Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[boughtwithaprice]

The Protestants I know or know of certainly don't define Mary as "incidental and insignificant." Just because they don't give her titles such as "Queen of heaven" or have statues of her, they believe what the bible teaches about her, for example that the Lord was with her, and that she was blessed among women.

Do they believe she had other children?
Do they believe she was a perpetual Virgin?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The Protestant sects that I am aware of seem to misunderstand the importance of sexual purity aka Chastity. This is evidenced by their allowance of contraception and believing that Mary had other children. It’s easy to understand why, if all they have is a surface reading of the Bible and have not contemplated the implications.

Scripture does not contradict scripture and if it appears to do so, there is another explanation, if we are willing to look for it.

There is no scripture that says “…and Joseph knew his wife and she conceived a son whom they called James” That scripture does not exist because it did not happen. How can we be sure?

Scripture teaches us that a woman that has children by two different fathers, while both fathers are still alive, is an adulteress. Jesus would not be born of an adulteress. It’s just non sensical.

Another clue is that if Mary were the Ark of the New Covenant, no man could touch her. With the Ark of the Old Covenant, a man died without mercy should he touch the Ark. What do you think would happen to a man that endeavored to have sexual relations with God’s mother, the Ark of the New Covenant?

A marriage ceremony does not a marriage make. The marriage occurs when the two become one flesh in the marital act. Mary has already the flesh of the Son of God within her. Could she then become one with a man, when she is joined to God? That is unthinkable, if one really contemplates the situation

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I've mentioned before that you explain away portions of the Word of God by saying God did not "need" it. You use this selectively on that which does not agree with your personal beliefs. Understand God's ways are far above our ways and it can be great folly to think you know what God needs or does not. In trying to explain away the queenship in the Davidic kingdom, which is right there in the Bible, you extend your arguments by now saying God did not "command" it. Catholics believe that all of the Word of God is important, that would include the queen mother, starting with Solomon, in the Davidic kingdom. By using your own logic that God did not explicitly "command" something, the Bible itself, those books of the Bible chosen by Catholics (that you maintain weren't really Catholics, whether they called themselves that or not) could be trivialized, just like you do with Davidic queenship. Indeed, not only is there is no record of Jesus "commanding" the Apostles or anyone else to come up with a list of New Testament books and put those together with the OT into a Bible, and proclaim that "Bible" has authority over all, I think, upon reflection you will have to admit God did not even "need" a Bible. Nor did God "need" any of his disciples, in the first century or today, to go out and hand out Bibles. God is ALL POWERFUL and was and is perfectly capable of communicating to all of us without Bibles.

Just the opposite is true. Catholics take great pains to prayerfully discern the deposit of the faith handed down through the Apostles. While basic truths were evident early on, some theological debates went on for centuries, sometimes through numerous Catholic Church councils. For example, as I previously pointed out we don't explain away the Bible by saying God did not explicitly "command" a New Testament list. Instead Catholics were involved in a prayeful process spanning centuries, with Saint Athanasius credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon list in 367 A.D. Whoever those involved were, Christians as you like to say, again there is no recorded "command from God" to compile or accept that list. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

My point is, that there is nothing about the role of the queen mother in the line of kings beginning with Solomon that applies to heaven. You are making the assumption it does but Scripture nowhere says that. You are extrapolating what happened in an earthly line of kings and from it creating a role for Mary in heaven the Bible nowhere describes. While anything is possible, I don't see any reason to believe Mary will have such a role in heaven. I also don't see a need for such a role as a king's court in heaven is profoundly different than a king's court on earth. I see no description of Mary in heaven or what her role might be in heaven. I don't see any reason to believe the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. I believe the RCC is being dogmatic about something not taught in Scripture.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Protestant sects that I am aware of seem to misunderstand the importance of sexual purity aka Chastity. This is evidenced by their allowance of contraception and believing that Mary had other children. It’s easy to understand why, if all they have is a surface reading of the Bible and have not contemplated the implications.

Scripture does not contradict scripture and if it appears to do so, there is another explanation, if we are willing to look for it.

There is no scripture that says “…and Joseph knew his wife and she conceived a son whom they called James” That scripture does not exist because it did not happen. How can we be sure?

Scripture teaches us that a woman that has children by two different fathers, while both fathers are still alive, is an adulteress. Jesus would not be born of an adulteress. It’s just non sensical.

