Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

Was Mary sinless?


  • Total voters
    8
Theodoret votes... NO

Theodoret

Theodoret doesn't seem to have agreed with the Roman Catholic view of Mary. While defending the two natures of Christ, one of the illustrations he uses is the contrast between Jesus honoring Mary as His earthly mother on the one hand, while rebuking her as her Lord on the other hand, an apparent reference to either Luke 2:49 or John 2:4:

"If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten-the Lord Christ-the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord." (Dialogues, 2)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theodoret also votes: NO

:) :)
 
Thessalonian said:
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Take your deluded fathers and the rest and flush them :-?
 
AVBunyan said:
Thessalonian said:
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Take your deluded fathers and the rest and flush them :-?

Ah, let the hatred flow. You make no attacks on Gary for this thread.
 
Thessalonian (Mon 27) said:
Gary, your on ignore now. I love that feature.

I wonder if you will mislead me again this time. You said you had used that feature once before but continued to answer threads I wrote in.

I guess time will show (again) if you are honest about what you say you do and what you actually do.

:)
 
Source for my posts (on this topic)...

"catholic but not Roman Catholic"
here: http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_ ... _index.htm

Jason Engwer, a Research Analyst for NTRMin, has been posting a series on the NTRMin Discussion Board, titled "Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic." It has been a great help to those on the board, showing as it does the vast differences in beliefs between the patristic writers and modern Roman Catholic apologists who regularly misquote and misuse the former in an attempt to advance their cause. We thought it would be valuable to make the archives of that series available to all who visit this site looking for answers to the historical claims of Roman Catholicism.

:) :)
 
Solo said:
Jesus is the only one born of woman that is sinless. Mary is saved just as are the rest of the saints, by the blood of Jesus Christ, God before his earthly birth.

Only Jesus Christ hears and answers the prayers of his sheep, Mary is dead in the ground until the day of redemption.


Oh wow, I found something I can agree with you 100% solo :-D
 
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

2. If Mary is sinless, doesn’t that make her equal to God?


If this question is posed to you, it opens up a wonderful opportunity to show how the Immaculate Conception of Mary glorifies God.

Many people are under the impression that one is not quite human if he or she is sinless. On the contrary, it is when we sin that we fall short of what it means to be fully human. Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are called to love as God loves. This is why Christ fully reveals man to himself, as Vatican II says. He shows us what it means to be perfectly human.

In the beginning, God created no one (neither angel nor human) with sin, and yet no one was equal to God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they acted in a manner that was beneath their dignity as beings made in God’s image and likeness. It was their sin that detracted from the glory of God, not their original sinlessness. God’s goodness is most clear when he sanctifies his creation by entering into it fully with the life of his grace.

This is why the sinless souls in heaven give the most glory to God. The unique glory of the Trinity is manifested most clearly in heavenâ€â€where is he surrounded by sinless beings. In their sinlessness, God has made them most fully what he intended for them to be. In Mary’s case, her sinlessness gives the most glory to God, since his work is made perfect in her. She is his masterpiece.


3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?


The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of Godâ€â€and not the work of Maryâ€â€that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called "preservative redemption," Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?


4. How can you reconcile Mary’s sinlessness with Paul’s statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?


Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.


5. Didn’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago?


Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church, visit http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm).

Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf.. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
 
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

Mary's Immaculate Conception
by Father William G. Most

In teaching that Mary was conceived immaculate, the Catholic Church teaches that from the very moment of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from all stain of original sin. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God's own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall.

History of the Doctrine

There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church Fathers already spoke: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in "the woman" a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, # 55).

If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception.

We can also reason from the text of Lk 1:28, in which the angel calls her "full of grace". If we can validate the translation--we can, and will do so, shortly--then in this verse we can see even more strongly the complete enmity with the serpent--for God's grace is complete opposed to Satan's reign. But if Mary was "full of grace," it seems that she must have been conceived immaculate.

We turn to the early Fathers of the Church. First, many, not all of them, make sweeping statements about her holiness. That could imply an Immaculate Conception. Secondly, very many of them speak of her as the New Eve. They could have reasoned: the first Eve had an immaculate start in life--no sin was yet committed. So the New Eve, who was to share in undoing the harm of original sin, should have also an immaculate start. However, none of the Fathers actually followed this line of reasoning. (A few Fathers even tried to find sins she had committed, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 21. PG 59. 130ff).

