|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 3/17/2008 1:26:10 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Lurker
Okay you found a verse. Good man may I say so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 6/27/2008 5:40:51 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 90
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Genesis 3:14-15 enmity between Mary and Satan. Enmity means hostility between enemies (hatred). If you sin than aren’t you taking Satan’s side. If god put enmity between mary and satan then how can you say that she ever sinned. You will here in response to this Romans 3:9-12; Paul is quoting the old testament, as it is written. (No one does good not even one). Romans 3:23, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore Mary had to have sinned, really? Paul is quoting from the old testament in Rom 3:23; Psalms 14:1-5 “ there is none that does good, no not one” There are evil doers who do not good, and then there are the righteous. Only talking about those evil doers, if it was talking about all people then how could it talk about the generation of the righteous a verse later? If all have gone wrong then there are no righteous. Talking about the burden of original sin and not all men sinning, exceptions are made for infants and young children because we know that they have not actually committed a sin. Luke 1:6, john’s parents were walking with all righteousness and were blameless, how would this fit with all men have sinned? Luke 1:15 John the Baptist was filled with the holy spirit even from his mothers womb, Can one who is filled with the holy spirit their entire life, even before he is born commit sin? Luke 1:28 “Hail full of Grace,” Mary is full of grace even before she was pregnant. Luke 1:37 for with god nothing is impossible. Are there others in the bible who were without sin?
Revelation 14:3-5; “In their mouth no lie was found for they are spotless.”
Romans 6; if the wage of sin is death; then Enoch and Elijah must not have ever sinned because they never died. Enoch , Hebrew 11:5, never died, relates to Genesis 5:24. Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind, 2 Kings 2:11. Paul could not have been talking about all men without exception.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 6/28/2008 1:22:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Genesis 3:14-15 enmity between Mary and Satan. Enmity means hostility between enemies (hatred). If you sin than aren’t you taking Satan’s side. If god put enmity between mary and satan then how can you say that she ever sinned. First and foremost because God said ALL have sinned. Second, the "woman" could just as easily be understood to be a picture of the church or mankind since Christ came from both. And, third, enmity/hostility does not mean "never sinned".
Besides, by the grace of God, all believers are victorious over sin and Satan yet still sin can be found in their lives. So your point that for "enmity" to be seen between two parties, one must be free from sin has no validity.
quote:
You will here in response to this Romans 3:9-12; Paul is quoting the old testament, as it is written. (No one does good not even one). Romans 3:23, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore Mary had to have sinned, really? Yes, really.
quote:
Paul is quoting from the old testament in Rom 3:23; Psalms 14:1-5 “ there is none that does good, no not one” There are evil doers who do not good, and then there are the righteous. Only talking about those evil doers, if it was talking about all people then how could it talk about the generation of the righteous a verse later? The "righteous" are seen to be those believers who will "seek him" in Psalm 24:6; and, Mary was certainly one of those. But, this does not negate the fact she had sin in her life, only that she was righteous as all believers are righteous but only through the righteousness of Christ.
quote:
If all have gone wrong then there are no righteous. Precisely what God says UNLESS we are in Christ.
quote:
Luke 1:6, john’s parents were walking with all righteousness and were blameless, how would this fit with all men have sinned? It fits perfectly because they were believers, they had been saved by the grace of God, they walked in obedience to God. Is RC now actually proposing that Zacharias and Elisabeth were also without sin?
quote:
Luke 1:15 John the Baptist was filled with the holy spirit even from his mothers womb, Can one who is filled with the holy spirit their entire life, even before he is born commit sin? Of course he not only can, but did. I'm amazed at your theology. ALL believers are filled with the Holy Spirit when they become saved; and, John was saved "from his mother's womb". Still, believers will commit sin, Scripture is clear on this.
quote:
Luke 1:28 “Hail full of Grace,” Mary is full of grace even before she was pregnant. Mary was a redeemed child of God and God was honoring her beyond all women – therefore, whe was “highly favored” to be chosen to be the mother of the Messiah so obviously this honor was told to her prior to conception. Not sure what this is supposed to prove, though.
