Was Mary sinless from conception?

[JasonTE]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the church has always believed and taught that Mary was sinless from conception onward. But nobody in the earliest generations of church history advocated that view, and dozens of church fathers and Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward. Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary, since he referred to Mary becoming sinless sometime after conception. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:

"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the only post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is consistent with the faith of the universal church:

"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff comments:

"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm , section 81)

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte

[rocketman]

Jason, the Church agrees with Augustine here. She was conceived, and then had the special privilege of having original sin removed before birth. Thomas Aquinas agrees with the assessment of Augustine in the Summa Part 3 Question 27.

[JasonTE]

rocketman said:



Jason, the Church agrees with Augustine here. She was conceived, and then had the special privilege of having original sin removed before birth. Thomas Aquinas agrees with the assessment of Augustine in the Summa Part 3 Question 27.

You're correct that Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. You're incorrect, however, when you claim that the Roman Catholic Church denies it as well. Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary was conceived free of original sin. Here's what Pope Pius IX wrote when he proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." (Ineffabilis Deus)

Elsewhere in the same document, the Pope refers to Mary's "original innocence", and he writes at another point in the same document:

"All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime."

The Pope says that Mary was never subject to original sin. That's a direct contradiction of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and what previous Roman bishops had taught.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

Jason, the Church agrees with Augustine here. She was conceived, and then had the special privilege of having original sin removed before birth. Thomas Aquinas agrees with the assessment of Augustine in the Summa Part 3 Question 27.


You're thinking of John the Baptist (serious) :tongue:

[rocketman]

Mea culpa.

Sorry, Jason, I only read Article One of Q 27 when I searched for it, and I didn't go on. Aquinas (in an earlier Question) distinguishes between the active role of the parents in conception and the animation of the matter, which is the legitimate conception of the human being, as it is the point at which the matter is infused with a soul. Until then, there is no actual human being there. Now, as explained at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm , at the moment of animation, Original Sin, which would normally enter at that point, was excluded by a singular grace by God, so that she was never tainted. However, because she was human, she was still subject to Original Sin, even though she wasn't tainted by it through the grace of God. Thus, she still had to have Jesus die for her own salvation. So that is Aquinas' stance.

Now, how is this different from Jesus? Jesus, being conceived through the consubstantiation of human and divine matter, was never under any threat from Original Sin to begin with and as such the grace was not needed from God the Father.

[elysian]

Mary was in just as much need of a Savior as the rest of us.

[Mujibur]

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

Is Mary then not included in "all"?

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: "Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Is Mary then not included in "all"?

Jesus Christ is not included under the "all" in this passage. If the word "all" allows for the exception of Jesus Christ, what prevents there being a second exception (the Virgin Mary)?

RE THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND ST THOMAS AQUINAS.

The opposition between the doctrine of the immaculate conception and the teaching of Aquinas can be explained by the development of doctrine.

The Catholic Church officially acknowledges that doctrines develop over time (this is proclaimed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). All truth has been revealed in Jesus Christ, but over time the Church continually grows in her understanding of this truth. This is supported by Jesus words in John Gospel's that the disciples could not have a full understanding of the message immediately but needed the Holy Spirit to gradually lead the disciples into the full understanding of revealed truth.

One important way that the Church increases her understanding of revealed truth is through studying and debating parts of Revelation. This can be seen in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Canon of the New Testament which were discussed for several centuries before being formally defined by the Church. During this period there was disagreement among the Church Fathers as to what books belong in the New Testament.*

In a similar manner the study of revelation has led the Church to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Before this doctrine was defined it was analysed and debated, just as the Trinity and the Canon of the NT were analysed and debated. Any debate must have people on both sides, and so we have some Christians (like Aquinas) who argued against the immacuate conception. Had Aquinas lived today he would have undoubtedly accepted the immaculate conception because it has been defined by the Church, and because between his time and our own the debate eventually resolved the problems he saw.

God bless,
Anthony.

* If the fact that some Church Fathers did not believe in some NT books does not exclude these books from the Canon, then neither does some statements by the Fathers that appear contrary to the immaculate conception mean this doctrine must be rejected.

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE STATEMENT: Mary was in just as much need of a Savior as the rest of us.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not say Mary that was not saved. Rather, it says that Mary was saved from sin from the first moment of her conception.


God bless,
Anthony.

[Mujibur]

Jesus Christ is not included under the "all" in this passage. If the word "all" allows for the exception of Jesus Christ, what prevents there being a second exception (the Virgin Mary)?

Jesus is God though. God can't sin. Mary was just human so how could she be an exception in the same way that Jesus is?

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales said:



Jesus Christ is not included under the "all" in this passage. If the word "all" allows for the exception of Jesus Christ, what prevents there being a second exception (the Virgin Mary)?

From the earliest documents onward, we repeatedly see Jesus Christ exempted by name. He's repeatedly referred to as sinless, even though His sinlessness is implied by His deity. In other words, even though the authors didn't need to say that Jesus was sinless, since His deity logically leads to the conclusion of sinlessness, they mention His sinlessness anyway, explicitly and repeatedly. Since Mary's alleged sinlessness isn't a logical necessity, we would expect her sinlessness to be mentioned. It never is in any of the earliest sources. If Mary was meant to be exempted from the sinfulness of mankind, we would expect that exemption to be mentioned, as it is with Jesus. But such an exemption is never mentioned for Mary.



The opposition between the doctrine of the immaculate conception and the teaching of Aquinas can be explained by the development of doctrine.

No, a contradiction isn't a development. And Roman Catholicism claims that the church has always believed and taught that Mary was sinless from conception onward:

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts....And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner -- this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)



This is supported by Jesus words in John Gospel's that the disciples could not have a full understanding of the message immediately but needed the Holy Spirit to gradually lead the disciples into the full understanding of revealed truth.

The disciples are not the RCC.



One important way that the Church increases her understanding of revealed truth is through studying and debating parts of Revelation. This can be seen in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Canon of the New Testament which were discussed for several centuries before being formally defined by the Church.

Evangelicals don't claim that all Trinitarian doctrine and the 27-book New Testament canon have always been accepted by the Christian church. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, does claim that the Immaculate Conception has always been accepted by the Christian church.

Additionally, Trinitarian doctrine and the canon of scripture can logically be justified by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. In other words, if you follow apostolic teaching to its logical conclusions, you'll arrive at Trinitarianism and the 27-book canon. The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, is not logically derived from apostolic teaching. It's a philosophical speculation, and an unlikely one. Nothing taught by Jesus and the apostles makes an immaculate conception of Mary probable or certain.

The Trinitarian view of God is widely accepted across many denominational lines. So is the New Testament canon. The Immaculate Conception isn't. To the contrary, long after Eusebius referred to each of the New Testament books being accepted by a majority of the churches, long after Athanasius listed the 27-book New Testament canon without any infallible council telling him what it was, we continue to find widespread rejection of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Even as late as the second millennium, we find such influential figures as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III denying that Mary was sinless from conception. The Trinitarian view of God and the New Testament canon are hallmarks of the Christian faith, widely recognized and accepted for centuries across many denominational lines. The Immaculate Conception is a historically groundless speculation that's widely rejected outside of Roman Catholicism and was rejected for a long time even within Roman Catholicism.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Ric]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the church has always believed and taught that Mary was sinless from conception onward. But nobody in the earliest generations of church history advocated that view, and dozens of church fathers and Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward. Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary, since he referred to Mary becoming sinless sometime after conception. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:

"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the only post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is consistent with the faith of the universal church:

"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff comments:

"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm , section 81)

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
Mary was not sinless, she gave a sin offering:Luke 2:22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord" ), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons." (NIV)

In Luke 2:22-24 we see that Mary followed the law given in Leviticus 12:6-8:

Leviticus 12:6 " `When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" `These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' " (NIV)

Nuff said!

[goldenchild]

Ok, I believe that Mary is without sin, mostly, because the Church teaches me. However, I know how you only accept the Bible so that's where I will prove my side.
The doctrine of Mary being sinless does not seem to be a very important topic in obtaining salvation, however I think it is important to defend because it is one of the ex cathedra teachings made by the Church.

First off, Mary is God's mother. She is the Ark of the Living Covenant. This is a comparison to the Ark of the Covenant found in the OT. To see how this form of typology works go to,
Luke 1:39-40,56 "During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zecheriah and greeted Elizabeth. Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home."
Mary, the Ark of the LIVING Covenant stayed with them for THREE MONTHS. Now look at,
2 Samuel 6:11 "Thus the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD (14) blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
The Ark of the covenant stayed at the of Obededom for three onths as well.
Now look at, Luke 1:43 "How does this happen to me that the mother of my lord should come to me?" This echoes 2 Samuel 6:9 "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

Then in Luke 1:44 "For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."
This is a reminder of 2 Samuel 6:16 "16 Then it happened as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David that (21) 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."

And this ark of the covenant in the OT, God took great care to preserve it. It was made of enduring acacia wood and gold. God demanded that this holy container be without stain or defect Exodus 25:10:11 " They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it."
God demanded that no one touch the ark or it's contents,
Numbers 4:3-4 "so that they will not touch the holy objects and die. These are the things in the tent of meeting which the sons of Kohath are to carry. But they shall not go in to see the holy objects even for a moment, or they will die."
And this threat was carried out,
2 Samuel 6:7 "And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God."



Just think about how much more carefully God would preserve the NT Ark, which carried the even holier cargo of the LIVING Word, for all stain of sin.

[goldenchild]

a definition from an old dictionary that helps explain how this is sometimes used.

2. Any. [Obs.] Without all remedy." Shak. &hand; When the definite article the," or a possessive or a demonstrative pronoun, is joined to the noun that all qualifies, all precedes the article or the pronoun; as, all the cattle; all my labor; all his wealth; all our families; all your citizens; all their property; all other joys. This word, not only in popular language, but in the Scriptures, often signifies, indefinitely, a large portion or number, or a great part. Thus, all the cattle in Egypt died, all Judea and all the region round about Jordan, all men held John as a prophet, are not to be understood in a literal sense, but as including a large part, or very great numbers.

And how do we know that this verse (Rom. 3:23) doesn't mean each and every single individual without exception? We look at scripture.
First, verse 9 of the same chapter.
"Well then are we better off? Not entirely, For we have already brought the charge against JEWS AND GREEKS ALIKE THAT THEY ARE ALL UNDER THE DOMINATION OF SIN."
This show that the passage is not talking about each and every individual, but of each and every individual GROUP. And it doesn't say that ALL INDIVIDUALS in EACH GROUP have sinned, it says all groups have sinned. That is what the whole of chapter 3, and maybe more, is really about. Paul was trying to make it clear that Jews and Greeks were really no better off than one another, but that they were both exactly equal seeing as that both groups of people sinned.
Look at verses 11-18, Do you really think that there is NO ONE ever that has been just, that NO ONE ever has seeked God, that there is NO ONE who does good.
Then these verses go on to speak of THEY being quick to bloodshed and there is no fear of God in their eyes. Who are THEY? Can it be you or me in particular? It says that THEY are quick to bloodshed. It can only clearly mean all the different GROUPS of people.

And finally, to make it even more clear... in verse 22(right before the one you like) it ends with the words, "For there is no distinction"
Lets put those words together with your verse, just as it is in the bible, Rom 3:22-23 "For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." See there isn't even a period to break the sentence. If read in this context it is completely correct because ALL GROUPS of people HAVE sinned, and there IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Just as the passage says.

[goldenchild]

Enmity:
Deep-seated, often mutual hatred.
The quality of being an enemy; hostile or unfriendly disposition.
No ground of enmity between us known. --Milton.
2. A state of opposition; hostility.
The friendship of the world is enmity with God. --James iv. 4.
Syn: Rancor; hostility; hatred; aversion; antipathy; repugnance; animosity; ill will; malice; malevolence.

This enmity according to scripture is no different for Jesus than it is Mary.
Jesus is at total enmity with Satan and He is without sin. Mary is ALSO at total enmity with Satan and so it follows is ALSO without sin.

[goldenchild]

And finally, you take Rom. 3:23 and say that all People have sinned. How can you say this? The verse certainly doesn't. It says that ALL have sinned. ALL what? All people, all religions, all the rich people? To really understand what verse 23 is saying you must read the whole passage in context and expecially verse 9, which say that all Jews and Greeks have sinned. It says nothing of individuals. The whole letter to the Romans is written by Paul as in terms of "all".

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE PURIFICATION OFFERING

The baptism of St John was a baptism of repentence for the remission of sins. Jesus was baptised by John, does this mean that he had to repent and needed remission of sins? Of course not, we interpret his baptism in accordance with the truth that he is God and without sin. We say he was baptised to fulfill all righteousness, sanctify the waters of baptism, and give us an example to follow.

In like manner, it is acceptable for Catholics to interpret the passages about Mary and the purification offering in accordance with another Christian truth (the immaculate conception). We can say that Mary followed the Law to fulfill all righteousness and to present Christ to God the Father.

Further, the text from Leviticus does not say whether the sin offering is for the women who has given birth or for the child born. Pregnancy and child-bearing are not sins, so this may indicate that the offering is not for the woman. On the other hand, we know that children are born with original sin, so the offering may have been for the child. But in the case of Christ it would obviously not be a sin offering but merely presenting him to the Lord.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

RE: CHURCH FATHERS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION



The following passage from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Immaculate Conception gives numerous statements by many church fathers supporting this doctrine. The statements may not use the exact words 'immaculate conception' but they strongly support the meaning of the doctrine. This shows that the doctrine has a solid foundation in the first several centuries of Christianity.



THE SECTION OF THE ARTICLE



This celebrated comparison between Eve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646b.htm), while yet immaculate and incorrupt -- that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:


Justin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm) (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firm cus Maternus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06080a.htm) (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm) (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm) (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14579a.htm) (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13680a.htm) (Carmen paschale, II, 28).


The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.


The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14579a.htm) terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm) was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm), alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08278a.htm) says that "the very fact that God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.


St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) conception of Mary. From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

[Anthony Wales]

Jesus is God though. God can't sin. Mary was just human so how could she be an exception in the same way that Jesus is?
Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God, as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says.