During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine. At this time, the data from Scripture and the Fathers was still not clear. In addition, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been--it was often thought of as having a positive element, instead of merely being an original lack of the grace to which God calls us. This positive element was thought to be transmitted from parents to children through the marital act (which was itself thought to be somehow sinful, though pardoned by God), and so it was hard to see how there could be an immaculate conception. This conception had been found in some, though by no means all, of the Fathers. Now of course we know it to be false. Finally, it was not generally seen at this time how an Immaculate conception of Mary would not take away from the universality of redemption through Christ.

After a while, however, the theological tide began to turn, and the objections which had long obscured the content of divine revelation began to be overcome. This was due especially to the work of the Franciscan, Venerable John Duns Scotus. He showed that for God to preserve Mary from original sin was a greater redemption than to allow her to fall into it and then rescue her. Scotus wrote (cited from J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368): "Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so."

We also note again that behind most of the objections was the rather positive notion of original sin. If we jump ahead several centuries to the clearer understanding of original sin we have now, we can remove this objection. Pope John Paul II epressed this understanding in a General Audience on Oct 1, 1986: "In context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fall of the first parents, has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a 'sin of nature' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin'". In other words: It is only the lack, or privation, of that which God wanted us to have, which we should have inherited from our first parents."

Now back to our history. After that this change in theological tide had gone far towards removing objections, the Popes began to make statements of varying clarity. Sixtus IV in 1477 (DS 1400) praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. The same Pope added further support in 1483 (DS 1425-26), condemning those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception. The Council of Trent explicitly declared in its decree on original sin (DS 1516): "... it is not its intention to include in this decree ... the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Rather, the Constitutions of Sixtus [IV] of happy memory are to be observed."

After Trent, the attacks on the Immaculate Conception were greatly moderated. Then Pope St. Pius V, in 1567 (DS 1973) condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. And in 1568 the same Pope put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Alexander VII in 1661 explained the doctrine much as Pius IX did later: DB 1100. Pope Clement XI in 1708 made December 8 a holyday of obligation. Further, the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore in the U. S. in 1846 declared Mary Immaculate to be Patroness of the United States, and Pius IX on Feb. 7, 1847 confirmed this dedication.

The result was that about a century and a half before the definition of 1854, the whole Church believed the Immaculate Conception. Finally, in Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ. This is not strange, for to the eye of God, all time is present.

Now the Church continues to elucidate the scriptural basis of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pius XII, in Fulgens corona, 1953 wrote: "... the foundation of this doctrine is seen in the very Sacred Scripture itself, in which God ... after the wretched fall of Adam, addressed the ... serpent in these words... 'I will put enmity....' But if at any time, the Blessed Virgin Mary, defiled in her conception with the hereditary stain of sin, had been devoid of divine grace, then at least, even though for a very brief moment of time, there would not have been that eternal enmity between her and the serpent ... but instead there would have been a certain subjection."

Preventive redemption

We have said that Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. Nor did she have an "obligation" to contract it, as some have foolishly said: there can be no obligation to any sin. We can merely say she would have been in original sin in the sense just explained, i.e. , she would have been born without grace, were it not for the preventive redemption. The word "preventive" means anticipatory: the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation (Latin praevenire) of Christ's merits, which earned that grace.

The nature of Mary's grace at the Immaculate Conception

In Lk 1:28 the archangel hails her as, "full of grace". Most versions today do not use that rendering, but greatly weaken it. Yet it is the correct translation as we can see from the Magisterium (Pius XII, Fulgens Corona, AAS 45, 579, and constant use of the Church) and also from philology.

For the Greek word in the Gospel is kecharitomene. It is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. A perfect passive participle is very strong. In addition, charitoo belongs to a group of verbs ending in omicron omega. They have in common that they mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root. Thus leukos means white, so leukoo means to make white. Then charitoo should mean to put into charis. That word charis can mean either favor or grace. But if we translate by favor, we must keep firmly in mind that favor must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything. That would be Pelagian: salvation possible without grace. So for certain, God does give something, and that something is grace, are share in His own life. So charitoo means to put into grace. But then too, kecharitomene is used in place of the name "Mary". This is like our English usage in which we say, for example, someone is Mr. Tennis. That means he is the ultimate in tennis. So then kecharitomene should mean "Miss Grace", the ultimate in grace. Hence we could reason that fullness of grace implies an Immaculate Conception.