quote:
Luke 1:37 for with god nothing is impossible. Are there others in the bible who were without sin? While, nothing is impossible for God, this was said in reference to the fact that Elisabeth was past child-bearing years yet she would conceive a son. There are no “others” in the Bible who were without sin – hopefully you are not classifying the God of this universe as simply some type of mere "exception"?
quote:
Revelation 14:3-5; “In their mouth no lie was found for they are spotless.” That is the condition of every child of God. Believers are without fault before the Father because of Christ’s substitutionary payment of their sins…and because He continues to perform His High-Priestly duties as Advocate for believers.
quote:
Romans 6; if the wage of sin is death; then Enoch and Elijah must not have ever sinned because they never died. Enoch , Hebrew 11:5, never died, relates to Genesis 5:24. Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind, 2 Kings 2:11. Paul could not have been talking about all men without exception.
Physical death is not the payment for sin – spiritual death is. Therefore, your points have no scriptural validity and Paul meant exactly what he said ”no, not one”
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 6/30/2008 3:06:49 AM
|
|
|
101
Posts: 18
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline
|
It seems that I am comming late into this debate, But I thought I would put my 2 cents into it anyhow. The question of Mary's sinless nature can be understood as it stems from the question of Christ's sinless nature. Since Jesus was born of Mary, how then was Jesus to have no sin in him since all are born into sin in the first place?
To answer this question we could say that since the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and concieved the child in her, the immaculate conception created a child seperated from the curse. This could be true accept the child would also be seperated from man as well. There is another approach to answer the question of Christ's sinless nature and Mary's. And it based on science.
We know that when Adam and Eve sinned,it created a split in thier relationship with the creater. We also know that this split did not end with Adam and Eve but was carried over into their offspring. For that to have happened, the curse must be passed down through the line genitically. If the curse is passed through genitically, the question is; in what way is it passed?
We know that from the story Eve was suckered into breaking the rule by the serpent, whereas Adam was not. Therefor Adam broke the law delibrately. And that is why Adam is made responsible for sin comming into the world for Adams sin is the greater sin. It is therefore logical to assume that the curse would be passed though the genitic makeup of the man and not the woman. But in order to create offspring, the genitic make-up of both sexes must be incorporated into the child. Because of this, all humans have the sin gene in their dna or rna. But Jesus was born of Mary, he was not born of Joseph, therefor the sin gene was not passed onto him, It is my contention to state that; the sin gene lies in the sperm and not the egg. And I believe that God used Mary's egg to concieve Christ so that he would be tied to both humanity in a physical nature and to God in a Spiritual nature. This would explain how Jesus could be apart of man and yet be wholly God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 6/30/2008 3:40:32 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 101
It seems that I am comming late into this debate, But I thought I would put my 2 cents into it anyhow. The question of Mary's sinless nature can be understood as it stems from the question of Christ's sinless nature. Since Jesus was born of Mary, how then was Jesus to have no sin in him since all are born into sin in the first place?
To answer this question we could say that since the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and concieved the child in her, the immaculate conception created a child seperated from the curse. This could be true accept the child would also be seperated from man as well. There is another approach to answer the question of Christ's sinless nature and Mary's. And it based on science.
We know that when Adam and Eve sinned,it created a split in thier relationship with the creater. We also know that this split did not end with Adam and Eve but was carried over into their offspring. For that to have happened, the curse must be passed down through the line genitically. If the curse is passed through genitically, the question is; in what way is it passed?
We know that from the story Eve was suckered into breaking the rule by the serpent, whereas Adam was not. Therefor Adam broke the law delibrately. And that is why Adam is made responsible for sin comming into the world for Adams sin is the greater sin. It is therefore logical to assume that the curse would be passed though the genitic makeup of the man and not the woman. But in order to create offspring, the genitic make-up of both sexes must be incorporated into the child. Because of this, all humans have the sin gene in their dna or rna. But Jesus was born of Mary, he was not born of Joseph, therefor the sin gene was not passed onto him, It is my contention to state that; the sin gene lies in the sperm and not the egg. And I believe that God used Mary's egg to concieve Christ so that he would be tied to both humanity in a physical nature and to God in a Spiritual nature. This would explain how Jesus could be apart of man and yet be wholly God.