Another clue is that if Mary were the Ark of the New Covenant, no man could touch her. With the Ark of the Old Covenant, a man died without mercy should he touch the Ark. What do you think would happen to a man that endeavored to have sexual relations with God’s mother, the Ark of the New Covenant?

A marriage ceremony does not a marriage make. The marriage occurs when the two become one flesh in the marital act. Mary has already the flesh of the Son of God within her. Could she then become one with a man, when she is joined to God? That is unthinkable, if one really contemplates the situation

Mary's pregnancy via the Holy Spirit, is not a carnal act involving a male father. She was never sexually joined with God thus could not be an adulteress if she had a child with Jospeh her husband.

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 (NASB)

Why would Joseph have taken Mary as his wife is she was the spouse of God (as some Catholics say)? If, as you say, the Jews did not consider it a marriage until it was consummated, why are we told Joseph took Mary as his wife? If he knew he could never consummate the marriage, then it could never truly be a marriage and she could never truly be his wife. While a betrothed couple were considered legally married, the Jews did not consider it an actual marriage until it was consummated.

Adultery is when a married person has sex with another person who is not their spouse. If a betrothed person had sex with someone during the betrothal, it was considered adultery, and that person could be stoned to death. Are you saying Mary was an adulteress for having a child with a "father" other than Joseph? Adultery only applies if there were physical relations. Since Mary never had physical relations in getting pregnant with Jesus, Joseph and her would not be committing adultery to have their own children. Also, the "adultery" you postulate would have taken place after Jesus' birth so He would not have been born to an adulteress. She could become "one with a man" because she was never "with" God.

Mary is not the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Jan001]

Yet Mary's physical body was subject to illness and death. While we are not explicitly told of her being sick or told of her death, there is nothing to suggest she was any different than the rest of us physically. As I have argued elsewhere, our sin nature does not come through the DNA nor do we inherit our parent's spiritual nature. All humanity is born in sin - Mary included. Only Jesus was not as he was given a divine spirit which cannot sin.

This is your opinion, not church teaching. Adam spiritually fell from grace and alienated himself and all his descendants from God. Romans 5:10

The church teaches that both Jesus and Mary were not subject to concupiscence. The church teaches that Mary was saved from sin at the the instant of her conception. She was conceived without sin. Jesus also was not born in sin. Jesus has a human nature. Jesus also has a divine nature. His human nature was perfect as was his mother's. His mother is a created being. Jesus is the incarnate form of the Son of God. Jesus chose to die, even though he was not subject to death because of Adam's sin.

I believe Mary chose to die in imitation of her son although this is not a dogma.

You can save a person from falling into a well before he falls in and you can also save a person from the well after he falls in.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross saved his mother at the instant of her conception. In heaven there is no time. All things concerning humans on earth—past, present, and future are seen as "today" in heaven.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

My point is, that there is nothing about the role of the queen mother in the line of kings beginning with Solomon that applies to heaven. You are making the assumption it does but Scripture nowhere says that. You are extrapolating what happened in an earthly line of kings and from it creating a role for Mary in heaven the Bible nowhere describes. While anything is possible, I don't see any reason to believe Mary will have such a role in heaven. I also don't see a need for such a role as a king's court in heaven is profoundly different than a king's court on earth. I see no description of Mary in heaven or what her role might be in heaven. I don't see any reason to believe the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. I believe the RCC is being dogmatic about something not taught in Scripture.

Have you read Psalm 45? Psalm 44 in Douay Rheims ? It very clearly describes Christ’s throne. Beside Him stands the Queen in gold of Ophir.

Jesus, being God, humbled Himself to become a man and His name is exalted above every name.
Mary, being human, humbled herself before God and was joined with God. She is exalted above all creatures. It is a scriptural concept that whoever humbles themselves will be exalted
Also scripture commands us to honor our mother and father. Would Christ disobey His own command and decline to honor His mother? If not what other honor could she have except queen of heaven and Earth and still be considered honored?

You have been told that the Catholic concept of Mary is unscriptural, yet it actually is.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

This is your opinion, not church teaching. Adam spiritually fell from grace and alienated himself and all his descendants from God. Romans 5:10

The church teaches that both Jesus and Mary were not subject to concupiscence. The church teaches that Mary was saved from sin at the the instant of her conception. She was conceived without sin. Jesus also was not born in sin. Jesus has a human nature. Jesus also has a divine nature. His human nature was perfect as was his mother's. His mother is a created being. Jesus is the incarnate form of the Son of God. Jesus chose to die, even though he was not subject to death because of Adam's sin.