Surely the grace of God is great enough to preserve someone from sin from the first moment of their conception.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and they could have resisted temptation. So it possible for a human being to totally free from sin.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: "From the earliest documents onward, we repeatedly see Jesus Christ exempted by name. He's repeatedly referred to as sinless, even though His sinlessness is implied by His deity. In other words, even though the authors didn't need to say that Jesus was sinless, since His deity logically leads to the conclusion of sinlessness, they mention His sinlessness anyway, explicitly and repeatedly. Since Mary's alleged sinlessness isn't a logical necessity, we would expect her sinlessness to be mentioned. It never is in any of the earliest sources. If Mary was meant to be exempted from the sinfulness of mankind, we would expect that exemption to be mentioned, as it is with Jesus. But such an exemption is never mentioned for Mary."

I have posted part of an article from the Catholic Encyclopaedia that shows Church Fathers stating that Mary is free from sin. Scripture passages implying/supporting the Immaculate Conception are being posted by myself and others. So you have Biblical and early mention of Mary as being free from sin.

By the way, early is a relative term. In 15, 000 years time I am sure people will say Pius IX's dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception is very early mention of Mary's sinlessness.

Also, the notion of 'Scripture alone' was not taught or believed by any Christians until the Protestant reformation. So going by your insistence on the necessity of early mention of doctrines we must reject the idea of 'Scripture alone'.

God bless,
Anthony.

[goldenchild]

Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God, as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says.

Surely the grace of God is great enough to preserve someone from sin from the first moment of their conception.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and they could have resisted temptation. So it possible for a human being to totally free from sin.

God bless,
Anthony.
Um... yeah! Also, God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born. Why wouldn't He want to do that in order to have a perfect mother?! If you could choose a custom mom, so to speak, and "customize" her to have no sin, wouldn't you? I know I would.

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales,

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is misleading. It quotes fathers referring to Mary as pure, sinless, etc. in one passage without quoting what they said about her being a sinner in other passages. I've already documented Ambrose and Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, yet the material you've cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia misleadingly presents both of those fathers as if they agreed with the doctrine. The same can be said of Justin Martyr, Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other fathers cited in your post.

Your post wrongly associates the New Eve concept with Mary being sinless from conception. Some of the church fathers referred to Mary as a New Eve, but they didn't associate that concept with Mary being sinless from conception. The fact that modern Roman Catholics associate the two concepts doesn't prove that the church fathers did. We know that men like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as a New Eve and a sinner. For you, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other Roman Catholic sources to cite the patristic use of the New Eve concept, as if it proves early belief in the Immaculate Conception doctrine or a seed form of it, is fallacious.

The fact is, nobody in the earliest centuries advocates the doctrine. And it was contradicted for hundreds of years by church fathers and Roman bishops. Quoting some church fathers referring to Mary being a pure virgin or having a post-conception sinlessness, or even an immaculate conception, doesn't prove the RCC's claim that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held by the church. If a doctrine is absent and contradicted early on, then continues to be contradicted by many people while some begin advocating it, why would anybody conclude that it's a doctrine always held by the universal church? If the RCC's claims about this doctrine were correct, why would such influential men as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III be contradicting it more than a thousand years after the time of the apostles? You aren't even attempting to reconcile these facts with the claims of the RCC. Instead, you're repeating a series of false and misleading claims made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you're appealing to a process of doctrinal development that's more evasive than explanatory. Contradictions are not developments. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years refer to Mary as a sinner, yet modern Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness from conception is a Divinely revealed doctrine always held by the Christian church, that isn't a development akin to an acorn growing into an oak tree. Rather, it's a contradiction. It's like trying to derive an oak tree from an apple seed.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Thew]

Golden Child,

You are on the verge of understanding something great, but some of your assertions, however, have you hanging by a very thin thread. Your observation that Mary is a bodily representation of the Ark of the Covenant is brilliant, i.e. scriptural.

However, what you're on the verge of realizing, but haven't yet, is that Mary is noneother than the representation of what ALL humans can become, if they receive Christ, the Hope of Glory, into their hearts.

We all can become bearers of the Covenant!
What is crucial for you to see, is that God wishes to dwell in all of us.
WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, God no longer dwells in inanimate objects: Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desired to do with all mankind. Ponder this before you reply. The tone of my post is not meant condescending, so if that's how it's coming across, I apologize. And don't simply believe what I'm saying, cross-check it with scripture, in connection with what you know about the CHARACTER and NATURE of God Himself, as a person.

Secondly, your interpretation of Paul's words to the Romans is contradictory to Christ's act on the cross. Your twist on it may be an interesting read, but it is not correct in the context of the entire Gospel.

Before making such assertions, you must first realize that God is a perfect person, with perfect truth in Him, perfect integrity, He is perfectly consistent. God will never fall prey to contradicting Himself, so if something we know of scripture does not jive with what we know about HIM as a PERSON (meaning His integrity, His perfection), then something is wrong with OUR thinking not HIS.

So that was the foreword. Now, as regards your assertion that Mary was sinless (which thus far has not been substantiated by scripture, I have seen only wild conjecture):

Here's more scriptural proof to contradict your claim: 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
If you take issue with the word "we" in this passage, then you are making the same scholarly error you have made with the passage from Romans 3:23. You are saying that we must consider the specific target group only. This is only partly true. We must not only concentrate, when studying the Word of God, on the immediate context, but on the Gospel message Paul wanted to get across to ALL human beings in general (Paul makes it very clear, for instance, to the Church at Corinth, what his overall purpose was: 1 Cor. 1:11-17 "[...] Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.")

Beware, so that in your defense of Catholic doctrine you do not begin preaching a false gospel. The way one preaches false gospel, for instance, is by ignoring the actual, historical and spiritual work Christ did on Calvary, in order to merely defend a man-made religion.

You must keep in mind that God had to brutally kill His own son. Realize in meditating on this, that this is what God would have had to do to each and every one of us. This is how serious sin is. Sin must be punished. So much so punished, in fact, that God did not even spare His very own Son.

Now consider the following very carefully: if you assert that Mary was sinless, while ignoring the excellent scriptures in Luke that Ric posted above, you are inadvertently stating that Mary would also have been capable of dying for our sins in the same manner Jesus did, i.e. for the sins of all history.

If the scriptures that Ric quotes above, which actually give the most concise explanation of and background on Mary's human condition that you will find in scripture, do not suffice, then perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what the Catholic Church is teaching you.

This may be hard for you to accept, but you must admit, if you are to be trusted, that the Word of God must have the final say, and not the teaching of any earthly organization which presumes to have powers which extend BEYOND the Word of God.
Additionally, Besides Romans 3:27, we also read a VERY clear passage in Romans 3:10, which Paul is deliberately quoting from the OT, in order to show that the condition of ALL human beings (and this now means all of history) is the same as it was at the time of the OT, and would remain so in the future:

"as it is written [Paul quotes OT], 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;'"

You are right when you point out that Paul was attempting to straighten out the thinking of the Church in Rome regarding disputes among Jews and Greeks. But you make a very strange oversight:

1. Mary was a JEW!

2. Whatever applies to Greeks, applies to ALL gentiles!

If this crystal clear logic still doesn't convince you, then continue.
Confer: Psalm Ch. 14 (e.g. v. 3) or 53:2 (an identical repeat of Psalm 14), where David, the King of the lineage which would yield the Christ, explains the condition of ALL mankind, not just those under his rule!
Even the very words of Jesus Himself condemn all mankind in this regard:

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone"... Why did Mary not come forth? Where was she? Would you dare suggest Jesus "forgot" about her when He made this suggestion? Or that He was only addressing the immediate, present crowd in saying "among you"? Or would you dare assert that only male Jews were allowed to participate in stonings? If so, you would be missing the point of the enitre Gospel, as it is uttered from the mouth of the only sinless person to walk this earth after the fall of Adam, Jesus, the Christ.

And what about John 1:29, 16:8? You know, the sin of the world?
Would you assert that Mary, although a Jew, was not of this world?
And what then will you do with Romans 5:12?
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all people, because all sinned - [...]"

The sin of the lineage of Adam was not imputed into the body of Jesus (the prophecy states that the Messiah would be born of "the seed of a woman"; Mary was a virgin, her temple had not been yielded to the seed of any man); meaning that He was therefore also physically not of the seed of Joseph. Who, however, were Mary's parents? How was she conceived? Where do you find information on this in the scripture?

Or, will you, in defense of the Church, reiterate the Catholic belief that Mary did not die? If so, where, again do you find this in the scripture? The myth that Mary also ascended into heaven is simply not scriptural. Mary eventually died (physically at least).

Goldenchild, you must see that she cannot continually be put by the Church on the same level with Christ.

Don't you see that by doing so, you are elevating her to the status of a God? Some Catholics even pray to her, believing that, like God, she hears prayers beyond the grave. But where is this in scripture?

By doing these things, one effectively worships Mary. Whereas God clearly stated "You shall have no other Gods before me". What do you do with this scripture? Cast it aside in favor of Church doctrine?

Another crucial thing you must understand, before you can even begin to analyze these scriptures, is the person of God Himself.
You must understand something very key about His nature.
You will not understand any of this business about the sin that Jesus was addressing, nor will you understand how it got into mankind (through one man sin entered into ALL mankind") and why we are "sinful" unless you understand that the very essence of God Himself is pure Holiness. The Bible teaches us that our God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24 quoted by the writer of Hebrews: cf. Heb. 12:29).

Nobody, without Christ, can stand before the Holiness of God, for it is fire to them.

Mary was not exempt from this. She also needed Christ as her mediator to take the punishment for her individual sin as well, in her place, so that she could then stand this Holy Fire of God. To them who have Christ, this Fire is glorious clothing, to those who are without Christ, it is consuming flame.
But we're actually getting ahead of ourselves. We should have first backtracked to your main premise before even looking at these scriptures.

The first thing you state is also based on misleading Church doctrine.

"First off, Mary is God's mother", you said.

This statement unwittingly implies that Mary herself is a deity, which, I'm sure you would agree, would be apostasy.

The Gospel of John Chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being , created all things]."

According to the scripture, Jesus was in eternity past. He was not created. Instead, it was He, who created all things.
Creating all things includes Him having created Mary.

For a God to be born into this world by a woman is much different language than stating that "God has a mother". You must differentiate your language, even if the Church does not, and understand that there is a [i]crucial difference.
We are skating on thin ice, while ignoring all the "Warning! Thin ice!" signs of the Word by extrapolating things from the bible that simply are not there.

This happens when you lose sight of God's plan, system of Judgement and Justice, of how He actually uses His omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. He will not and does not use them arbitrarily.

Furthermore, this next statement has gone so far out of the framework of God's Word, in so many ways, that I hardly know where to begin in explaining to you what's wrong with the thinking behind it.

"God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born.", you asserted here.

It suffices for me to first simply state that God's plan is not arbitrary ("I am the same yesterday, today and forever"), and it does not change.

Secondly, there are approximately 300 prophecies in the Old Testament with regard to the coming of the Messiah. Look at two facts (not speculation, but scriptural proof):

1. All of these prohecies were fulfilled in one person: Jesus Christ;

2. All of them were fulfilled within the framework of TIME (within the chronological history of the world), not by arbitrarily working "out of the box" on Jesus' behalf.

What I'm getting at is, by asserting that God worked something special for Mary (applied his grace outside of time), you are unwittingly stating that He would do something for her out of time, while requiring of His very own Son, to remain in time! This is so paradoxical to what we know about God's consistency, that it simply cannot even hold water philisophically. It's too full of holes. Like the plot of a poorly written time-travel, sci-fi movie. But more importantly, it's not in the bible anyway!
Third, God's Grace never was, nor will it ever be exercised or experienced disconnected from the act of the Cross, as it took place according to chronological earth time.

All of God's Grace is based on that one work of Justice (punishing sin), in time. In fact, it was not until AFTER this punishment took place, on earth, in earth time, that the veil in the Holy of Holies tore in half from top to bottom. And here, I'm speaking of an actual sequence of earth-time events.

It was also not until AFTER Jesus delivered His Spirit into the hands of the Father that He himself went to the place He spoke of (in Luke Chapter 16 beginning with verse 20 ending with verse 31) which Jesus calls the "Bosom of Abraham", where He then, after the work had been finished, according to earthly chronological time, could then take those souls with Him who were awaiting this very moment in time when their sins would be covered by the blood. This is scriptural, not conjecture.

Fourth, it was not until the end of His crucifixion that Christ uttered His last words: "It is finished". You must ask yourself: What? What did Christ have to finish? Does not a thing, in order to be finished, have to first be commenced? Do you hear the root of this word? It was a work that was performed for finite beings, within earth-time! Although it had eternal consequences, it had a documentable, chronological beginning and ending. Still with me here?

5th: While only choosing to view one aspect of God's constitution, you neglect to see all of Him. God is not only omnipotent, working only according to this single feature any way He chooses. He also has integrity within the community of the Trinity and holds to plans that He Himself sets in motion (e.g. Exodus Ch. 2:24: God holds to His Covenant). I.e., in consultation among the entire Godhead, God devised to create all things, including humans. He knew they would disobey (fall out of fellowship with Him and become spiritually dead) and so he conceived the plan of salvation. This all took place "before the foundation of the world", scripture tells us.
Then, after the plan was conceived, He made time, space, made the earth, made people.

And he has been working in unison with the laws which He Himself set in motion ever since. He will not and does not contradict a thing He Himself sets in motion. He will not ever do this. He worked according to the laws of physics and time to save mankind in Jesus on the cross, why would he break His own rules to make Mary sinless? What scripture would you quote to support such an outlandish claim?

Ponder this long and hard: God said in Genesis, when He created the Heavens and the Earth and rested on the seventh day: "It is Good."

Case in point: even the virgin birth itself is based on a biological possibility:

Although rare, there is a phenomenon in reproduction whereby the gamete (female's egg) will begin to divide and create a baby without having been fertilized by a sperm. In most cases, when this happens to a woman, the egg stops dividing and dies after approx. 14 days. This phenomenon is called Parthenogenesis (growth of an organism from an unfertilized gamete, or sex cell).
So, although your musing may be Amusing, it lacks basis in

1. Scripture;

2. Laws of physics;

3. Laws of biology;

4. Laws of time, and lacks basis in

What we know of God's

1. Integrity to His own system;

2. Chronological and historical plan of salvation for mankind, and His

3. Justice.

You must understand, in looking to be creative, that you may only do this within the framework of His Word, as well as His nature as a triune being which is in perfect harmony within itself and cannot contradict itself.