Sin is a spiritual problem - not a physical problem. Therefore, that would make DNA irrelevant to this issue.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/1/2008 5:33:20 AM
|
|
|
101
Posts: 18
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Continuously
Rom 5:12-15
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom 5:12-15
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom 7:14-25
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
NKJV
The battle of the mind over the will of the body is spiritual vs physical. For if the battle was just of a spiritual nature then the gift of the Holy Spirit would put an end to the temptation of the flesh. But that is not what happens for the battle between Spirit and flesh is an endless struggle with wins and losses on both sides. Therefore the sin must be imbedded into the body and it must be passed on through the offspring and that can only be done genetically, whereas the the power of the Spirit is imbedded in the heart of man or the soul of man which is spiritual in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/5/2008 4:06:01 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 10
The battle of the mind over the will of the body is spiritual vs physical. For if the battle was just of a spiritual nature then the gift of the Holy Spirit would put an end to the temptation of the flesh. I agree with you here.
quote:
Therefore the sin must be imbedded into the body and it must be passed on through the offspring and that can only be done genetically, whereas the the power of the Spirit is imbedded in the heart of man or the soul of man which is spiritual in nature. No, it is a matter of spirit in which DNA plays no part. Man is born with a spirit which is dead..in the day that you eat you will surely die.
Now, will this "dead" spirit effect what the physical man does?....yes, as you've proven from the verses you quoted.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/25/2008 3:14:16 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three. So being born sinless is not without Biblical precedent. Now, Adam and Eve sinned, though, obviously. But the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is, among other things, that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). My example of Adam and Eve and Jesus points out that this is not unheard of. Also, typologically, it makes sense, when you understand that Mary is the "New Eve". Death came to us by the old Adam and the old Eve; life comes to us by the New Adam and the New Eve.
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, "Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience" (ibid., 5.19.1).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312sbs.asp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/26/2008 5:31:30 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three. Huh?..."there's three" Don't you realize Jesus Christ is God Almighty, the Creator of this universe and all within it? You cannot lump the God of the Universe with His creature....and, Scripture will not allow you to!
RC portrays Jesus Christ to be nothing more than some type of mere "exception". This is simply an attempt at using the Lord Jesus Christ as leverage for a RC unbiblical doctrine.
quote:
So being born sinless is not without Biblical precedent. Adam and Eve were NOT born. You have no biblcal precedent for what was, is and always will be a doctrine that flies in the face of God Himself. As wrong as it is, to use Adam and Eve as a propaganda tool it is at least somewhat more palatble than when using Jesus Christ as such.
quote:
Also, typologically, it makes sense, when you understand that Mary is the "New Eve". She is no such thing. That is simply RC propaganda. If that title could be said of anyone it would be Sarah for she is called "the mother of us all". You can find this in the biblical allegory of Mat 4. Where in the Bible can we find the "typology" of Mary being the new Eve?
quote:
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation.
The views of the ECF vary so. Augustine, was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin but not original sin. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception. Augustine's view held for a considerable period of time; yet, the views of Pelagius the heretic eventually prevailed.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/26/2008 7:30:41 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three.
Huh?..."there's three" Don't you realize Jesus Christ is God Almighty, the Creator of this universe and all within it?
Really? Duuuhhh, I didn't know that. <<roles eyes>>
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
RC portrays Jesus Christ to be nothing more than some type of mere "exception"...
Maybe the RC up in your head does, but the Catholic Church does not. However in the context of what I was saying (if you had bothered to actually read it) was that "All" have not sinned.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
So being born sinless is not without Biblical precedent.
Adam and Eve were NOT born....
Okay, created. Is that better? "So being created sinless is not without Biblical precedent."
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Also, typologically, it makes sense, when you understand that Mary is the "New Eve".
She is no such thing. That is simply RC propaganda... ...Where in the Bible can we find the "typology" of Mary being the new Eve?
So first you say its "propoganda" and then you want to know where it is in the Bible. Talk about asking a question that you don't really an answer to!! Typical. I suggest you learn what typology actually is. Mary is the New Eve.
Because of Eve’s disobedience to God and Adam’s cooperation with her, they lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Like Eve, Mary was created full of grace. But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God, just as Christ, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God. In cooperation with God, Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she became Mother of the redeemed as well.