I believe Mary chose to die in imitation of her son although this is not a dogma.

You can save a person from falling into a well before he falls in and you can also save a person from the well after he falls in.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross saved his mother at the instant of her conception. In heaven there is no time. All things concerning humans on earth—past, present, and future are seen as "today" in heaven.

I understand your argument, but I believe that Biblically, salvation is always being saved from sins committed rather than being saved from committing sins. Part of salvation is admitting to God you are a sinner and need forgiveness. If Mary was born without sin, then she would not need forgiveness. She could thank God for not allowing her to sin, but she would have no need of forgiveness. Salvation is described as an act we initiate (though by the grace of God). We pray for salvation because we need saving. We are asking God to forgive us and give us a new life in Christ as our Lord. If born without sin, Mary never needed to ask for salvation. She never would have confessed to God that she was a sinner in need of forgiveness. Jesus never prayed to be saved as He never sinned. He did not call God the Father His savior. Mary did.

In a human sense we may say someone saved us by preventing us from driving off a cliff or stepping into water fed from a live electrical wire but Biblically, salvation is always from actual sin, not the potential to sin.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Mary's pregnancy via the Holy Spirit, is not a carnal act involving a male father. She was never sexually joined with God thus could not be an adulteress if she had a child with Jospeh her husband.

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 (NASB)

Why would Joseph have taken Mary as his wife is she was the spouse of God (as some Catholics say)? If, as you say, the Jews did not consider it a marriage until it was consummated, why are we told Joseph took Mary as his wife? If he knew he could never consummate the marriage, then it could never truly be a marriage and she could never truly be his wife. While a betrothed couple were considered legally married, the Jews did not consider it an actual marriage until it was consummated.

Adultery is when a married person has sex with another person who is not their spouse. If a betrothed person had sex with someone during the betrothal, it was considered adultery, and that person could be stoned to death. Are you saying Mary was an adulteress for having a child with a "father" other than Joseph? Adultery only applies if there were physical relations. Since Mary never had physical relations in getting pregnant with Jesus, Joseph and her would not be committing adultery to have their own children. Also, the "adultery" you postulate would have taken place after Jesus' birth so He would not have been born to an adulteress. She could become "one with a man" because she was never "with" God.

Mary is not the Ark of the New Covenant.

That is your logic and you are comfortable with it.
Yet if what you say is true, could you not hear the blaspheme of Satan from hell, the Lord God is an illegitimate son? Although I am sure he would use more satanic colorful language.

If she is pure and a perpetual Virgin, Satan’s mouth is stopped before it opens.

Also, there is no need for Joseph and Mary to have children. Mary was a temple Virgin and only had to have a man as she was unclean when she started menstruating and had to leave the temple. Both Joseph and Mary were godly virgins and never needed to have intercourse.

It is only 21st century sexual revolution that calls sex a “need”. To call it a need is a lie and chastity is to be sought and valued, not derided as it is today

 

[boughtwithaprice]

In a human sense we may say someone saved us by preventing us from driving off a cliff or stepping into water fed from a live electrical wire but Biblically, salvation is always from actual sin, not the potential to sin.

What is your scriptural reference for this?
Why was Mary given the unique name of Kecharitomene?

Creatures do not have within themselves the ability to grant eternal life, whether they are sinless or not. Life comes from God and faith comes from God, as scriptures says He is the author and finisher of our faith.

There is no contradiction with scripture that has Mary calling God her savior though she did not know sin.

Mary is the delight of the Lord in that she is everything that God wants us to be, humble and full of grace. If the grace of God cannot keep Mary free from sin, what hope do we have of being set free? Satan would say the fullness of God’s grace is of no effect

There is no scripture that says Mary sinned, none. You can say that you believe she sinned but imagination is not necessarily reality

If sin were necessary for salvation, then Satan can say he is the redeemer of mankind as we would not have sinned without him. Adam and Eve were innocent and it was only that they were deceived by Satan that they sinned. Sin did not come from within Adam and Eve. Now that it is here, there is no way to remove it but by God’s grace.