If you espouse a doctrine which violates either one of the two of these things at any given point, that doctrine falls apart, becomes apostate.

6th: A further point on Mary being Jesus' mother:

In the Gospel of Matthew 12:48 (cf. also Mark 3:33) we find an account given of Mary's very natural human nature. First of all, we read here, quite plainly, that she had other children. We know that Jesus had siblings, particularly because at least one is a major New Testament figure, who also believed in the Risen Christ and was saved.

But this account depicts something much more interesting. Mary, who you say is sinless, went with some of Jesus' siblings to get Him, while He was preaching and healing, because she and her sons thought Jesus had lost His mind. This is scriptural.

When the disciples told Jesus, God in the flesh, that His "mother and brothers" were outside, having come to fetch Him since He'd seemingly gone crazy, Jesus, God incarnate, responded: "Who is my mother?"

Which, plainly meant: the mere fact alone that she bore me physically does not make her MY mother. This was Jesus speaking as God, not man.

You must learn to differentiate, and to stay true to the integrity of the text your reading and the God you're serving. Your interpretations are extremely biased in favor of Mary being a Goddess. It appears as though you trust Catholic teaching more than the Word of God itself and the Person of Jesus Himself.

But you cannot surgically remove God from His context as an eternal being with a purpose, plan, integrity, truth, simply because you can't imagine that what the Church is teaching is wrong.

If we were allowed to do this, we may as well all write our own personal gospel, however we see fit.

But, unfortunately, things are not that way. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not waver. He does not shift. He does not contradict a thing He has set in motion.

Instead of attempting to squeeze God into the box of doctrine we espouse, we must think out of the box of our religions.

The Lord said: "My Word will never return to me void". Ponder this, and you may see what I've been going on about here.

One more thing: I'm not interested in being a party-pooper. The things you bring up ARE, in fact key to salvation, and are therefore dangerous talk. The jealous God we serve will have NO OTHER GOD's before Him. You cannot serve two masters. Either you choose the salvation which is offered to you through Christ, and Him alone, or you Choose to "mix and mingle" it with some very far-fetched Catholic doctrine. When you choose the latter, however, then, unfortunately Revelation 3:15 applies.

So in conclusion, yes, Mary was the initial and primary living metaphor for "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory" (cf. Colossians 1:27).

But, goldenchild, all there is to be gleaned from this is: so are you! :wink:

Eagerly looking forward to reading your reply,
Very sincerely,
Thew

[Mujibur]

Um... yeah! Also, God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born. Why wouldn't He want to do that in order to have a perfect mother?! If you could choose a custom mom, so to speak, and "customize" her to have no sin, wouldn't you? I know I would.

Why would Jesus need a perfect mother? If Mary was an imperfect being, would she pass on that imperfection to Jesus in the womb? Because of his "fully God" nature, Jesus would be immune to the curse of original sin. Yes, Jesus definitely could have picked anybody He wanted to be His mother. He also could have picked where He would be born and the social class of family He would be born into. He chose to be born in a lowly manger, surrounded by barn animals, to a carpenter and his wife (not a King), and to spend His ministry associating with sinners and the lowlifes of the Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers). So why would He then need to have a "perfect" mother?

[Anthony Wales]

[QUOTE=Thew]Golden Child,

You are on the verge of understanding something great, but some of your assertions, however, have you hanging by a very thin thread. Your observation that Mary is a bodily representation of the Ark of the Covenant is brilliant, i.e. scriptural.

However, what you're on the verge of realizing, but haven't yet, is that Mary is noneother than the representation of what ALL humans can become, if they receive Christ, the Hope of Glory, into their hearts.

We all can become bearers of the Covenant!
What is crucial for you to see, is that God wishes to dwell in all of us.
WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, God no longer dwells in inanimate objects: Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desired to do with all mankind. Ponder this before you reply. The tone of my post is not meant condescending, so if that's how it's coming across, I apologize. And don't simply believe what I'm saying, cross-check it with scripture, in connection with what you know about the CHARACTER and NATURE of God Himself, as a person.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that God wants to live in us, and does live in us through faith and the sacraments. The Church teaches that in every Mass Jesus Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and therefore lives in us. Also, the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer says that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit as his first gift to those who believe - hence the Church teaches that we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is both a sign and reality of what God desires for all of us. She perfectly cooperated with Christ and she is already bodily in heaven. You say Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desires for all of us. Does this mean she is already a living metaphor of the bodily resurrection?

Now consider the following very carefully: if you assert that Mary was sinless, while ignoring the excellent scriptures in Luke that Ric posted above, you are inadvertently stating that Mary would also have been capable of dying for our sins in the same manner Jesus did, i.e. for the sins of all history.

This is not true. It if the fact that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man that means he can die for the salvation of the world. Sinlessness alone would be enough. Hence you objection to Mary's sinlessness on the grounds that this means she could play the same role as Christ in salvation is wrong.

If the scriptures that Ric quotes above, which actually give the most concise explanation of and background on Mary's human condition that you will find in scripture, do not suffice, then perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what the Catholic Church is teaching you.

I responded to the Scripture passages mentioned by Ric (about the purification), and no reply has been posted. Perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what Protestant Churches are teaching you.

This may be hard for you to accept, but you must admit, if you are to be trusted, that the Word of God must have the final say, and not the teaching of any earthly organization which presumes to have powers which extend BEYOND the Word of God.

The Word of God has the final say. Jesus Christ is the Word of God (see John 1). This Word comes down to us in both the Bible and Tradition, and is authentically interpreted by the Catholic Magisterium. To ignore Tradition and the magisterium and only go by the Bible is to neglect part of the word of God and follow the man-made tradition of 'Scripture alone'. So Catholics are doing what the ought to do when they follow the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium.

Even the very words of Jesus Himself condemn all mankind in this regard:

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone"... Why did Mary not come forth? Where was she? Would you dare suggest Jesus "forgot" about her when He made this suggestion? Or that He was only addressing the immediate, present crowd in saying "among you"? Or would you dare assert that only male Jews were allowed to participate in stonings? If so, you would be missing the point of the enitre Gospel, as it is uttered from the mouth of the only sinless person to walk this earth after the fall of Adam, Jesus, the Christ.

In the words you quote Jesus is not saying that all human beings are sinners. He may say this elsewhere, but not on this occasion. He is challenging the double standards of the woman's accusers and saying that only sinless people may execute judgement. You are reading your own ideas into the text when you say that Jesus is labelling all people as sinners.

I am fairly sure that Mary was not present at this incident. I understand that this occurred in Jerusalem not in Jesus' home town and we also know that Mary did not accompany Jesus on all his preaching mission. So these are two reasons why Mary may not have been at this incident. It is surely clear that Jesus' challenge ('who he is without sin...') is directed towards those present at the time (particularly the woman's accusers). Since it was likely that Mary was not there, this means that Jesus is not accusing her of being a sinner. Jesus' words also give us something to think about, but strictly speaking they are not saying everyone is a sinner.

Even if Mary was present this does not mean she was a sinner. Jesus says if you are going to condemn her it should be the person without sin who throws the first stone. He does not say she must be condemned and therefore the person who is sinless must cast a stone. Hence Mary could have been sinless and present and chosen not to throw a stone. Also, since Mary perfectly followed Jesus it is fitting that she would not have condemned the woman. Jesus emphasised the importance of mercy and Mary would therefore have shown mercy to people.

And what about John 1:29, 16:8? You know, the sin of the world?
Would you assert that Mary, although a Jew, was not of this world?

It is perfectly Scriptural to assert that Mary was not of this world because in John's Gospel Jesus is recorded as saying that his disciples do not belong to the world (17:16).

Or, will you, in defense of the Church, reiterate the Catholic belief that Mary did not die? If so, where, again do you find this in the scripture? The myth that Mary also ascended into heaven is simply not scriptural. Mary eventually died (physically at least).

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary ascended into heaven, but that she was assumed into heaven. There is a big difference: Jesus ascended because he took himself to heaven, Mary is assumed because God took her to heaven. The Catholic Church does not say that Mary did not die, but that she taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.

Please show me where Scripture says Mary was not assumed into heaven. The Assumption of Mary is found in Tradition which has as much authority as Scripture and it is dogmatically taught by the Magisterium - this means that it is part of Divine revelation.

It is also implied in the Bible. Someone else posted a good response showing that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, and you accepted this. Psalm 132:8 says "Rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might" (NRSV). This verse is clearly talking about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ - this is clear by the words "rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place", and the words "your might" because the work of Christ is the Lord's mightiest work. Since Mary has been shown to be the Ark and this verse connects the Ark with Jesus, it is clear that she is being referred to in this verse. The Psalm says that the Ark will also rise and go to the resting place - that is, Mary will be assumed body and soul (rise) into heaven (the resting place). The fact that the Psalm is talking about Christ's physical resurrection and ascenion confirms that the Ark will also go up physically.

Goldenchild, you must see that she cannot continually be put by the Church on the same level with Christ.

Don't you see that by doing so, you are elevating her to the status of a God? Some Catholics even pray to her, believing that, like God, she hears prayers beyond the grave. But where is this in scripture?

The Church does not put Mary on the same level as Christ. Jesus Christ is God, whereas Mary is merely a creature who has been given great favours by God and because of Christ. This is the teaching of the Church.

Please explain how Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven, makes her equal to God. Adam and Eve were originally free from sin and could have been free from sin forever, does this mean they are equal to God? All of us (if we get to heaven) will be free from sin for eternal life, does this make us equal to God? Of course not, so how does Mary being sinless make her equal to God? Particularly, when the Catholic Church says she is free from sin by the grace of God.

Everyone who attains to the resurrection of the righteous will be in heaven body and soul forever. Does this mean that we are equal to God? Of course not, so how does Mary being body and soul in heaven a little earlier make her equal to God? Particularly, when the Church says this is a work of God.

By doing these things, one effectively worships Mary. Whereas God clearly stated "You shall have no other Gods before me". What do you do with this scripture? Cast it aside in favor of Church doctrine?

Please explain how saying Mary was a sinless human being, was assumed into heaven, and that we can ask her to pray for us, is worshipping Mary? There is only one God and Catholics worship him only - we do not call Mary 'God', the Mass is not addressed to God not Mary, and we live for God not Mary.

Catholics have no problem with that or any passages of Scripture. We accept both the Bible and the teachings of the Church. You have created a straw-men version of Catholicism and pitted it against the Bible. We don't have any difficulties or have to choose between the Bible and the Church, because we accept the actual teachings of Catholicism and not your invented version of it.

The first thing you state is also based on misleading Church doctrine.

"First off, Mary is God's mother", you said.

This statement unwittingly implies that Mary herself is a deity, which, I'm sure you would agree, would be apostasy.

This doctrine does not imply that Mary is a deity. It is defending the truth that God truly became Incarnate in her womb and was born of her. It does not say she generated the Divinity of Christ, but that the Divinity was truly united with humanity in her womb and born of her. Scripture and Protestants call Mary 'the mother of Jesus', and both Scripture and Protestants call Jesus 'God', therefore it logically follows that Mary is the 'mother of God'.

The Gospel of John Chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being [i.e. God, the Word [Jesus], created all things]."

According to the scripture, Jesus was in eternity past. He was not created. Instead, it was He, who created all things.
Creating all things includes Him having created Mary.

The Catholic Church teaches these things. In fact, it declared John's Gospel to be inspired Scripture.

For a God to be born into this world by a woman is much different language than stating that "God has a mother". You must differentiate your language, even if the Church does not, and understand that there is a crucial difference.

You have misunderstood, in my opinion. God became Man and became like us in all things but sin. In Jesus, God shares in everything we have (except sin) and since we have mothers, he therefore has a mother as well. The phrase 'mother of God' affirms the fact that God truly became Man and accepted every aspect of humanity (except sin), against the idea that the Divinity merely hung around the humanity of Jesus.

In the Gospel of Matthew 12:48 (cf. also Mark 3:33) we find an account given of Mary's very natural human nature. First of all, we read here, quite plainly, that she had other children. We know that Jesus had siblings, particularly because at least one is a major New Testament figure, who also believed in the Risen Christ and was saved.

Please show me a single verse where it says 'the children of Mary,' or refers to someone apart from Jesus as 'the son of Mary' or 'the daughter of Mary.' The only person ever referred to as a child of Mary is Jesus Christ. Here is a good response to your claim by Dave Armstrong, taken from his site, 'Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.'

MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus' "brothers," this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple. "Adelphos," the Gk. word for "brother" in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote (1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3); (2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29); (3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47); (4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5); (5) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17); (7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17); (8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word "brother"/"adelphos" in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.
2. "Brethren" - Biblical Exegesis

A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham's "brother", is actually his nephew.

B. Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).

C. Cis and Eleazar are described as "brethren", whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).

D. "Brethren" as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.

E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for "cousin." The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using "adelphos," even when non-siblings are being referred to.

F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.

G. Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).

H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.

I. Even standard evangelical Protestant commentaries such as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown admit that the question is not a simple one: "an exceedingly difficult question . . . nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . vexed question, encompassed with difficulties." {commentary for Mt 13:55}

J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 ("Joseph knew her not till . . .") implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since "till" does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).

K. Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.

L. Jesus committed his Mother to the care of John from the Cross (Jn 19:26-7). This is improbable if He had full brothers of His own then alive. Again, many Protestant interpreters agree.

M. Who would want to have God for a brother anyway?! Talk about sibling rivalry and an inferiority complex! The whole notion, if pondered, seems more and more improper and unbecoming - out and out implausible, even apart from the biblical data.

3. Early Christian Tradition was unanimous in holding to Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was first doubted, as far as we know, by one Helvidius, who tangled with St. Jerome in 380, but by few others until recent times. All the Protestant Founders firmly held the belief, as did later notable Protestants such as John Wesley, and many more to this day, on biblical grounds alone.

But this account depicts something much more interesting. Mary, who you say is sinless, went with some of Jesus' siblings to get Him, while He was preaching and healing, because she and her sons thought Jesus had lost His mind. This is scriptural.