Overflowing grace: Pius IX, in the document, Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854 wrote: "He [God] attended her with such great love, more than all other creatures, that in her alone He took singular pleasure. Wherefore He so wonderfully filled her, more than all angelic spirits and all the Saints, with an abundance of all heavenly gifts taken from the treasury of the divinity, that she, always free from absolutely every stain of sin, and completely beautiful and perfect, presented such a fullness of innocence and holiness that none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it."

What about the words of Jesus in Lk 11:27-28 (cf. Mt. 12:46-50 and Mk 3:35)? A woman in the crowd exclaimed: "Blessed is the womb that bore you...." He replied: "Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it."

The dignity of being Mother of God is a quasi infinite dignity, as we just saw from the words of Pius XI. Yet here, our Lord is teaching us that the holiness coming from hearing the word of God and keeping it is something greater still. Her holiness must indeed be great--so great that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it."

Even though Mary was full of grace at the start of her life, yet she could still grow, for, as it were, her capacity for grace could increase.

In general, a soul will grow in proportion to these things: (1) The greater the dignity of the person, the greater the merit In her case, the dignity of Mother of God is the highest possible for a creature. (2) The greater the work, the greater the merit: her cooperation in the redemption was the greatest work possible to a creature. (3) The greater the love, the greater the merit. Love of God means the attachment of our will to His. Her will adhered supremely, with no obstacle at all, so that even ordinary household duties, which she saw as the will of the Father for her, were supremely valuable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Got a question for someone. Christ's human nature came from man/mary and his divine nature was from God.We need a savior right? We recieve corrupt natures from our parents. Correct? Jesus saves us from this. Now tell me, if Mary had the same corrupt nature does Jesus save himself? Seems to me he does. Jesus needs a savior? Now if Mary was born without a corrupt nature, by the grace of Christ this problem goes away. It's an interesting problem that you guys have. I want to hear an answer.

By the way it should be noted that God did create adam and eve with an incorrupt nature so such a thing is not outside his power (for you open theists and the like). It should also be noted for those of you who say adam and eve had to sin, that this would imply that their nature was already corrupt.
 
Thessalonian misses the point - read Augustine

Roman Catholic said:
Got a question for someone. Christ's human nature came from man/mary and his divine nature was from God.We need a savior right? We recieve corrupt natures from our parents. Correct? Jesus saves us from this. Now tell me, if Mary had the same corrupt nature does Jesus save himself? Seems to me he does. Jesus needs a savior? Now if Mary was born without a corrupt nature, by the grace of Christ this problem goes away. It's an interesting problem that you guys have. I want to hear an answer.

Already answered. Go read again what Augustine wrote.

P.S. I thought you had me on ignore.... LOL

:D
 
Explaining the obvious to the Roman Catholic

The Bible does not support the sinlessness of Mary. To the contrary, it affirms her sinfulness. Speaking as a sinner, Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my savior†(Luke 1:46). She was confessing her present need (after her conception) of a Savior. Indeed, she even presented an offering to the Jewish priest arising out of her sinful condition (Luke 2:22–24) which was required by law (Lev. 12). This would not have been necessary if she were sinless.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 309). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
 
Teaching the Roman Catholic from the Bible

"Full of grace" and sinless her entire life?

The Roman Catholic argument that Mary was “full of grace†at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.

First, the phrase “full of grace†is an inaccurate rendering based on the Latin Vulgate that is corrected by the modern Catholic Bible (nab), which translates it simply “favored one.†The Vulgate’s misleading rendering became the basis for the idea that grace extended throughout Mary’s life.

Second, taken in context the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment, not to her entire life. It does not affirm that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time.

Third, the grace given here to Mary was not only limited in time but also in function. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah, not to prevent her from any sin.

Finally, the stress on fullness of grace is misleading, since even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why, if she was not a sinner? The Roman Catholic theologian Ott says that Mary “required redemption and was redeemed by Christ.†("Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma") And, as we have already seen, it is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather than being delivered from it.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 310). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
 
Immculate Conception? Well you need to read up on the ark of the covenant for this one. This is something you won't even find mentioned in your protestant theology books. It's a lost tradition for you. Luke parrellels Mary with the Ark of the covenant:



Both events took place in the hill country of Judah:

Luke 1
39. Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,

2 Sam 6
2. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of the LORD of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim.