If God required sin to save, then He would be impotent without Satan. Oh the cries from hell for all eternity if that were true. Sin would then be called good. God says woah to those that call the evil good and the good evil

No, God is perfect and sin is not needed, it will be cast into the lake of fire

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

What is your scriptural reference for this?
Why was Mary given the unique name of Kecharitomene?

Creatures do not have within themselves the ability to grant eternal life, whether they are sinless or not. Life comes from God and faith comes from God, as scriptures says He is the author and finisher of our faith.

There is no contradiction with scripture that has Mary calling God her savior though she did not know sin.

Mary is the delight of the Lord in that she is everything that God wants us to be, humble and full of grace. If the grace of God cannot keep Mary free from sin, what hope do we have of being set free? Satan would say the fullness of God’s grace is of no effect

There is no scripture that says Mary sinned, none. You can say that you believe she sinned but imagination is not necessarily reality

If sin were necessary for salvation, then Satan can say he is the redeemer of mankind as we would not have sinned without him. Adam and Eve were innocent and it was only that they were deceived by Satan that they sinned. Sin did not come from within Adam and Eve. Now that it is here, there is no way to remove it but by God’s grace.

If God required sin to save, then He would be impotent without Satan. Oh the cries from hell for all eternity if that were true. Sin would then be called good. God says woah to those that call the evil good and the good evil

No, God is perfect and sin is not needed, it will be cast into the lake of fire

There are different opinions regarding the meaning of Kecharitomene. I would cite this one:

Response #2
In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax"
...
1) "all possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".

2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (just as in English, "I have been studying Greek" could mean a week or a decade – but certainly doesn't necessitate one to understand "from conception");

3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way. To do so would be to place one's only speculation in place of what the Greek actually says.

Response #5
Paragraph 1: charitoo is not an "intensified form". When a root is turned into a verb using the omicron contract suffix, it makes the root factitive (i.e., to "make/cause" the idea in the root), not "intensive"; e.g., a mastinx in Greek is a "whip"; mastigoo means "to whip". Hence, since charis means "favor", charitoo means "to bestow favor". In the passive voice as we have in Luke 1:28, it means "having been the recipient of favored bestowed"; as this is an infelicitous phrase in English, the various versions both ancient and modern have attempted smooth out the expression in various ways but, sadly, have often contributed to the misunderstanding of the passage. What this participle means is that Mary "has been the recipient of divine favor". Now it is beyond question a wonderful compliment to be addressed as someone characterized by God's grace/favor, but 1) the passive voice and perfect tense make clear that this is a gift coming from God, not some inherent quality for which she is being recognized; and 2) doesn't have anything to do with sin whatsoever, either the presence or the lack of it – that concept is just not present at all as anyone with a dictionary can easily determine.
...
Paragraph 3: ... there are hundreds upon hundreds of perfect tense forms in the NT alone, and none of them does anything similar to what correspondent is claiming for this one. To use correspondent's specious analogy, saying a building "has been built" does not mean that the building is "perfect and free from fault in any way" (the structural equivalent of being immaculate) – not to mention the fact that a building is a unit of which we have a certain expectation of completeness which is not true of most other things so that any idea of completeness comes from your correspondent's clever choice of vocabulary and not from the verb form. If I "have been loved" by someone, for example, that in no way would even suggest to any rational person that I had been the recipient of "perfect love". Likewise, the Greek perfect merely indicates a present state: "You, Mary, who are the current beneficiary of God's grace". This is a wonderful thing, but does not make Mary singularly unique (and certainly not sinlessly perfect).

Paragraph 4:.. There is and remains not the slightest indication from word kecharitomene of any trace of sinlessness, at least not in text of Luke 1:28. That issue is simply not to be found anywhere in the context, the word, the root, the tense, the voice or the form of the verb in question – or anywhere else in the Bible.

Mary 'Full of Grace'?

Mary was an exceptional believer and had found grace in God's eyes; This is the reason for the salutation

ichthys.com

Yes, you can find translators who will give the Catholic meaning but I agree with this one and I don't believe Mary's being graced means or implies she is sinless nor that she will remain so. In context, the grace she was "full of" was the grace to be the bearer of the Son of God. In that sense she was graced beyond all other women in history and unique but I don't believe it has any reference to her spiritual state (i.e. being sinless).