You have misread the text. The account in Mark (chapter 3) says that people were saying Jesus was out of his mind (verse 21), and that this led his family (Mother and cousins) to get him. It does not say that his family believed he was out of his mind, but that they came to get him because people were saying that he was. They may have wanted to find out what was going on and/or been concerned that people would harm him.

When the disciples told Jesus, God in the flesh, that His "mother and brothers" were outside, having come to fetch Him since He'd seemingly gone crazy, Jesus, God incarnate, responded: "Who is my mother?"

Which, plainly meant: the mere fact alone that she bore me physically does not make her MY mother. This was Jesus speaking as God, not man.

The fact that Mary bore Jesus physically does make her his mother. Both Judaism and Christianity say that children must honour their parents, and Jesus would have always honoured Mary as his mother. His point in this incident is that while physical motherhood is important, it is more important for people to do the will of God, than be physically related to him. But notice that it is Mary who accepts the word of God, ponders it and puts it into practice (Luke 1:38; 2:19, 51). Hence Mary is Jesus' physical mother, but is also the one who is specially honoured as most spiritually related to Jesus.

You must learn to differentiate, and to stay true to the integrity of the text your reading and the God you're serving. Your interpretations are extremely biased in favor of Mary being a Goddess. It appears as though you trust Catholic teaching more than the Word of God itself and the Person of Jesus Himself.

You must also interpret texts correctly and not blatantly misrepresent Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not say that Mary is a goddess. Catholic teaching is the word of God, and we believe it because it is Jesus Christ speaking to us and we trust him.

I may respond to the rest of the post later.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is misleading. It quotes fathers referring to Mary as pure, sinless, etc. in one passage without quoting what they said about her being a sinner in other passages. I've already documented Ambrose and Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, yet the material you've cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia misleadingly presents both of those fathers as if they agreed with the doctrine. The same can be said of Justin Martyr, Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other fathers cited in your post.

The quote you mentioned from Sts Ambrose and Augustine says nothing for or against the notion that Mary is free from sin. Yet in other writings they explicitly say things about Mary that are in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii).
Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

I would like to see statements by Justin Martyr, Ephraim, and Cyril of Jerusalem that explicitly state that Mary was conceived with sin and committed actual sin. Justin Martyr and Cyril of Jerusalem both compare Mary with Eve before she sinned, thereby implying that Mary is without sin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100) (Catecheses, xii, 29). Ephraim makes the following statement about Mary, which may not used the phrase 'immaculate conception' but carry the essential meaning of the doctrine:

"Most holy Lady, Mother of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm), alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

Your post wrongly associates the New Eve concept with Mary being sinless from conception. Some of the church fathers referred to Mary as a New Eve, but they didn't associate that concept with Mary being sinless from conception. The fact that modern Roman Catholics associate the two concepts doesn't prove that the church fathers did. We know that men like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as a New Eve and a sinner. For you, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other Roman Catholic sources to cite the patristic use of the New Eve concept, as if it proves early belief in the Immaculate Conception doctrine or a seed form of it, is fallacious.

Please provide evidence to support your claims that Justin Martyr, Tertullian and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as both the new Eve and a sinner. Justin Martyr and Tertullian compared Eve while she was innocent with Mary (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100) (De carne Christi, xvii), this atleast implies that he believed Mary to be innocent. You may have support in John Chrysostom because he may have seen some of Mary's actions as sinful (Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

The comparison between Eve and Mary in the Church Fathers supports the claim that they saw Mary as free from all sin. They compare Mary with Eve before she sinned, thereby implying that was without sin. For example:
Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firm cus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The fact is, nobody in the earliest centuries advocates the doctrine. And it was contradicted for hundreds of years by church fathers and Roman bishops.

The doctrine may not be advocated under the exact title of 'Immaculate Conception' but the essence is there in many statements by early Christians. The meaning of the doctrine is that Mary was preserved from all stain of sin from the first moment of her conception and was sinless throughout her life. These ideas can be clearly found in the following statements by and references to the Church Fathers, thus providing a solid foundation for the eventual dogmatic definition.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");

Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);

Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").

In refuting Pelagius St Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

It is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

She was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);

St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").

Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

Quoting some church fathers referring to Mary being a pure virgin or having a post-conception sinlessness, or even an immaculate conception, doesn't prove the RCC's claim that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held by the church.

If a doctrine is absent and contradicted early on, then continues to be contradicted by many people while some begin advocating it, why would anybody conclude that it's a doctrine always held by the universal church?
If the RCC's claims about this doctrine were correct, why would such influential men as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III be contradicting it more than a thousand years after the time of the apostles?

You aren't even attempting to reconcile these facts with the claims of the RCC. Instead, you're repeating a series of false and misleading claims made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you're appealing to a process of doctrinal development that's more evasive than explanatory. Contradictions are not developments. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years refer to Mary as a sinner, yet modern Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness from conception is a Divinely revealed doctrine always held by the Christian church, that isn't a development akin to an acorn growing into an oak tree. Rather, it's a contradiction. It's like trying to derive an oak tree from an apple seed.

The Bible does not use the word 'Trinity' and it does not contain the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. It is a few centuries before these Creeds, and about 1000 years before the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is included in the Nicene Creed. Yet Protestants and Catholics both state that thesse things were always believed by the Church and taught in the Bible. Hence it is possible that the Immaculate Conception was always held by the Church even though it is expressed using that term, particularly when the meaning of the doctrine is implied in the Bible and implied or expressly stated by many people in every age of the Church.

Also, we must understand what Pius IX meant when he said that the immaculate conception is a doctrine always held by the Church. Did he mean that every single Catholic since the Apostles has believed in the doctrine using the exact wording he used in 1854? Did he mean that every time the doctrine has been mentioned or indirectly referred to by Church councils and official Church documents that it has been affirmed or at least not contradicted? Did he mean that the doctrine is implicitly taught in Scripture and since the Bible is always part of the Church teaching that the Church must have always held the Immaculate Conception? Did he mean that in every age the doctrine has been implicitly or expressly held by an overall consesus of Catholics?

Please show me where Pope Innocent III speaks against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

I will attempt to explain the statement by Pius IX, give an explanation of doctrinal development, etc that settles this issue (atleast for me) in the near future.

God bless,
Anthony.

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales,

My first post in this thread cites both Ambrose and Augustine denying that anybody other than Jesus was conceived without sin. I also quoted two historians agreeing with what I said about those church fathers, and one of those historians cites another passage in which Augustine denies that Mary was immaculately conceived. I'm not going to repeat what I documented in my first post. If you still don't understand it, then you should reread what I wrote.

I can give many other examples of the church fathers denying the Roman Catholic claim that Mary was sinless from conception. I'm not going to take the space here to list all of them. You can find a lot of examples I've documented at:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

I'll give several examples in this post, but more can be found at the web site linked above. Since we're discussing church fathers, and the RCC claims that the Immaculate Conception doctrine was always held and taught by the church, we wouldn't expect any of the alleged fathers of Roman Catholicism to deny the doctrine. If you want to argue that widespread rejection of the doctrine is consistent with Roman Catholic claims about church history, then you need to explain why alleged fathers of your denomination would not only reject, but also publicly write against doctrines that supposedly have always been held and taught by the church.

Clement of Alexandria refers to Christ as the only sinless person:

"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)

Tertullian refers to Mary as a sinner and a New Eve in the same document. He writes the following in response to people who deny that Jesus had an earthly family, then he comments on Mary being a second Eve:

"First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside [Matthew 12:46-50], if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,--who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them....But there is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. 'The Lord's brethren had not yet believed in Him.' So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion's time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, 'What are mother and brothers to me?' And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one's parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour--even because they listened to the word (of God)--He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours--for God's work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother's 'womb and paps,' but designating those as more 'blessed who hear the word of God.'...For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother." (On the Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)

Origen wrote:

"While if by those 'who were without sin' he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who 'did no sin.'...God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin...For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception." (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)

The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly comments:

"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll writes the following about Cyril of Alexandria:

"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)

John Chrysostom repeatedly refers to Mary sinning in his commentaries on the gospels:

"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)

"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)

Much more could be cited, but let me now move on to the bishops of Rome. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff counted seven different Roman bishops who denied the sinlessness of Mary (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123). Keep in mind that counting seven Roman bishops who denied the doctrine isn't equivalent to saying that the rest believed in it. There are many Roman bishops in the early centuries whose writings aren't extant or who didn't comment on Mary's status as a sinner in any of their documents that are extant. We have record of several different Roman bishops denying the sinlessness of Mary, but it's likely that an even larger number rejected her sinlessness.

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll, in his book that I cited earlier in this post, cites Pope Innocent III saying that Mary was "begotten in guilt", that she needed "cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin" (p. 185). Since Innocent III lived in the second millennium of church history, I would ask, again, how it can be that such influential figures as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III rejected the Immaculate Conception if the doctrine was always taught by the church, as Pope Pius IX claimed.

You can't claim that only a small number of people opposed the sinlessness of Mary. J.N.D. Kelly comments that almost all Eastern theologians agreed with Origen's view that Mary was a sinner. And I've cited Augustine saying that the view that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human was consistent with the faith of the universal church. The evidence suggests that Mary's sinlessness from conception was absent and contradicted for hundreds of years, then became a minority view while still being widely rejected.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte

[goldenchild]

I guess I'm gonna have to fall out of this discussion, at least for now. I simply don't have the time to weed through all of this insanity. I'm sorry. I presented the biblical view and there really is no way around it. I would be glad to show you where you are not making sense, but for the time being I just don't physically have the time. I'm sorry. For those of you say that the Church fathers didn't believe she is sinless, then I need specific quotes. Second, it really doesn't matter what SOME of these fathers said. Only the infallible teaching of the Church really matters, as a result of the teaching being completely biblical. Romans refers to groups of people in general. It is not saying that ALL individuals have sinned, and it's not saying that ALL individuals in a specific GROUP have sinned. It is saying that there are sinners in all groups, and from all walks of life, not that all of a certain group have sinned. "There are no exceptions."
And yeah, we can be an ark of the covenant in a sense. But we will never, ever be the ark of the real flesh and blood of Jesus. This is what puts Mary heads and tails above all other human beings, besides Jesus himself. I don't have the time, to address each and every single one of the obscure quotes you guys gave me, so even though it seems that I don't know what I'm talking about, I won't be able to follow this discussion. There was just way to many posts directed straight at me. If there is any possible way that a one-on-one debate can be set up between me and one other person on this subject I would be more than glad to participate. But there is just too much to weed through in this thread. If anyone wants a one-on-one debate, just set it up and direct me to it.

[JasonTE]

goldenchild,

You gave us no Biblical reason to believe in the sinlessness of Mary. If we're to parallel Mary with the ark of the covenant because Mary carried Jesus in her womb, then what about other objects that carried Jesus in some sense (His house, the cross, the people who carried Him from the cross, His tomb, etc.)? Why would Mary be the only candidate for a parallel with the ark? Why would there have to be a parallel? You try to parallel 2 Samuel and Luke, but you ignore many differences between the passages and you make the similarities out to be more significant than they actually are. You parallel 2 Samuel 6:9 and Luke 1:43, yet 2 Samuel 6:9 is spoken in the sense of fear, whereas Luke 1:43 is spoken in the sense of joy. The words are similar, but the meaning isn't. Your parallel between 2 Samuel 6:16 and Luke 1:44 is too vague to be of much significance.

Even if we accept the ark/Mary parallel, why would it require that Mary be sinless throughout her life? Why couldn't she be sinless only when carrying Jesus? And if she had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus, did Mary's mother have to be sinless in order to carry her?

Even Roman Catholic scholars reject the ark/Mary parallel. Some of the foremost Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:

"However, in our judgment there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant." (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978] p. 134)

The earliest ark parallels among the church fathers identify Jesus, not Mary, as the parallel to the ark. Irenaeus writes:

"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)

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)

Victorinus sees the ark of Revelation 11:19 as representing the blessings Jesus brought to mankind. He tells us that the temple is Jesus, meaning that the ark is within Jesus. Roman Catholics make the opposite argument, claiming that the ark, as Mary, carries Jesus. Victorinus writes:

"'And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven.' The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' And when the Jews said, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building,' the evangelist says, 'He spake of the temple of His body.' 'And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament.' The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11:19)

There is no Biblical evidence for the sinlessness of Mary. And the most natural reading of passages like Luke 1:47 and 2:48-50 is that Mary was a sinner. Nobody in the earliest generations of Christianity refers to Mary as sinless from conception, but many church fathers, from the second century onward, refer to her as a sinner. Even some Roman bishops denied that she was sinless. The concept that Mary was sinless from conception was absent and contradicted for hundreds of years, then became a minority view while still being widely rejected. These facts of history contradict the RCC's false claim that Mary's sinlessness is an apostolic tradition always understood and taught by the church.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Anthony Wales]

Jason,

The way you have treated this topic is not accurate or fair. On the one hand, you interpret Pius IX's words to mean that every Catholic (from the Apostles to the present) explicitly believed and taught the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, you mispresent the beliefs and teachings of Christians throughout history (part. the Church fathers) to make it appear that no one believed or taught anything like the Immaculate Conception for a long time. Hence you create a contradiction between the words of Pius IX and Church history.

In reality there is no such contradiction. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is held implicitly in Scripture and the overall consensus of the Church Fathers. Over time it came to be explicitly held by the Church and eventually defined by Pius IX. Hence it is true to say that the doctrine has always been held, when this phrase of Pius IX is understood correctly.

It is enough to show that the doctrine is implicitly taught by the overall consensus of the Fathers to show that it was held in early times. Hence there is no problem with a minority of statements being found in the early Christian writings that contradict the doctrine.

Also, the process from implicit belief to explicit belief included Catholics discussing how and in what way Mary is free from sin. Given that discussion and study played a role in the development of this doctrine, it is not suprising that some Catholics (not the Church) disagreed with it. The fact that the discussions and study eventually resolved the difficulties and resulted in the triumph of the doctrine demonstrates that it is from God.

For those interested, further information on the Immaculate Conception, and the related topics of doctrinal development, tradition, etc may be found at Biblical Evidence For Catholicism at:http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

God bless,
Anthony.