The phrase "New Eve" or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ’s becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation.
.....Augustine, was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin but not original sin. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception......
LOL !!! Did you read what you wrote? You wrote that Augustine "taught the sinless birth and life of Mary" right after you said that he "was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin but not original sin." You read what you write about as good as you read your Bible. LOL!! And this: "...He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception." What do you think the Immaculate Conception is anyway? Its "the sinless birth and life of Mary" which you just said that Augustine taught. LOL!!
Augustine:
"Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).
"That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head" (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).
"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/28/2008 6:11:18 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Adam and Eve were created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. There's three.
Huh?..."there's three" Don't you realize Jesus Christ is God Almighty, the Creator of this universe and all within it?
Really? Duuuhhh, I didn't know that. <<roles eyes>> Then why attempt to parallel the sinless perfection of the God of the Universe with that of man?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
RC portrays Jesus Christ to be nothing more than some type of mere "exception"...
Maybe the RC up in your head does, but the Catholic Church does not. However in the context of what I was saying (if you had bothered to actually read it) was that "All" have not sinned. The RC teaches, contrary to Scripture, that since Jesus Christ is an "exception" to the ALL have sinned therefore they can legitimately elevate Mary to the same status as God in effect creating a fourth person of the Godhead. RC fails to give the glory to Christ that God demands be given - Christ in His incarnation is the ONLY sinless one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
quote:
So being born sinless is not without Biblical precedent.
Adam and Eve were NOT born....
Okay, created. Is that better? "So being created sinless is not without Biblical precedent." It most certainly is without any biblical precedent. God and God alone, in His incarnation, is the only sinless one - that is what God says.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
quote:
Also, typologically, it makes sense, when you understand that Mary is the "New Eve".
She is no such thing. That is simply RC propaganda... ...Where in the Bible can we find the "typology" of Mary being the new Eve? So first you say its "propoganda" and then you want to know where it is in the Bible. Talk about asking a question that you don't really an answer to!! Typical. I suggest you learn what typology actually is. Mary is the New Eve. I say it's propaganda because that is precisely what it is. And since you are attempting to prove it by Scripture, I ask WHERE it is. If you make assertions then at least attempt to prove them otherwise they remain simply your unsupported personal opinions.
quote:
Because of Eve’s disobedience to God and Adam’s cooperation with her, they lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Like Eve, Mary was created full of grace. That is simply an RC doctrine and one without a scintilla of scriptural evidence.
quote:
But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God, just as Christ, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God. In cooperation with God, Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she became Mother of the redeemed as well. Poppycock, balderdash, hogwash and rubbish - absolute senseless statements. These are made-up RC doctrines - nothing more. You have no support that Mary was sinless - none whatsoever. Rather, we have scriptural evidence to the contrary. Just as serious abandoning of Scripture will do - lead into evermore error. Now Mary is claimed to be what Jesus Christ alone is Redeemer. Plenty of RC precedent for this newer claim.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
quote:
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation.
.....Augustine, was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin but not original sin. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception......
LOL !!! Did you read what you wrote? You wrote that Augustine "taught the sinless birth and life of Mary" right after you said that he "was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin but not original sin." You read what you write about as good as you read your Bible. LOL!! Though, I hate to spoil your fun, do allow me to correct the second sentence typed in haste. As I said Augustine was willing to exempt Mary from actual sin, iow, she did not commit sin during her life. But, he was UNWILLING to excempt her from original sin.
quote:
And this: "...He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception." What do you think the Immaculate Conception is anyway? Its "the sinless birth and life of Mary" which you just said that Augustine taught. LOL!! Perhaps you were laughing so much you missed your very real error so I took the liberty of enlarging and bolding it for you. The "immaculate conception" does NOT teach the sinless life of Mary - it teaches her sinless birth. So, can we assume from your error that you are unaware of RC teaching?
As usual, your response answers nothing. The fact remains Augustine was unwilling to excempt Mary from original sin which means he denied the "immaculate conception". And, to him can be added many including popes.
Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)
“If the Scriptures be duly considered, and the saying of the doctors ancient and modern, who have been most devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is plain from their words that she was conceived in sin,” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Loc TheoI. parts c. 2.)