My sins are not listed in Scripture. Does that make me sinless? If I were to claim to you I was born without sin and have never sinned, could you prove otherwise? You would be correct in assuming I have, for "all have sinned" which includes Mary. Even newborn babies have sinned in the eyes of God as they are part of the human race (born of a man and a woman) and bear the sin of Adam. They have not sinned in action but are born under the guilt of Adam's sin. Mary was born of a man and a woman and thus guilty as well. Jesus, however, was not born of a man and a woman. His physical being is human, but His spirit is divine, and divinity cannot sin. There are other people mentioned in the Bible for whom no sins are listed. Does that make them candidates for also being born without sin and living a sinless life?

I don't need Mary to have been set free from sin to believe God can do that for me. First, God can do anything. He spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. He created us. Why would I doubt God could do such a thing? We know from Scripture that God made the angels who did not rebel free from sin. If He can do that for the angels, then why not me? I don't need to believe Mary was preserved from sin to believe God can change me in heaven such that I will never sin again.

God would not have had to save us if we had not sinned. We would have eternally walked in fellowship with God but would still be inferior to Him and His creatures. God would have been no less glorious. That we did sin and that He saves us enables us to see, praise, and glorify Him for His grace in salvation, but God would still have been a God of grace even if we hadn't sinned. Satan is not the cause of sin, nor could he be our redeemer. He was a tempter, but he did not force Adam and Even to sin. We do not have Satan to thank for our salvation. Do you think we never would have sinned had Satan not come along? Who caused Satan to sin? Who tempted him? Satan fell to the temptation of his own mind. Who is to say Adam and Even would not have done the same even if Satan had been barred from the Garden? Like us, Satan was created with the ability to make a choice. Obey God or disobey God. He chose to disobey, yet God did not tempt him to do so. Satan tempted Adam and Eve, but they could have grown prideful in their own minds just as Satan did.

The Lake of Fire would have only been for the demons if we had never sinned. That fact remains that we did sin. All of us, from Adam to Mary to Moses, to David, and so on. We are all sinners saved by grace.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There are different opinions regarding the meaning of Kecharitomene. I would cite this one:

Response #2
In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax"
...
1) "all possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".

2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (just as in English, "I have been studying Greek" could mean a week or a decade – but certainly doesn't necessitate one to understand "from conception");

3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way. To do so would be to place one's only speculation in place of what the Greek actually says.

Response #5
Paragraph 1: charitoo is not an "intensified form". When a root is turned into a verb using the omicron contract suffix, it makes the root factitive (i.e., to "make/cause" the idea in the root), not "intensive"; e.g., a mastinx in Greek is a "whip"; mastigoo means "to whip". Hence, since charis means "favor", charitoo means "to bestow favor". In the passive voice as we have in Luke 1:28, it means "having been the recipient of favored bestowed"; as this is an infelicitous phrase in English, the various versions both ancient and modern have attempted smooth out the expression in various ways but, sadly, have often contributed to the misunderstanding of the passage. What this participle means is that Mary "has been the recipient of divine favor". Now it is beyond question a wonderful compliment to be addressed as someone characterized by God's grace/favor, but 1) the passive voice and perfect tense make clear that this is a gift coming from God, not some inherent quality for which she is being recognized; and 2) doesn't have anything to do with sin whatsoever, either the presence or the lack of it – that concept is just not present at all as anyone with a dictionary can easily determine.
...
Paragraph 3: ... there are hundreds upon hundreds of perfect tense forms in the NT alone, and none of them does anything similar to what correspondent is claiming for this one. To use correspondent's specious analogy, saying a building "has been built" does not mean that the building is "perfect and free from fault in any way" (the structural equivalent of being immaculate) – not to mention the fact that a building is a unit of which we have a certain expectation of completeness which is not true of most other things so that any idea of completeness comes from your correspondent's clever choice of vocabulary and not from the verb form. If I "have been loved" by someone, for example, that in no way would even suggest to any rational person that I had been the recipient of "perfect love". Likewise, the Greek perfect merely indicates a present state: "You, Mary, who are the current beneficiary of God's grace". This is a wonderful thing, but does not make Mary singularly unique (and certainly not sinlessly perfect).

Paragraph 4:.. There is and remains not the slightest indication from word kecharitomene of any trace of sinlessness, at least not in text of Luke 1:28. That issue is simply not to be found anywhere in the context, the word, the root, the tense, the voice or the form of the verb in question – or anywhere else in the Bible.

Mary 'Full of Grace'?