Similarity of David and Elizabeth's words in greeting Mary and speaking of the Ark.
luke 1
43. "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

2 Sam 6

9. So David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

John leaps before Mary who contains the Lord in her womb.
Luke 1
44. "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

David leaps before the ark in which the Lord resides.
2 Sam 6
16. Then it happened as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

Mary stays with elizabeth for 3 mo.

56. And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

The Ark stays with obemedon for 3 mo.

11. Thus the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.

Too many coincidences here for one to not draw a parrellel.

Now the Ark was made to God's specifications and so was Mary. That implies sinless. The Ark was so pure it could not be touched lest you be struck down dead. All of this pionts to Mary's purity
 
Teaching the Roman Catholic about history

LOL.... READ history..... what did Augustine say about your "ark" analogy?

Augustine

Is Psalm 132:8 referring to an assumption of Mary? Augustine says that the ark is the church, not Mary. He mentions the flesh of Christ as another possibility, but says nothing of a Marian interpretation, much less an assumption of Mary. Compare the comments of Pope Pius XII with those of Augustine:

pope pius XII said:
"this privilege of the Virgin Mary's Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture...Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption [of Mary]. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified' [Psalm 132:8]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven." - Pope Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus)

Augustine said:
"'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)

Notice that Augustine mentions Mary, saying that Christ's body was "born of Mary". Thus, it can't be argued that Augustine wasn't thinking of Mary at the time that he wrote. He was thinking of her, but he didn't view her as the ark. He didn't even mention a Marian interpretation as a secondary possibility. The only alternative he mentions to seeing the church as the ark is seeing Christ's flesh as the ark.

So who lost the plot?

:D :) :D
 
Thessalonian said:
Immculate Conception? Well you need to read up on the ark of the covenant for this one. This is something you won't even find mentioned in your protestant theology books. It's a lost tradition for you.

Yeah right!

Hippolytus

Hippolytus also saw Jesus rather than Mary in the ark. He mentions Mary as he's describing Jesus as the ark, so it can't be argued that he wasn't thinking of Mary at the time:

"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)

:wink: :wink:
 
What is not in the Roman Catholic history books

I wonder why this is not in the Roman Catholic history books? Could it be because you place more emphasis on Mary than you do on our Lord Jesus Christ??

:-?

Irenaeus

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception (Mary born and remaining sinless all her life) and the Assumption of Mary.

But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

Still so rusty on your history??

:-D
 
See how warped the doctrine gets.... more and more man-made.

First the Immaculate Conception (Mary born sinless), then the Sinlessness of Mary (all her life... including the Perpetual Virginity!) then the Assumption of Mary. It gets more and more speculative and man-made.

Pope Pius XII, in his decree Munificentissimus Deus, refers to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as "a matter of such great moment and of such importance". He says to people who oppose the doctrine, "let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith". The Pope refers to the Assumption doctrine as "this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times".

In contrast, the Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes:

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her.

In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll explains that Epiphanius, a church father of the fourth century, lived near where Mary had lived, yet he denies that anybody has any apostolic tradition regarding the end of Mary's life:

"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'...A Palestinian with opportunity for some research, Epiphanius does not speak of a bodily resurrection and remains noncommittal on the way Mary's life ended. He nowhere denies the Assumption, or admits the possibility of Assumption without death, for he has found no sign of death or burial. He suggests several different hypotheses and draws no firm conclusion." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135)

hmmmm... ever studied that history??

:o
 
Re: What is not in the Roman Catholic history books

Gary said:
I wonder why this is not in the Roman Catholic history books? Could it be because you place more emphasis on Mary than you do on our Lord Jesus Christ??

:-?


Gary ignores the scripture I've posted, putting his head in the sand regarding these "coincidences" and goes for the Church fathers. Neither understanding them or the Church. Making himself look truly foolish to a Catholic who knows anyone. Of course by his lies and distortions he may decieve a few. But that is what Peter told us the unstable would do.

Irenaeus

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception (Mary born and remaining sinless all her life) and the Assumption of Mary.

But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

Still so rusty on your history??