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales said:



On the one hand, you interpret Pius IX's words to mean that every Catholic (from the Apostles to the present) explicitly believed and taught the Immaculate Conception.

No, you're misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say that the Pope refers to every individual Roman Catholic believing in the doctrine. Rather, what I said is that the Pope refers to the church always understanding and teaching the doctrine. If the Pope's claim was true, we would expect widespread acceptance of the doctrine and thus widespread and explicit evidence of its acceptance. We would expect the church fathers, men who allegedly were fathers of early Roman Catholicism, to believe in and teach the doctrine.

Instead, we see nobody in the earliest generations teaching the doctrine, and it's widely contradicted by church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years. The people contradicting the doctrine give no indication that they're opposing a widely accepted teaching of the church. Rather, they speak as if their readers would have no objection.



On the other hand, you mispresent the beliefs and teachings of Christians throughout history (part. the Church fathers) to make it appear that no one believed or taught anything like the Immaculate Conception for a long time.

Who taught the Immaculate Conception in the first century? Nobody in any extant records we have. How about the second century? Nobody. Or the third? Not anybody. In the post-Nicene church we find some people referring to the doctrine or possibly referring to it, but those people seem to have been a minority. If you want to deny my statement that the doctrine is absent early on in church history, then why don't you prove that I'm wrong? Instead, you're just asserting it without proof.



The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is held implicitly in Scripture and the overall consensus of the Church Fathers.

I've explained how the alleged parallel between the ark of the covenant and Mary doesn't prove an immaculate conception. The Eve/Mary parallel doesn't either. Eve and Mary can be paralleled without Mary being sinless throughout her life. In fact, as I've documented, the church fathers repeatedly referred to Mary being a New Eve and a sinner. You haven't proven that the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture or the church fathers. You've asserted it, but that isn't equivalent to proving it. Besides, Pope Pius IX claimed that the doctrine has always been taught by the church, not just vaguely implied, and he refers to the doctrine being taught very forcibly in ancient documents from the West and East. He doesn't just say that the doctrine was implied by some people while being rejected by many others. Even some Roman bishops denied the doctrine, such as Pope Innocent III, who lived more than a thousand years after the apostles. If a Pope was contradicting the doctrine so late in church history, why should we believe that it's a doctrine always taught by the church?



Hence there is no problem with a minority of statements being found in the early Christian writings that contradict the doctrine.

Your claim that the people who opposed the doctrine were only a minority is not only unproven, but also highly absurd. Basil, when commenting that Luke 2:35 is a reference to Mary sinning, tells us that "there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation" (Letter 260:6). As I documented in the first post in this thread, which you keep ignoring, Augustine tells us that his belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human is consistent with the faith of the universal church. Even if you want to argue that some people disagreed with Basil and Augustine, you still have to address the fact that the views of Basil and Augustine were widespread enough for them to perceive their view as being the dominant position of their day.

In the earliest generations of church history, nobody refers to Mary being sinless throughout her life. At the same time, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen deny that she was sinless, followed by many other men of later generations saying the same thing. Jerome, in his disputes with the Pelagians, repeatedly states that the Pelagians cannot cite a single person other then Jesus who has been sinless. Augustine, in his disputes with the Pelagians, argues that Mary had a post-conception sinlessness, but was not immaculately conceived. Some of the most influential church fathers and Roman bishops from all of church history denied that Mary was sinless from conception: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Leo I, etc. Other influential leaders weren't as explicit, but implied that Mary was a sinner. Yet, the RCC tells us:

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.... Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin....And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner -- this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine....this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Thew]

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, I was not attacking goldenchild, or Catholics. Either my comments hold water scripturally, or they do not.

Let’s see if what I have written stands the test put forth by God’s Word in Mark 13:31 (cf. my signature).

Regardless of whether you find it strange, this needs to be written: What you are about to read is written from a Spirit which has been resurrected by the love of Christ. My human Spirit is no longer dead in its sins, for I can go to the time and the place in my life where God raised me up from my spiritually deceased state. Now I no longer live, but Christ in me: these are not mere feeble attempts at quoting scripture to make myself appear spiritual or something juvenile such as this. What I write, I write in love; not my own, but Christ’s. I realize that this is not identically verbatim to everyone’s experience, and want to be sensitive to that.

However, what I’m speaking of is promised in the Word of God to every believer, and is actually required of every believer, it is a command of God ("be continually filled with the Spirit"), and must be fulfilled according to HIS guidelines in scripture, and NOT Church mandates.
That’s first in answer to your following question:


You say Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desires for all of us. Does this mean she is already a living metaphor of the bodily resurrection?No. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, not Mary. And it was HE who was raised from the dead. He conquered the grave. However, He is our living metaphor of not only bodily resurrection, but, more importantly, of a resurrection from spiritual death which is a state in which every human has found themselves in after the fall of Adam, until they receive Christ into their Spirits; not only into their mouths and stomachs: which leads me to your next point.



The Catholic Church clearly teaches that God wants to live in us, and does live in us through faith and the sacraments.
God does not live in you by Sacraments. Only by faith.There are oodles of scriptures I could quote to back up this claim.

You know them all.

"8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith – and this [grace is] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast [of their deeds]."

The Church teaches Faith mixed with Sacraments, the bible teaches Faith alone.


The Church teaches that in every Mass Jesus Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and therefore lives in us.Forgive my bluntness, but this is a dangerous half-truth. The Church, more specifically, teaches that every Mass, Jesus comes to us in the Eucharist by way of the Transubstantiation.

This is quite different from the Lord moving on his congregation by the power of the Holy Spirit. You must force your mind to discriminate between these two doctrines. They are not one in the same.

The Transubstantiation involves a ceremony, in which Jesus Christ himself, in His actual flesh-and-blood bodily resurrected form, is drawn down from His heavenly seat at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and is then transmuted on the altar into the form of a wafer by the priest. The Host, as any true Catholic believes, is the actual body of Christ Himself (the same is done with the wine, which allegedly becomes the actual blood of Jesus Christ Himself).

This, however, is not what the BIBLE says about how God has revealed, and still reveals Himself to us. Jesus is not transmuted into Bread, nor is He transmuted into Wine, You cannot ingest Him in order to receive His Spirit, He lives IN YOU by the power of His Holy Spirit when you accept Him as Lord of your life.

Transubstantiation is based on an ancient Egyptian worship service in honor of the sun God. It was believed that humans had to physically ingest their God in order to receive its spirit. Many native American and African tribes etc. practice similar things, by eating physical parts of another person or an animal in order to receive their spirits and/or strength.

Christians are not to practice a form of receiving Christ, nor worship Him in a way, that verges on cannibalistic practices. Jesus Himself is resurrected. The practice of the Transubstantiation contradicts this fact by its actions. Jesus sent us His Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who enters our human spirits without the aid of physical mechanics, but by faith alone.

The Bible simply says we are to think on Jesus having been on that cross, whenever we eat or drink. And it teaches that the Holy Spirit enters into and dwells in human temples whenever and wherever we receive Christ, not exclusively through the physical mechanics of a Eucharist.



Also, the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer says that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit as his first gift to those who believe - hence the Church teaches that we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

This may be true, but the actions which are performed during every single Eucharist, i.e. the Transubstantiation, contradict this Biblical Truth. If our actions stand in opposition to Bible Truth, the Truth is not in us, and we have coalesced Biblical Truth with man-made (some even pagan) rituals and have diluted and twisted its meaning.


[...] you objection to Mary's sinlessness on the grounds that this means she could play the same role as Christ in salvation is wrong.

What I asserted is true, Anthony. Let me show you what I mean. Look at the plain Truth of the scripture itself:

1 Timothy 2:5


"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time."

This scripture clearly states that we are to look to Christ, and Him alone, for salvation, AND it clearly demonstrates the position He has in heaven. He stands between us and the Father. No other. This is an absolute Truth, which cannot be forced into relative application in other areas. It is also true of every area of our relationship to God the Father. Jesus Christ is our ONLY access to that throne, as He Himself also said:


"I am the WAY, the Truth and the Life; No man comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

And on prayer:


"Pray to the Father in my name [...]" (Matt.6:6; John16:24,26. 6)

Here we have the scripture itself to command and clearly guide us with regard to our One and only Mediator.
Yet, although you claim that you personally, and the Catholic Church, recognize, honor and practice the above scriptures, your very actions and words on this thread, as well as the actions and practices of the Catholic Church do not demonstrate this. Statistically speaking, you have put more energy into refuting the scripture I base my claims on in order to defend the immaculate conception of a mere mortal than you have spent quoting the Bible itself. Stay with me, I want to show you why this is relevant to my quote of you above.
It is a fact that you have continually relied on what you refer to as "Tradition" to substantiate your claims which, you believe, establishes the credibility of your standpoint. You and I both know, that in contradiction to all of the scriptures above, the Catholic Church not only advocates praying to Mary and other Saints, it promotes and furthers this in its traditions and canons.

The true test of any doctrine is whether, in its actual practices, it contradicts scripture on any one point.

Teaching that humans may have recourse to another source aside from Christ, whether it be for the absolution of sin by chanting "Hail Mary..."s, or by praying to her in general, IS elevating that person, by our actions, to the status of a deity.

This IS done, Anthony. On paper and in practice. And here’s how: The presumption alone that Mary would ever have anything to say to the Father or Jesus on our behalf with regard to our absolution from sin, or would hear any other kind of prayer, assumes that

she hears prayers in the first place (but you will not find any scripture in the Bible to back this up, in fact you will only find scriptures which equate communicating to dead humans with divination, or dealing with "familiar spirits"; cf. Leviticus 12; 1 Samuel 28 and 1 Samuel 31; Leviticus 20; I Chronicles 10; further in the book of Luke 16:19, Jesus clearly illustrates in His story that the dead are not allowed to hear, speak or act from beyond the grave on our behalf);
she, in her glorified state, has earned some status comparable to that of Christ’s which has earned her the ability to take our prayers before a Holy God, (however, this is, in its absolute effect and entirety, the very ESSENCE of the role of Christ in Heaven, based on His work on the Cross, and is the role of no other!)


On point 1:

In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells a story. It is disputed as to whether this was merely a parable, particularly because Jesus names true historical figures by their actual names, which He otherwise never did in His parables.

In this story, He explained what the afterlife is like for the dead. Read it. The thrust of it is that once we have died, we are not permitted to act on behalf of others from beyond, nor can we communicate with the living from there. This is very clear, and spoken from the mouth of our Lord Himself. Any subsequently implemented practices or doctrine of the Church which are in contradiction to this BIBLICAL information, must be seen as false teaching.

So in effect, by attempting to force a view of a sinless Mary, you must considerably stretch the meaning of very clear scriptures which state that all mankind was imputed sin to it through the fall of Adam, including Mary, and you must reinterpret the very words of Christ Himself with regard to the post-mortem position of human beings(e.g. father Abraham himself).

It’s important for you to see that the Church doesn’t just leave its interpretation at that, with the sinless nature theory. Based on this purported sinless nature, (i.e. favor with God which grant her an unusual position among the saints) Mary is believed to have powers beyond the grave, which is a teaching that contradicts the words of Christ Himself.

In contradicting, or at the very least, overriding His very words in order to defend Church "Tradition", the Church undermines Christ’s very own authority as spoken in Luke for instance. The Church does not reinforce His authority with such beliefs, it augments is, which results in diminishment of Christ’s position.

By doing this, in turn, one elevates Mary and other saints to a status which has somehow gained authority over the very words and instructions of Christ Himself, having bent rules governing the beyond He clearly speaks of in the above passage in Luke. This, in its essence, is elevating Mary to the status of a God, since it conveys on her the ability to override the very teachings of Jesus Himself.

Mary, also being human, while having these extra-human or super-human attributes, similar (or perhaps even greater in their "amending" or "overriding" character) to those of Christ Himself, is, in practice, qualified to "stand in" on the absolution of our sins.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches and practices Anthony: that Mary, from heaven, hears our prayers when we have sinned, hears our praise and worship of her


(Hail Mary, Mother of God, [...] blessed art thou among women [...], pray for us sinners [...]; these are utterances of reverence of Mary, reverence which is due to Christ alone! But our God is a jealous God. He will not hear this praise of, nor appeal to her, instead of to His Son!).

The belief is that she has some ability or power or position that God honors despite what Christ has clearly taught in the book of Luke. Ask yourself, if this Church teaching is truly based on scripture, then why did Jesus even need to die on the Cross? Why, Mary could, without having died on the cross, simply appeal to the Father’s anger toward sin.

Be not deceived Anthony, replacing our One Mediator, the Christ, with any other, angers God greatly.

In turning to another source of access to the Father, we not only ignore Jesus’ clear explanation of His position (I am the Way the Truth and the Life, nobody accesses the Father except through me), we fail to recognize what God’s Son went through on that cross on our behalf.

Our praying to and revering any other being than Christ alone, trivializes what Jesus did for us.

Any tradition which contradicts this Gospel that I’m pointing to here is simply not to be trusted.

Mary has been elevated to the status of a woman with God-like attributes and powers (i.e. a Goddess), who hears prayers and acts on them, prays and stands in for us before Jesus. This human/God mix, also supposedly born of a virgin, born sinless, is precisely what Jesus is!

Now if you can’t see that this is nothing more than a blatant copycat of Christ, then I don’t know how much more graphic one has to be in order to explain this to you.

To be continued...

[Thew]

Here's more...


I responded to the Scripture passages mentioned by Ric (about the purification), and no reply has been posted. Perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what Protestant Churches are teaching you.
Aside from sounding as if you intend to mock me, you assume I’m Protestant. Well, I’m not. I was baptized Protestant (Lutheran), as an infant, but my family left the Lutheran Church when I was barely 14.

I have had vast exposure to the Catholic Church through close relatives, including my very own wife.
You assume that what I write is done so with a deliberate or unconscious Protestant pretext. It is not. I read and study the bible, and judge myself and my practices on the basis of God’s Word and Jesus Christ’s life alone. Any tradition, whether it be Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Catholic, Calvinist, Four Square, Anglican or whatever, must stand the test of the scripture. If it fails, it must be discarded.