“For he (Christ) alone was truly born holy” (Gregory the Great Bened. Edit. page 598.
“ It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.” (Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2
In addition, when the immaculate conception was first presented in the year 1140 it was opposed by Bernard of Clairvaux also Thomas Aquinas adamantly taught Mary was a sinner. This is something the RC needs to deal with; but, of course, never will.
Another interesting quote from a pope - Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin..." (emphasis mine)
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/28/2008 6:49:18 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
To me and my personal understanding of what I have been taught relative to Mary. I believe that the lesson here is that sin does not inherently reside in the flesh, but in the soul. Flesh is not corrupt, it is the operation of that flesh that can be corrupt.
Jesus was God taking on our flesh and operating it perfectly. If nothing else, we know that it can be done. Therefore, if flesh is not the problem, then if the soul is perfected, the flesh is uncorrupt.
So to me - Mary is that example of operation acting in subservience to the will of God as manifested by His grace, and our cooperation with it; our subordination of our will to His for us. In my mind, this is a bit different example than Jesus - Jesus was God operating the material with which He created us. Mary was not divine, but yielding to divine instruction. I believe there is a distinction to be made here.
Jesus showed us that there is nothing contemptable about being a human being. Mary's example is that of what can be done by the cooperation made available to us through faith and through the work of Jesus justifying us by His perfect operation of the material with which we all have to work.
Do you find that spelled out in Scriptures? You bet you do, but you might just have to work a little bit, think about what you have read and put all the pieces together. Just because you don't see this in the form "insert tab 'B' into slot 'B', insert tab 'A' into slot 'A',..." doesn't mean its not in there.
The 'Trinity' is not spelled out specifically either, but we all manage somehow to agree on this concept.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/28/2008 6:00:04 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you find that spelled out in Scriptures? You bet you do, but you might just have to work a little bit, think about what you have read and put all the pieces together. The problem is there are NO scriptural "pieces" to put together. There is not the slightest suggestion of Mary being free from original sin - most emphatically just the opposite. Nor was such a doctrine taught by the early church.
In fact, such a doctrine has the effect of making Mary - not quite human.....which perhaps is actually the point for RC. Although, that would further deny Scripture which says Christ was born of a human being.
quote:
The 'Trinity' is not spelled out specifically either, but we all manage somehow to agree on this concept. The Trinity is certainly "spelled out" in Scripture - passage after passage after passage referencing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit whereas Mary's sinlessness stands in total opposition to Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/28/2008 8:11:25 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 565
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Another interesting quote from a pope - Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin..." (emphasis mine)
Kelman,
Can you point to an official document that explicitly says what you have in bold? The documents that I read don't say that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/29/2008 2:47:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Another interesting quote from a pope - Pope Pius IX in 1854 “Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... Proceed to worship, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin..." (emphasis mine)
Kelman,
Can you point to an official document that explicitly says what you have in bold? The documents that I read don't say that.
The bull 'Ineffabilis' [of Pius ix]
"In fine, desiring to render firm, each day more and more in the minds of the faithful this doctrine concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, and to excite their piety and their zeal for the worship and veneration due to the Virgin conceived without original stain........."
Page 17 FROM THIS BOOK
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/29/2008 10:43:30 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The bull 'Ineffabilis' [of Pius ix]
"In fine, desiring to render firm, each day more and more in the minds of the faithful this doctrine concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, and to excite their piety and their zeal for the worship and veneration due to the Virgin conceived without original stain........."
You folks need to research a little better as many of you already know, the Catholic Church, in light of being in the word for a few more years than many of us, uses a more complete understanding of what the word "worship" means from a historic and universal perspective. And not just from the public school system of the USofA.
The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.
There are several degrees of this worship:
if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/29/2008 11:06:45 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 565
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Kelman,
Your first quote said:
quote:
Proceed to worship
Then you provide a similar but not the same quote:
quote:
the worship and veneration due to the Virgin
In other words, your original quote was not to be found in an official Catholic document, so then you had to backtrack and try to come up with something that said something close.
My question to you is: If you are concerned about what the Catholic Church teaches, why don't you start with official Catholic documents?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/30/2008 6:30:12 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
Kelman,
Your first quote said:
quote:
Proceed to worship
Then you provide a similar but not the same quote:
quote:
the worship and veneration due to the Virgin
In other words, your original quote was not to be found in an official Catholic document, so then you had to backtrack and try to come up with something that said something close.
