apart from the teachings of the Catholic Church. You may or may not believe that there is such a thing as faith in Christ and submission to the Lord outside the Church as well, but to my knowledge there is.
This may make my perception of Mary a different one, as I do not follow the same authority as you do, but it does not make me or any ex-Catholic, lapsed Catholic or cradle Protestant anti-Mary… on the contrary.
I (and I know I am not alone in that) for my part follow the Bible and I do call her blessed. There is no doubt about her being blessed.
As a matter of fact she has received one of the greatest blessings one can receive. This however doesn’t make her the IC, sinless and it does not account for her assumption. All it actually does show is the glory and the mercy of the Lord whom we are all serving.
I might be misunderstanding you, but I was under the impression that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God, not half man and half God…
There is no necessity for Mary being sinless however. Why? Well if God can create a sinless person (and that is what you assume) from sinful parents, then why wouldn’t Jesus be sinless? It is the same logic. If you follow your logic through Mary’s parents would have had to be sinless as well and their parents before them.
There is no logical necessity for Mary being sinless.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. It was not logically necessary, but it was fitting.
Just like God made a fitting, perfect, beautiful vessel in the OT for His Divine Presence among the Israelites.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 50:4-7[/BIBLEDRB]
B
Born_Warrior
Guest
- Status