The Word of God has the final say.
Your actions here on this thread contradict these words.
You make this bold statement, but go on to rely only on Church Tradition, quoting Canon after Canon, to support your unbiblical claim that Mary is sinless, in the face of a sheer lack of pure scriptural evidence to such a claim. You have demonstrated, if anything, that for you, the Bible, as seen as the Word of God, does in fact NOT have the final say. But that the Word of God has continued to expand and to be amended and augmented.

However, although you will not find a single scripture in the entire bible to support your claim, using the "authority" of the Church, you place the burden of proof back on the Bible itself, stating and demanding at a later point that you be shown where the Bible refutes this.

But this logic fails because the motive is askew.
When one makes up his/her mind (pretext) with regard to an extra-biblical notion, and challenges the word of God itself to refute that notion, one disqualifies oneself.
If no specific scripture exists to refute your claim, you argue, then your notion must be true; and what’s more, you have the Church backing you.
Whereas, your approach should be completely inverted:
Unless something is clearly delineated in the Bible with regard to a core spiritual truth, we should question that thing, and its authority, not the Bible’s.
Anthony, the very claim that May is sinless stands in bold opposition to the essence of the Gospel message itself.
But the words of subsequent Church Fathers, Tradition, Canon, override, in your mind, the very words of Jesus.
Here’s what you said:


To ignore Tradition and the magisterium and only go by the Bible is to neglect part of the word of God and follow the man-made tradition of 'Scripture alone'. So Catholics are doing what the ought to do when they follow the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium.
No.
What Catholics have done is to violate Galatians 1:8,9 which says,


"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Moreover, the Church has violated a DIRECT command not to add to the Gospel. In the book of the Revelation, we are forewarned, that if any man add to or take away from anything that is in the New Testament, all the plagues of the final book will be added to him:

Revelation 22:18-19:


"For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city and from the things written in this book."

Does this refer to the book of Revelation alone?
Or is Jesus referring to His Word as well, including the Gospel, in essence the whole Bible?
Even the closest possible interpretation reveals the Truth of this command:
If we assume He’s talking about Revelation only and no-one is permitted to add anything to Revelation, then logic would follow that God was prohibiting augmentation or amendment of His Word overall, particularly because Revelation is the end!

But also because, if Revelation is God’s word, it is safe to say (according to the axiom Jesus uses when applying the ten commandments and the law of the prophets and Paul: "if we are guilty on one point, we are guilty of the whole law" – Apostle Paul Galatians) that this command applies to anything which is considered to be God’s Word.

But more importantly, the notions you assert not only add to the Gospel, they contradict it in its core!


John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone"...

In the words you quote Jesus is not saying that all human beings are sinners. He may say this elsewhere, but not on this occasion.
With all due respect, you’re so very wrong Anthony.
If you do not understand this significance of this event, and the application of it, then you have not understand the Gospel at all.
Would you or I have been able to cast the first stone had we been present? Would anybody other than Christ himself? This is the message of the Gospel. God, the only one who could have condemned her, did not. He forgave her of her sins. Jesus speaks to ALL of us in this passage. NONE of us would have been worthy to cast a stone at that woman.


He is challenging the double standards of the woman's accusers and saying that only sinless people may execute judgement.
Again, no.
He is challenging not only those of the people present, but ALL of our double standards. If you do not see this, in effect you are claiming you do not have any double standards which this passage of scripture addresses in all humans. You do not feel that this applies to you personally, or that Jesus could possibly have been thinking of us when he said and did this.

Furthermore, even the purest of men, let’s take the Dali Lama maybe, or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, do not have the power to exact judgment or, what’s more, to FORGIVE SIN.

Yet you claim that Mary is sinless. By doing so, you claim that she has the power to execute judgment.

And simply because Jesus did not do so on this occasion, have no illusions, it does not mean that He will not judge the lost.

Which brings me to my next point about your having elevated Mary to the status of a Jesus-like Goddess:

Practically by your own reasoning, you have almost asserted that Mary, at the Great White Throne Judgment, will be the only human, who would be qualified to stand beside Christ when he judges the lost, just as she, if she had been present at the stoning, could have acted as Christ did, having been sinless herself. You are nearly asserting that she, being present at the final judgment, stands alone among all humans, and could practically cast the lost into eternal flame and separation from God at the end of all time; (the judgment being an event which WILL happen).

What do you think Mary’s role would be, if as you say she is sinless, at the final judgment, in light of your assertion with regard to the scene with the prostitute?

In other words: Do you actually believe this (i.e. that Mary is qualified to stand next to Christ and judge the lost)? I do not want to put words in your mouth.

And if so, question 2: Do you at least see where this kind of logic leads?


You are reading your own ideas into the text when you say that Jesus is labelling all people as sinners.
No I am not.
Instead, it is you who cannot see that this is a core Gospel axiom which applies to even you and me today.
I have understood the Gospel message that was being taught by Christ Himself in and through that event.
You must distinguish between reading into an event or text and understanding the message of the One who generated the event or text.

What you fail to recognize, is that Christ was not just being randomly tossed about by these events and improvising as He went along.

God is not subject to the whimsy of circumstance. On the contrary, it was He Himself in fact who orchestrated these confrontations even before the very foundation of the world. Everything Jesus said and did was planned far in advance.

Everything He said and did had a greater meaning and consequence which transcended its own immediate context. This, in fact, is why He was often not understood until after He had died and was resurrected.


Jesus' words also give us something to think about, but strictly speaking they are not saying everyone is a sinner.
Wrong again, strictly speaking, yes they are.
Again you miss the point of your Lord’s very own words and how they apply to your own life.
It does not matter whether Mary was present.
It does not matter that you or I could not be present there.
The point is, this axiom will, at the final judgment, be levied and was, at the Cross, levied against all of Mankind.
In addition, you did not get the point of, or ignored, my rhetorical questions in this very section you quoted me on.


[...] Mary could have been sinless and present and chosen not to throw a stone.
This is another example of what I covered in detail above of your making a DIRECT association between Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and Mary, a human, who is NOT qualified to judge a prostitute.

Here, by your very own example, you have implied that Mary could act as judge over the prostitute. How she may or may not decide (e.g. in mercy) if she were sinless, is irrelevant to my point. You are still stating, quite clearly, that she judges. A judge, either benevolent or not, is one who decides on someone’s fate with regard to the punishment of a crime. By elevating Mary to the status of a judge, you add but another attribute to her, that should actually be attributed to Christ and Him only!


"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18).

This is even Article 7 of the Catechism! "FROM THENCE HE WILL COME AGAIN TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD", not Mary!


It is perfectly Scriptural to assert that Mary was not of this world because in John's Gospel Jesus is recorded as saying that his disciples do not belong to the world (17:16).
This is a paradigmatic moment of how the very scripture itself can be utilized to confuse a point, in order to push one’s position. What you have done here is highly irresponsible. Anthony, before you let my direct language anger you, please understand that what you are doing here is actually even dangerous. You must stay focussed. Who is your Bible instructor in the Church? Drawing on scripture in this manner will only confuse you and the point more.

Look again: You have quoted a section of scripture (John 17:16) where Jesus Himself is clearly demonstrating, in prayer for the disciples, what sanctification is.

Sanctification, I’m sure you know, is for the believer, who has REPENTED!
You cannot be sanctified (set apart to fulfil a purpose) until AFTER you come to God in repentance!
In order for a person to be sanctified, they must first act on God’s plan of salvation.

Of all the scriptures you could have used to try to squeeze a sinless Mary theory into the Word of God, you could not have chosen one less appropriate. For, by choosing this particular scripture, you have unconsciously drawn a parallel to a SINFUL Mary, who is in need of sanctification subsequent to having repented!


The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary ascended into heaven, but that she was assumed into heaven. There is a big difference: Jesus ascended because he took himself to heaven, Mary is assumed because God took her to heaven.
There is not a "big" difference, Anthony. You’re only allowing the terminological wool to be pulled over your eyes if you really believe this.

In the final analysis, it is not a matter of how you word it, what’s essential is the significance of what you’re asserting. The significance of the tradition that Mary was "assumed", as you say, is that she supposedly had and has some kind of special status. But again, there is just no scripture to support this. The myth that Mary was "assumed" into heaven is simply not scriptural, and, in fact, clashes greatly with the overall Gospel message.

It clashes greatly because of the gradual, but sure accumulation of God-like features that have been attributed to a person. Let’s briefly review. Up to now, you have asserted that Mary was

1. immaculately conceived;
2. sinless;
3. capable of exacting justice of a prostitute based on this state of sinlessness;
4. assumed into heaven.
The culmination of these attributes is so extraordinarily parallel to the super-human attributes of Christ Himself that this point would normally not require further elaboration to show how dangerous this doctrine is.

But because you have entered the discussion with preconceived notions, and are attempting to prove them, your scholastic and intellectual integrity has been compromised, and you cannot see how blatant a comparison of Mary is with the person of Christ Himself.

Furthermore, without a shred of scriptural proof to support any of the above four monumentally preposterous claims, however, you boldly presume to shift the burden of proof back to the word of God!


Please show me where Scripture says Mary was not assumed into heaven.The logic behind this form of investigation of scripture is so outrageously failed, it defies explanation.

As, using this sort of logic, I could explain ANYTHING into existence.

E.g.: Anthony, please show me in the Word of God where it specifically says that a pink polka-dot monkey with a yard-high, blue Mohawk hair-do did NOT accompany Satan in the desert while testing Jesus. Since the pink polka-dot monkey is not specifically precluded from this scene, can we safely assume that one was present?

I could argue silly points like this ad nauseam to assert just about anything I like.

The point is, though, that the burden of proof is on YOU, especially if you are asserting the truth of extra-biblical events and notions; the Word of God is not accountable to you to rule it out. YOU, your tradition, and your doctrine are accountable to the Word of God, not to contradict it, add to it, or subtract from it by any thought, word or deed.


The Assumption of Mary is found in Tradition which has as much authority as Scripture Nothing, my friend, has as much authority as scripture.
Absolutely nothing.
Read Mark 13:31 and Revelation 22:18-19.

This assertion you’ve made here is so out of line that I find myself briefly speechless, as I sit here at my computer, confronted by the unmitigated gall of man vis-a-vis the Cross, and a Holy and Righteous God.

Does what you’re asserting stand in conflict with the overall message, aim and report of the Gospel? If so, it must be abandoned, no holds barred, even if it hurts.

and it is dogmatically taught by the Magisterium - this means that it is part of Divine revelation. Simply because something is taught by the Magisterium does not mean it is part of divine revelation. The Magisterium is a collection of traditions that must be weighed in accordance with the Word of God itself, just as anything any human thinks, writes, says or does which emerged after the deeds and writings of the Apostles.

Anything, and that goes for even the most minute discrepancy, in the Magisterium, which stands in conflict to Jesus’ work on Calvary for all mankind, disqualifies its reliability as being divinely inspired.


It is also implied in the Bible. Someone else posted a good response showing that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, and you accepted this.Yes, of course I accepted this, but did you really understand why I accepted it?

Again: YOU are the Ark of the Covenant, I am the Ark of the Covenant, We are Arks of the Covenant, when we carry the WORD OF GOD in our hearts! Not if we carry the Magisterium, or a tradition, or a "holy" relic, or a ritual, or another saint or person or desire in our hearts, But if, and only if, we carry the LIVING WORD within us: Jesus Christ, and Him alone!

Your heart is the throne of the King. Anything that presumes that Kingship, presumptuously assumes it has what it takes to usurp this throne, is idol worship. God will have no other gods before Him. No-body and no-thing may dare challenge the authority and position of the King.


Psalm 132:8 [...] The Psalm says that the Ark will also rise and go to the resting place - that is, Mary will be assumed body and soul (rise) into heaven (the resting place). The fact that the Psalm is talking about Christ's physical resurrection and ascenion confirms that the Ark will also go up physically.I have cross-checked this Psalm with several others, as well as references to the Ark in Exodus, 1 Kings and the Gospel of John. The scholars I’m reading agree that these Psalms (including the very one you quote here) refer to Emmanuel, God with us:

"The presence of God’s glory signaled the presence of God himself.

His glory dwelling in the tabernacle, and later the temple, assured Israel of the Lord’s holy, yet gracious, presence among them. Jn 1:14 announces that same presence in the Word who became flesh and who "made his dwelling among us."

There is no reference to the person of Mary whatsoever. There is no emphasis on her other than what is ascribed to her in the Gospels themselves regarding her and Joseph’s obedience to God’s plan. There is certainly nothing that can be extrapolated from any of these contexts, to include Psalm 132:8, to conclude that Mary cruised up into heaven without dying. The attempts made here to do so are the result of some of the worst and unscriptural scholarship to hit this planet.



The Church does not put Mary on the same level as Christ. Jesus Christ is God, whereas Mary is merely a creature who has been given great favours by God and because of Christ. This is the teaching of the Church.What gave Mary favor, simply, was her obedience. A blessing we can all receive from God.

And, although you assert the opposite, the Church DOES teach, and promote, and foster, Mary’s elevation to the status of a Goddess, based on the accumulation of God-like characteristics which only Christ Himself may lay claim to. I have covered this in detail above.


Please explain how Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven, makes her equal to God.Cf. my "Accumulation of deity-like features" 1-4 above. It is not just your belief in the assumption and sinlessness. It is a combination of all her God-like, superhuman attributes (which are unscriptural) that lead people astray, lead people to believe that Mary hears their prayers, intercedes on our behalf, could possibly judge etc.


Adam and Eve were originally free from sin and could have been free from sin forever, does this mean they are equal to God?
No, but you do not pray to Adam and Eve though, do you now.

Or do you?

conclusion to follow ...

[Thew]

Conclusion ...



the Catholic Church says she is free from sin by the grace of God.This is where I go into the arbitrariness of this doctrine in my previous post, which you have not yet addressed.