My question to you is: If you are concerned about what the Catholic Church teaches, why don't you start with official Catholic documents?
Nope, no "backtracking", at least not by me. I was simply unable to find the original quote from an official RC document. Undeniably, though, the quote I substituted is found in the papal bull - the quote in which is demanded the worship of Mary.
The fact is, and one which you are unable to deny, that there is found in an official RC document, i.e., the bull 'Ineffabilis' [of Pius ix], the following words by the pope: "the worship and veneration due to the Virgin".
Now, if you're looking for actual "backtracking" try looking to your church where we find it in spades....
Preposterous to suggest a difference in worship - latria dulia..... There remains nothing but the highest worship reserved for Mary - read those prayers - for absolute proof! RC may redefine words all it pleases but its actions and the words used in its prayers belie those protestations.
Regardless of RC claims and its redefinition of words, the RC hierarchy does indeed foster mariolatry, worship of things and the spirits of the dead. Worship is worship whether the socalled latria, hyperdulia or dulia - they are but various levels of worship according to your own people. This is a silly, artificial kind of distinction.
There is one powerful effect of RC practice - that of distracting worship away from the Living God. You want to see worship and distracting from God? Here's worship and then some - from the Glories of Mary:
"O Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners, assist me with thy mercy. Banish me from the infernal enemies and come thou to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge. My queen, do not abandon me, I give you my heart and soul."
"O immaculate and holy, pure Virgin Mary, mother of God, queen of the world, thou art the joy of the saints, thou art the peacemaker between sinners and God, thou art the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of this world, thou art the consolation of this world, the ransom of slaves, the comforter of the afflicted, the salvation of the universe."
"O sovereign lady, saint of all saints, our strength and our refuge, God as it were of this world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee."
"My most beloved lady, I thank thee for having delivered me from hell as many times as I have deserved it by my sins...."
"Wilt thou endure to see a servant of thine who loves thee lost? O Mary, what sayest thou? I shall be lost if I abandon thee....My lady, since thou hast done so much to save me, complete the work, continue the aid, continue to help me."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/30/2008 10:52:52 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 565
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Nope, no "backtracking", at least not by me. I was simply unable to find the original quote from an official RC document.
In other words, you are guilty of sloppy research. If you are going to make a claim that the Catholic Church says something, don't you think you have an obligation to go to the source first and see whether your claim is accurate?
quote:
Undeniably, though, the quote I substituted is found in the papal bull - the quote in which is demanded the worship of Mary.
The fact is, and one which you are unable to deny, that there is found in an official RC document, i.e., the bull 'Ineffabilis' [of Pius ix], the following words by the pope: "the worship and veneration due to the Virgin".
Now, the New Advent version doesn't use the term worship, it uses the term venerate. So why is your preferred translation right and New Advent is wrong?
Perhaps you can bring up the latin version of the text and make your case as to which is the correct translation. Because we know that the pope didn't write this in english.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/31/2008 2:43:23 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Nope, no "backtracking", at least not by me. I was simply unable to find the original quote from an official RC document.
In other words, you are guilty of sloppy research. If you are going to make a claim that the Catholic Church says something, don't you think you have an obligation to go to the source first and see whether your claim is accurate? Oh, don't be so ridiculous. I gave you the quote from the The bull 'Ineffabilis' just as I "claimed"; therefore, my "claim" is completely justified and legitimate because I quoted your pope calling for the worship of Mary. RC called for exactly what I said it did the worship due to the Virgin. That is the point - not your silly attempt at obfuscation.
quote:
Now, the New Advent version doesn't use the term worship, it uses the term venerate. So why is your preferred translation right and New Advent is wrong? Probably they're just guilty of sloppy research.
quote:
Perhaps you can bring up the latin version of the text and make your case as to which is the correct translation. Because we know that the pope didn't write this in english. Why so lazy? I gave you the link where you could find the book with ALL the translations, including the Latin version, of The bull 'Ineffabilis' [of Pius ix] - so enjoy!
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 7/31/2008 7:36:06 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