:-D
[/quote]

Gary would have us believe that it is problematic for Catholics that because Chist is the the Ark of the Covenant in one sense, Mary cannot be. This shows his blatant ignorance and blindness regarding Catholic theology. Tell us Gary is it okay to see Christ as the foundation and Prophets and Apostles as the foundation? Check your Bible first Gary. Are Christians the light of the world or is Christ the light of the world. When a pastor makes a "saved" Christian was it him that did it or Christ? Praise God I don't live in a system of dichtomies that can't consider the richness of what God put in his scripture. I actually had a Protestant tell me that the devil caused this parrellel to happen in scripture. :roll: Read it with an open mind folks. There are lots of other parrellels in scripture for the one with an open mind that sheds much light on the truth. It's a common literary type of scripture just as is allegory (which many Protestants feel the need to deny).

Go ahead with your little jab about me ignoring you Gary. I could care less. By the way when are you going to apologize to peace4all?
 
Re: What is not in the Roman Catholic history books

Gary said:
I wonder why this is not in the Roman Catholic history books? Could it be because you place more emphasis on Mary than you do on our Lord Jesus Christ??

:-?


Gary ignores the scripture I've posted, putting his head in the sand regarding these "coincidences" and goes for the Church fathers. Neither understanding them or the Church. Making himself look truly foolish to a Catholic who knows anyone. Of course by his lies and distortions he may decieve a few. But that is what Peter told us the unstable would do.

Irenaeus

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception (Mary born and remaining sinless all her life) and the Assumption of Mary.

But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

Still so rusty on your history??

:-D
[/quote]

Gary would have us believe that it is problematic for Catholics that because Chist is the the Ark of the Covenant in one sense, Mary cannot be. This shows his blatant ignorance and blindness regarding Catholic theology. Tell us Gary is it okay to see Christ as the foundation and Prophets and Apostles as the foundation? Check your Bible first Gary. Are Christians the light of the world or is Christ the light of the world. When a pastor makes a "saved" Christian was it him that did it or Christ? Praise God I don't live in a system of dichtomies that can't consider the richness of what God put in his scripture. I actually had a Protestant tell me that the devil caused this parrellel to happen in scripture. :roll: Read it with an open mind folks. There are lots of other parrellels in scripture for the one with an open mind that sheds much light on the truth. It's a common literary type of scripture just as is allegory (which many Protestants feel the need to deny).

Go ahead with your childish little jab about me ignoring you Gary. I could care less. By the way when are you going to apologize to peace4all?
 
Re: Teaching the Roman Catholic from the Bible

Gary said:
"Full of grace" and sinless her entire life?

The Roman Catholic argument that Mary was “full of grace†at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.

First, the phrase “full of grace†is an inaccurate rendering based on the Latin Vulgate that is corrected by the modern Catholic Bible (nab), which translates it simply “favored one.†The Vulgate’s misleading rendering became the basis for the idea that grace extended throughout Mary’s life.

Second, taken in context the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment, not to her entire life. It does not affirm that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time.

Third, the grace given here to Mary was not only limited in time but also in function. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah, not to prevent her from any sin.

Finally, the stress on fullness of grace is misleading, since even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why, if she was not a sinner? The Roman Catholic theologian Ott says that Mary “required redemption and was redeemed by Christ.†("Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma") And, as we have already seen, it is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather than being delivered from it.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 310). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Wish I had time for all of this tripe. Karchitnome (greek, not latin) is translated rightly "full of grace". It is not contradictory to translate it "highly favored" but that does not capture the fullness of the word.

As for Geisler's last paragrpah it only shows his ignorance. Grace can work in two ways. It can cleanse sin or it can prevent it. Had Adam and Eve availed themselves of the grace available to them they never would have sinned. They did not have to sin. But they rebelled. If they had not rebelled it would have been by God's grace. Likewise Mary was given the grace not to sin and she did not. Geisler's point is simply a red herring that shows bias and lack of understanding of God and his ways. His use of Ott to try and prove his point is laughable and makes me wonder if he actually has read Ott or if he just picked something up from anti-catholic propoganda. Likely the latter. I have the book her refers to. Ott quite clearly understands what I have explained. Gary has had this explained to him before as well but continues to post his deceptions (lies).

Blessings
 
Back
Top