To reiterate, God’s dispensation of Grace is based on the CROSS OF CHRIST; an act of JUSTICE. It is a legal system, which was agreed on, signed and sealed before God even began creation. And His Word does not return unto Him void. God works according to a plan He set in motion in eternity past. Dispensation of Grace is not random, or selective in the sense you’re using it to support your claim regarding Mary here. The dispensation of God’s Grace toward mankind could be carried out only because God fulfilled a prerequisite He had set forth Himself: in order for humans to be able to bear His Holy presence, sin first needed to be punished. This was done by Jesus, on the Cross, in earth-time. Mary was no exception to this preordained mandate. There is no scriptural evidence to support your claim that Mary was free from sin, other than by accepting Jesus as her savior, just like the rest of us. What the Church teaches on this is non-scriptural and in grave conflict with what we know about God’s consistency within His plan, and accountability to Himself within the Godhead (Trinity) to carry out that plan for all mankind, a concept you have not yet grasped. God’s dispensation is based on a legal act. You must ponder this Biblical concept in light of the Gospel in order to realize that Mary could NOT have been sinless within God’s consistent plan of dispensation of Grace through the Cross of Christ alone, in earth-time; a law of time and physics to which even Christ Himself remained obedient unto death.


There is only one God and Catholics worship him only - we do not call Mary 'God', the Mass is not addressed to God not Mary, and we live for God not Mary.First, this sounds good, but it is not how Catholics actually practice their faith on a daily, practical basis, nor is it what the Church teaches about how Catholics are to access God.

The Church teaches that when a Catholic commits a sin, he/she can go to Confession, at which point the Priest will decide on some form of "penance".

Most often, "Hail-Mary"s are "imposed".

The good Catholic may perhaps then take the rosary in hand, perhaps kneeling in the pew or before the altar on a kneeler, or at home, and repeats this prayer as many times as the Priest prescribes.

Now you tell me Anthony, where in the Bible, (particularly when the disciples specifically asked Jesus how to pray) were we told to pray to Jesus’ earthly mother?

When directly confronted with the very specific question, why did Jesus not say, "later you can also pray to my earthly mother, whose name is Mary"?

Instead, He specifically said simply: "Pray to the Father in my name." Full stop.

You are to confess your sins to Him and to no other "mediator" for the forgiveness sins.

Furthermore, no work of the flesh (chanting the rosary) will absolve you anyow!

You are absolved by putting your Faith in the only work that could keep us from God’s wrath and hatred of sin: THE PUNISHMENT OF OUR SINS ON THE CROSS.

However, Catholics place their undying devotion and faith in a completely different and complex system which cannot be found anywhere in scripture: chanting a rosary to Jesus’ earthly mother or other saints in the hope that they will hear and "put in a good word" for them with Jesus and the Father.

For what then, I would ask, if this form of absolution is sufficient, was the Cross?

But instead, Mary is, in very practical terms, worshipped in the word and deed of the rosary, or "Hail Mary" [Praise Mary].

Secondly, Catholics do not call Mary God, they call her "God’s Mother" which, as I have said, is even worse, because it implies indirectly that Jesus had a creator. Whereby the exact reverse is true.

Thirdly, the Mass is, in part, directed to Mary. Even I have, in my youth in the Catholic Church, sung hymns to Mary, heard liturgies dedicated entirely to her and have viewed, time and time again, statues (graven images) of her wearing a crown placed right on the altar at the very front of the Church. Part of the Confession of a Catholic is the recognition of Mary as Regina "Queen of Heaven", implying that she is somehow God’s most beloved royal concubine, whereas, oddly, the scripture itself is again utterly void of any direct evidence to support such practices.

But far from being only void of evidence: the scripture clearly prohibits the construction of and praying to "graven images".


Catholics have no problem with that or any passages of Scripture. We accept both the Bible and the teachings of the Church.
Formally, i.e. on paper, Catholics have no issue with any of this language. But the practices themselves are far different. All my relatives, friends and acquaintances take issue with any verse of scripture that contradicts tradition.

My exchange with you is actually quite typical of my experience.

Formally, they say, there’s no problem. Tell a Catholic not to pray to Mary, however, they’ll tell you, "That conflicts with Tradition". Well, which is right, the Bible, or the tradition of men?

In Matthew Chapter 15, the Pharisees came to Jesus accusing His disciples of not washing their hands before they eat. In order to understand this event, it helps to know what the Jews had set up as a ceremonial form of worship. Before "breaking bread", as it were, they would ceremoniously wash their hands in a special bowl, carrying on a physical display, and dry them with a special towel; prayers were uttered, very much like what we see during the Eucharist in a Catholic or a Lutheran ceremony.

But listen to what Jesus said to them in verse three:

"Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [...]"



Anthony, the bible says that we cannot serve two masters. If Tradition is in conflict with God’s nature, character, plan or Word, we are to reject it.


You have created a straw-men version of Catholicism and pitted it against the Bible. Not a single thing I mention here about Catholic practices is untrue, exaggerated, taken out of context or only half explained or misunderstood. Everything I mention here (and a great many things I have not even begun to touch on e.g. baby baptism, divorce issues, celibacy, tithing, traditional clothing and its ceremonial function [or what I call pomp and circumstance], the papastry, the hierarchy within the Church, the Church’s mixture with and influence on politics etc., etc., etc.), are factual encounters I have had with the Catholic Church, what I have been told are beliefs and practices and are the result of over 22 years of examination on my part. What I present here is not a straw-man, it is the best representation I can give of what I know and have experienced. If the Bible stands in conflict with Church practice, it is not my doing, nor is it a far-fetched interpretation on my part. My assessments are fair, especially since most of the questions I pose have actually been raised my Catholics themselves, before me. I’m not inventing the wheel here. Any pretending on your part that I am will not make these issues disappear.


Scripture and Protestants call Mary 'the mother of Jesus', and both Scripture and Protestants call Jesus 'God', therefore it logically follows that Mary is the 'mother of God'.No, it does not logically follow in the least. I have explained in painstaking detail what the use of this term implies. Mary, as much as she was the earthly vessel which was chosen to physically house our Lord for his entrance into our 3-dimensional world, is not, regardless of how you choose to spin the definition, and never was, and never will be the "Mother of God" – a statement, which has completely different implications than what you are purporting.

You are choosing to trivialize the use of this kind of language. "Mother of" implies more than just giving birth to something, as any human mother will tell you. You know this yourself to be true.

You choose to ignore the clear controversy in this kind of usage in order to force your point, again to defend a deification of Mary and Church practice and doctrine.

"Mother of" clearly also means create/spawn/generate/invent, and is not nearly as neutral as you make it out to be. The fact remains, however, that God has no mother. He was not created, he is the Creator.



show me a single verse where it says 'the children of Mary,' or refers to someone apart from Jesus as 'the son of Mary' or 'the daughter of Mary.' And again:


You have misread the text. The account in Mark [...] does not say that his family believed he was out of his mind, but that they came to get him because people were saying that he was. They may have wanted to find out what was going on and/or been concerned that people would harm him.Let me first address this by clearly stating that it would behoove you to sharpen the pencil on your own research before accusing someone of "misreading" a text. I do not, as a rule, misread Bible texts which I post on open forums.

Your blooper here is a quite major:

Mark 3:20

"Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.

21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind".

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub!"
[...]
verse 31:
"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived..."
So much for the DIRECT biblical source on Mary and Jesus’ brothers’ attitude toward Jesus’ state of mental health.

Now here’s the consensus of scholars on the "brothers" issue:

"[These] brothers, did not believe in Jesus at this time (John 7:5). Various interpretations concerning their relationship to Jesus arose in the early church: They were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (according to Epiphanius) or were cousins (said Jerome). The most cogent conclusion (suggested by Helvidius) is that they were the sons of Joseph and Mary, younger half brothers of Jesus. Four of these brothers are named in Mark 6:3, where sisters are also mentioned."

Here again, you have not understood the reason that these brothers and sisters, according to the Gospel, could not have been anything other than direct family:


Jesus’ message



Reflecting on what I said here above regarding nothing being arbitrary in God’s plan, we conclude readily, that this scene as well was orchestrated by God, not by a thing called "chance".

Or are we, as God’s children, subject to the whims of a random force which esoterics refer to as "Destiny" or "coincidence"?

Was Jesus Himself rocking on the waves of an unpredictable, capricious sea of erratic and fleeting opportunities, flying by the seat of His pants and grasping occasions as they happened along?

Or did God know that this event would occur, that His family, falling prey to the pressure of the public and religious opinion of the day, would think Him gone insane?

It is clear from the thrust of Jesus’ Gospel message that follows this "framing-out" of the setting that He knew far in advance what would occur that moment, as He deliberately uses it to illustrate a very important contrast:

"By contrasting natural family ties with the greater ‘family’ of those who do the will of my Father in heaven, Jesus emphasized the radical demand of his call to discipleship [...]" – New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition, D.A. Carson et. al.

The Catholic Church rejects this interpretation, even if the preceding Gospel message, which spills from the lips of the Head of the Church Himself, Jesus Christ, because this MAY put Mary in a bad light.

Because this view may be one which exposes Mary’s shortcomings, her lack of commitment to Jesus as Lord at that time, and may expose her humanity, in that she simply bore other children, the Church consciously rejects the Gospel message which Jesus clearly preached in that very scene itself.

The Catholic Church, in essence, has at least in this one instance, opted to protect Church doctrine at the expense of the Gospel, even though, in the larger context of God’s Word, His planned and targeted, carefully placed responses to events that surround Him, make better, even perfect sense when we choose the "faltering" Mary interpretation.

In short, Jesus’ brief address regarding those who do the will of my Father in heaven only comes to full fruition when contrasted against His earthly relatives.

Yet, against all better judgment and while lacking any basis within the scriptural context, the Church continues to opt for the one and only conclusion that supports its own doctrine.

I do not understand this. To what end? Why is a sinless Mary such an "untouchable" topic with Catholics? They themselves do not even seem to know why.

I also cannot explain your fervor here on this very thread with regard to scrutinizing the Word of God itself, only in order to support an antiquated misinterpretation.

Oh, and by the way, would you attempt to show evidence that "sisters" also could mean "cousins"?


You must also interpret texts correctly and not blatantly misrepresent Catholic teaching.I have not seen a single interpretation of these texts on your part that do not conflict with the Gospel.

But there’s something more, your use of the description "blatantly misrepresent" here is not mere hyperbole.

You have directly accused me of setting out, in the name of Jesus, to depict the Catholic Church in a false light.

Whereas, not a single comment I make is spoken from a bitter heart, nor is any of it based on speculation or indiscriminate musing.

Far from being the would-be scholar you attempt to depict me as, I have devoted over two decades of my life to working out these issues within a Church context, because people I know and love very much are confused by the inconsistencies in Catholic doctrine, and I grieve deeply for their miserable state. I have spent countless hours discussing these issues with family, friends and clergy, and take what I have written here very seriously and view it as unbiased based on the fact that most of these questions come from Catholics themselves.

They remain questions for many, many Catholics, and are legitimate problems, which have never been resolved.

In your efforts to pigeon-hole me as a "Protestant", however, you seem to have the impression that I am a rogue crusader against Catholics, whose wild "Fundamentalist" claims have no biblical basis or understanding of Catholicism. You couldn’t be more out of line.

In reality, Anthony, it is you who are bringing many biases, misconceptions and conjecture into this discussion.

Before you attempt to "answer" the rest of my post, as you put it, why don’t you try first just asking me some simple questions, to see where I’m getting this, where I’m coming from?

What I mentioned in the latter part of my last post with regard to God’s plan, is the result of much devoted study on this topic. Not that such a thing should impress you, but you would do well, if you are a seeker of truth, if for no other reason, out of mere respect, to at least bear it in mind.

Thew

[goldenchild]

I just want to let everyone know that I am willing to debate this one-on-one. If anyone here really thinks that there position is biblical and historical, then they will have no problem agreeing to this type of debate.

God Bless!

[NoeticPenguin]

I think you will first have to find a common ground for authority. Those likely to believe that Mary was sinless from birth, are not going to agree with you that it must be proven by the Bible. Christians throughout the centuries have held this belief, and held on to the belief that the Church and it's tradition are authoritative. Until you can agree with or at least see that viewpoint, you will never understand that teaching.

-Pkj

[goldenchild]

I think you will first have to find a common ground for authority. Those likely to believe that Mary was sinless from birth, are not going to agree with you that it must be proven by the Bible. Christians throughout the centuries have held this belief, and held on to the belief that the Church and it's tradition are authoritative. Until you can agree with or at least see that viewpoint, you will never understand that teaching.

-Pkj
Actually, I do believe that that the Bible and Tradition are of equal authority, but I understand that most anyone who believes that Mary is not a perpetual virgin will not accept the authority of Tradition. This doesn't matter to me. I will gladly base all of my position solely on Scripture(God knows, theres enough just there to prove!). This doesn't mean that I won't give quotes of Church Fathers and such simply to show that this was an original belief, but I won't make it the basis of my argument. Anyone interested let me know. I just don't have time to answer all the posts on here.

[goldenchild]

Anyone???

[NoeticPenguin]

Anyone???

Anyone interested in WHAT?

-Pkj

[goldenchild]

I just want to let everyone know that I am willing to debate this one-on-one. If anyone here really thinks that there position is biblical and historical, then they will have no problem agreeing to this type of debate.

That's what. But I can see if people don't want to do it. Besides, I've got plenty of other things I could be doing, so don't worry about it if your not interested. God bless!

[piso mojado]

what about verse ten?

10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
in this quote from ps 14:3, David was referring to the all the sons of men, which Mary was, and which Jesus was not.

[Jude3b]

Luke 1:47, Mary rejoiced in God "Her Saviour" - if she was sinless, she would not have needed a saviour.

[Bastoune]

I am perplexed how those quotes from John Chrysostom denote any sin on Mary's part. They do not. Could you explain?!?


Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, "Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?," some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus' comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

After all, she kept all these things in her heart -- from the Annunciation, the Visitation, through Christ's childhood, His first miracle, His Passion, death, and Ressurrection... Pentecost...

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus' question about "who are my mother, and sisters and brothers" was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist's prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family's importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

Luke 11:28 - when Jesus says, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it," some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God's word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.

Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for "rather" is "menounge." Menounge really means "Yes, but in addition," or "Further." Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary's example in order to build up His kingdom.

Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.

John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary's significance. Jesus' question to Mary, "what have you to do with me?" does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus' question illustrates the importance of Mary's role in the kingdom. Jesus' question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.

Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, "what have you to do with us." The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.

John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title "woman" (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.

As for "all" sinning, Mary, excluded from Original Sin by a unique grace, does not fall into "all"-- if I say in English "everybody has seen this movie" that is not "literal" - it's hyperbole:

Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 - "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 - finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary's Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.

Indeed there is more to be said on the topic. But why does it bother people that Mary were spared, by the merits of her SON, the taint of Original Sin?

After all, Christ would keep the Commandment to "honor" his mother. The Hebrew word in the Commandment, means literally to "glorify." Given that Gen. 3:15 speaks of enmity between the "woman" and "Satan" (literally "repelling" - like two magnets repelling each other) and Gabriel addresses Mary with the title "ketcharitomene" and not with her name ("Charite, Kecharitomene!" -- rather musical to the Greek ear, anyway) -- I'm hard pressed to find anyone in the early Church who denied she was sinless. Of course, most Protestants will say "the Church Fathers were fallible men" and to this I say, "well, so are you! And ones who live far removed from the time, context and language of the Holy Scriptures! So I'd trust their judgment, given that they too preserved and CANONIZED the Scriptures, over anyone living today who bases their theology on own personal interpretation."

[Bastoune]

Enmity:
Deep-seated, often mutual hatred.
The quality of being an enemy; hostile or unfriendly disposition.
No ground of enmity between us known. --Milton.
2. A state of opposition; hostility.
The friendship of the world is enmity with God. --James iv. 4.
Syn: Rancor; hostility; hatred; aversion; antipathy; repugnance; animosity; ill will; malice; malevolence.

This enmity according to scripture is no different for Jesus than it is Mary.
Jesus is at total enmity with Satan and He is without sin. Mary is ALSO at total enmity with Satan and so it follows is ALSO without sin.

Golden Child, why are you giving us an ENGLISH definition rather than going to the root of the Hebrew?!? But you do make a good point.

So far, the arguments against the unique preservation of Mary from sin -- a result of GRACE, God's GRACE, not her own merit -- are flimsy. And until I can find a non-Catholic who can actually argue what the Catholic Church really teaches (Mary is not elevated to goddess status -- gosh, either we've got some anti-Catholic wack-jobs saying we worship her or the "Da Vinci Code" freaks saying we "deny the sacred feminine" -- LOL!), it's hard to have a discussion, especially when the only way Protestants know what is in the Bible and what is INSPIRED SCRIPTURE is because the Catholic Church told you what it is!!! So why would the same men who canonized Scripture, contradict it with their beliefs, if the doctrines surrounding Mary (who is "blessed among all women" yet compared to the Lord, a spec of dust), were not implicit in the Bible?

[daniel1212]

The Immaculate Conception and preservation was the product of long term theological evolution, not something taught in Scripture, and the logic used in attempting validate thereby does not. Scripture evidences that it makes notable conditions evident, and a normal human being who knows “how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is. 7:16) remaining sinless is most notable, and thus Jesus is thrice stated to be without sin, (Jn. 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22) even though this need not be said due to His being Divine. How much more are such statements needed in the case of created mortals. But this is never said of Mary, but RCs reason that God had to have a sinless vessel to bring His sinless incarnated Word into the world. And that being “full of grace” she could not have sin.


However, this presupposes that she was preserved “in the first instance of her conception...from all stain of original sin” ((Ineffabilis Deus) which is contrary to what is stated on the subject. (Ps. 51:5; Rm. 5:12) Nor is any necessity for such, for not only was Mary's own mother not so preserved, while Jesus body was prepared by God, (Heb. 10:5) but God brought forth His pure, sinless spoken and written Word into the world using holy but fallen men who had sinned.

As for “full of grace,” the only person who is said to be “full” (plērēs) grace (charis) is the Lord Jesus Himself, (Jn. 1:14). Lk.1:28 simply says “hail” “grace” or graced, thus can be rendered “Hail, favoured” while if “full” is added it can easily refer to the contents of her womb, and or to her having been chosen, rather than a sinless quality of Mary. Believers themselves are said to be graced or favoured (charis) in Eph. 1:6, and can be “filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph. 5:18) See also http://www.letusreason.org/RC1.htm

[Catholicity]

No one except a person without sin could be in the presence of the Lord. Mary we know was held as New Ark of the Covenant (Rev 12) and Bore the Living God by the power of the Holy Spirit. She could not have been in the Presence of God himself unless she was sinless.

Now you may be of the misconception that Mary did not need a Savior. This is Not the teaching if the Doctrine of the Immaculate conception. Indeed without the Intervention of the Lord, Mary would've been conceived in sin like the rest of us. Thus she had to have a savior too. I don't believe however Mary knew she was without sin, and was obedient to the law like an upright young woman would've been at the time.
Allow me to address for a moment the misconception that Catholics worship Mary. If by worship you mean Honor as a spiritual Mother and plead for intercession then we are guilty as charged. So be it she is our spiritual mother and we give her honor as such. Again Rev 12. If by worship you mean take away the glory and due honor that is given alone and only to God our Heavenly Father and to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit for the Saving Grace, the Mercy the compassion, the Glory that belongs only to the KING of the UNIVERSE then you ar gravely mistaken. He is our Savior, our King, and such a praise and glory belongs only to Him above which there is no other.

[daniel1212]

It is typical with many who seek to defend traditions of men, in the light of the fact that God makes notable conditions of mortals evident, and faced with the silence of the Holy Spirit as regards Mary being sinless, or a perpetual virgin, and a heavenly object of prayer, to resort to erroneous extrapolations. The fact is that men like Moses and John were in the presence of the Lord, and that in a glorious manifestation, while Mary's geographical closeness to the incarnated Christ versus that of others, including Joseph, would only have a matter of inches. And the prophets of old had the Spirit of God within them, and brought forth His word, though they were not sinless, as stated.

As for not needing a savior, do you deny that she was was preserved free from all stain of original sin in the first instance of her conception, or that she was cleansed later on? If the former, then that is a strech of the meaning of a savior who came to save sinners, not prevebt them from ever being such. And if cleansed later, then the issue is her preservation from sinning, even after Jesus went to glory.

As Rev, 12, is this infallible teaching or your private interpretation, and is it in conformity with the unanimous consent of the fathers?

As for praying to her, there is neither need or warrant, and is contrary to what is revealed about prayer, and who the direct object is to be, and immediate access the believe has, and the sufficiency of Christ. All you have is the attempt to extrapolate that out human earthly relations, as if earth to heaven relations btwn created beings has a full one to one correspondence to that of earth, which there is not, while such arguments from silence are used by Mormonism.

[daniel1212]

Sadly, i cannot post html here and it does not retain all the formatting, which would have supplied viewable cross references.

The foundational issue regarding PTDS (prayer to departed saints) is that of Scriptural warrant and conflation.

The Bible teaches abundantly on prayer, and in order to warrant PTDS (praying to departed saints in heaven) one must find an approved example or teaching of it, and some insufficiency in Christ as regards immediate access or ability or compassion, etc. Yet the Bible provides just the opposite and clearly so. The advocate of PTDS is thus left seeking to extrapolate this out of analogy between earthly communications, supposing a complete correspondence to that between earth and heaven, and or a "God can do anything" hermeneutic, but which is a strained and problematic exegesis which cannot overcome the weight of evidence against it, and such attempts are typical of cults when faced with the same.

To substantiate that PTDS is Scriptural, one needs to, from the Bible (and in order of importance)

1. Provide just one example, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where anyone besides heathen prayed to, addressed, anyone else in heaven but the Lord.

2. Provide one place where exhortations, commands or instruction or descriptions on prayer directed believers to pray to departed saints or angels. ("i.e. "After this manner pray, Our mother, who art in heaven...")..

3. Show where believers in Christ cannot have direct access to God in heaven, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ regarding immediacy, ability, or compassion that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man, besides the Holy Spirit. (Ex. 25:22; Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19-22; etc.)

4. If believers can pray to the departed saints for help in their Christian life, then show why they cannot call upon saints for salvation, and where the Bible supports that.

5. Show where departed souls in heaven are taking prayer requests addressed to them.

6. Show where the departed are given the Divine attribute of omniscience, so they can hear and process an infinite amount of prayer. (Ps. 65:2; 139:4; Prov. 15:3)

7. Provide where any communication between believers on earth and heavenly beings besides God took place apart from a personal visitation, either by men being caught up to heaven or by angels coming to earth. (Jdg. 13; Mk. 9:2-9; Rev. 4:1ff;)

8. Show where anyone else is called "Queen of heaven" other than Jer 44:17 (“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven,” who was a heavenly object of devotion and prayer.

9. If believers can pray to the departed saints for help in their Christian life, then show why they cannot call upon saints for salvation, and where the Bible supports that.

10. Show where another basic necessary practice has zero positive examples and is contrary to whatever is stated on the issue.

Example, descriptions, instructions. See Bible prayers here (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BIBLE-PRAYERS.html)
Gen. 15:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen.%2015.2); 17:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen%2017.18); 18:23 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen%2018.23); 18:23-32 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen%2018.23-32); 24:12-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen%2024.12-14); 32:9-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen%2032.9-12);
Ex. 25:22 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ex.%2025.22); 32:11-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ex%2032.11-13); 33:12-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ex%2033.12-19);
Num. 6:23-26 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num.%206.23-26); 10:35-36 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num%2010.35-36); 11:11-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num%2011.11-16); 12:13-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num%2012.13-14); 14:13-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num%2014.13-19); 27:15-18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num%2027.15-18);
Dt. 3:23-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dt.%203.23-25); 9:25 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dt%209.25); 9:26-29 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dt%209.26-29); 21:7-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dt%2021.7-9); 26:5-10 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dt%2026.5-10);
Josh. 7:7-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Josh.%207.7-9); Jdg 6:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%206.13); 6:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%206.15); 6:15-17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%206.15-17); 6:36-37 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%206.36-37); 6:39 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%206.39); 13:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%2013.8); 16:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jdg%2016.8);
1Sam.1:10-11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Sam.1.10-11); 2:1-10 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Sam%202.1-10);
2Sam. 7:18-29 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Sam.%207.18-29); 24:17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Sam%2024.17);
1Ki. 3:5-61 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Ki.%203.5-61); 17:20-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Ki%2017.20-21); 18:25-26 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Ki%2018.25-26); 18:27-37 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Ki%2018.27-37); 19:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Ki%2019.4);
2 Ki. 6:17-18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2%20Ki.%206.17-18); 19:15-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2%20Ki%2019.15-19);
1Chr.4:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Chr.4.10); 29:9-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Chr%2029.9-19); 14:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Chr%2014.11);
2Chr. 6:40 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Chr.%206.40); 14:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Chr%2014.11); 20:6-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Chr%2020.6-12); 30:18-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Chr%2030.18-19);
Ezra 8:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ezra%208.3); 9:5-15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ezra%209.5-15);
Neh. 1:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Neh.%201.4),5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Neh%201.5); 1:4-11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Neh%201.4-11); 4:4-5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Neh%204.4-5); 9:5-38 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Neh%209.5-38);
Job 22:27 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Job%2022.27);
Ps. 4:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps.%204.1); 5:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%205.3); 6:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%206.9); 17:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2017.1); 35:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2035.13); 39:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2039.12); 42:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2042.8); 54:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2054.2); 55:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2055.1); 61:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2061.1); 64:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2064.1); 65:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2065.2); 66:19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2066.19),20 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2066.20); 69:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2069.13); 72:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2072.15); 80:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2080.4); 84:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2084.8); 86:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2086.1),6 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2086.6); 86:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2086.6); 88:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2088.2),13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2088.13); 90:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%2090.1); 102:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20102.1),17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20102.17); 109:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20109.4),7 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20109.7); 141:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20141.2),5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20141.5); 142:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20142.1); 143:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20143.1);
Prov. 15:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Prov.%2015.8),29 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Prov%2015.29); 28:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Prov%2028.8);
Is. 37:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is.%2037.4); 38:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is%2038.2),3 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is%2038.3),5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is%2038.5); 56:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is%2056.7);
Jer. 7:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jer.%207.16); 11:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jer%2011.14); 26:19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jer%2026.19);
Lam. 3:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lam.%203.8),44 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lam%203.44);
Ezek. 9:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ezek.%209.8); Dan. 9:3-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dan.%209.3-19);
Jonah 2:1-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jonah%202.1-9);
Hab. 1:12-17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Hab.%201.12-17); 3:2-18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Hab%203.2-18);


Mat. 6:9-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mat.%206.9-13); 11:25-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mat%2011.25-27); 17:21 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mat%2017.21); 21:22 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mat%2021.22); 26:39 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mat%2026.39); Lk. 1:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk.%201.9),13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%201.13); 6:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%206.12); 18:10-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%2018.10-13); 19:46 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%2019.46); 23:30 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%2023.30); 23:34 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%2023.34); 23:46 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk%2023.46); Jn.11:41-42 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn.11.41-42); 17:1-22 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn%2017.1-22); 17:1-26 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn%2017.1-26);
Acts 1:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%201.14),24-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%201.24-25); 3:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%203.1); 6:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%206.4); 9:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%209.6); 10:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2010.2),31 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2010.31); 12:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2012.5); 16:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2016.13),16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2016.16);
Rm. 10:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rm.%2010.1); 12:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rm%2012.12);
1Cor. 1:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Cor.%201.2); 7:5 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Cor%207.5);
2Cor. 1:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor.%201.1); 9:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%209.14); 12:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%2012.8);
Eph. 1:16-22 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Eph.%201.16-22); 3:13-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Eph%203.13-21); 6:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Eph%206.18);
Phil. 1:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Phil.%201.4),9-11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Phil%201.9-11),19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Phil%201.19); 4:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Phil%204.6);
Col 1:9-13ff (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Col%201.9-13ff); 4:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Col%204.2);
1Thes. 3:10-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Thes.%203.10-13); 5:23 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Thes%205.23),24 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Thes%205.24);
2Thes. 1:10-12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Thes.%201.10-12); 2:16-17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Thes%202.16-17);
1Tim. 4:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Tim.%204.2);
2Tim. 4:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Tim.%204.16);
Heb. 2:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb.%202.18); 4:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%204.15),16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%204.16); 7:25 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%207.25); 10:19-22 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%2010.19-22); 13:20-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%2013.20-21);
James 5:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/James%205.16),17 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/James%205.17);
1Pt. 4:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1Pt.%204.7);
Rev. 6:16-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rev.%206.16-16); 22:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rev%2022.20)22:2