Mary was an exceptional believer and had found grace in God's eyes; This is the reason for the salutation

ichthys.com

Yes, you can find translators who will give the Catholic meaning but I agree with this one and I don't believe Mary's being graced means or implies she is sinless nor that she will remain so. In context, the grace she was "full of" was the grace to be the bearer of the Son of God. In that sense she was graced beyond all other women in history and unique but I don't believe it has any reference to her spiritual state (i.e. being sinless).

My sins are not listed in Scripture. Does that make me sinless? If I were to claim to you I was born without sin and have never sinned, could you prove otherwise? You would be correct in assuming I have for "all have sinned" which included Mary. Even newborn babies have sinned in the eyes of God as they are part of the the human race (born of a man and a woman) and bear the sin of Adam. They have not sinned in action but are born under the guilt of Adam's sin. Mary was born of a man and a woman and thus guilty as well. Jesus, however, was not born of a man and a woman. His physical being is human but His spirit is divine and divinity cannot sin. There are other people mentioned in the Bible for whom no sins are listed. Does that make them candidates for also being born without sin and living a sinless life?

I don't need Mary to have been set free from sin to believe God can do that for me. First, God can do anything. He spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. He created us. Why would I doubt God could do such a thing? We know from Scripture that God made the angels who did not rebel free from sin. If He can do that for the angels then why not me? I don't need to believe Mary was preserved from sin to believe God can change me in heaven such that I will never sin again.

If we had not sinned, God would not have had to save us. We would have eternally walked in fellowship with God but would still be inferior to Him and His creatures. God would have been no less glorious. That we did sin and that He saves us enables us to see, praise, and glorify Him for His grace in salvation, but God would still have been a God of grace even if we hadn't sinned. Satan is not the cause of sin nor could he be our redeemer. He was a tempter but He did not force Adam and Even to sin. We do not have Satan to thank for our salvation. Do you think we never would have sinned had Satan not come along? Who caused Satan to sin? Who tempted him? Satan fell to the temptation of his own mind. Who is to say Adam and Even would not have done the same even if Satan had been barred from the Garden? Like us, Satan was created with the ability to make a choice. Obey God or disobey God. He chose to disobey yet God did not tempt him to do so. Satan tempted Adam and Eve but they could have grown prideful in their own minds just as Satan did.

If we had never sinned, the Lake of Fire would have only been for the demons. That fact remains that we did sin. All of us from Adam to Mary to Moses, to David, and so on. We are all sinners saved by grace.

Everything you said is what You believe, and you seem to hold that up as truth even though other scholars disagree with you. Do we subject the truth to our views only? That then begs the question, how do I know you are following God and not have become a god unto yourself?

I am not accusing you, it is an objective question

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Everything you said is what You believe, and you seem to hold that up as truth even though other scholars disagree with you. Do we subject the truth to our views only? That then begs the question, how do I know you are following God and not have become a god unto yourself?

I am not accusing you, it is an objective question

I have read the writings of many men, both Catholic and Protestant, including Greek scholars, to form my beliefs. While I could be wrong, my belief stems not just from the interpretation of that one word but from all of Scripture. While important, this is not an essential doctrine. My salvation does not depend upon getting this right.

You have put your faith in the magisterium of the church. How do you know that was the right thing to do? What if you have misunderstood the Scriptures and the RCC is not God's church on earth? Does that make you a god unto yourself? We all have to decide what to believe, and God gave us a rational mind and the Holy Spirit to guide us. Our difference is that my faith is based upon the Word of God alone and not the Word plus traditions. I see many contradictions between Scripture and RCC teachings on doctrines that are not difficult to understand. I don't reject everything the RCC teaches. We have many doctrines in common.

I look forward to heaven when our eyes will be open, all will be revealed, and we will know nothing but joy no matter what we got right or wrong in this life.

 

[David Lamb]

Do they believe she had other children?
Do they believe she was a perpetual Virgin?

No, but that in no way makes her "incidental and insignificant." Do you think that a married woman not being a perpetual virgin, and having more than one child is insignificant or incidental? When that woman is Mary, who is said by God's angel to be blessed among women, that is even more true.

 

[David Lamb]

This is your opinion, not church teaching. Adam spiritually fell from grace and alienated himself and all his descendants from God. Romans 5:10

The church teaches that both Jesus and Mary were not subject to concupiscence. The church teaches that Mary was saved from sin at the the instant of her conception. She was conceived without sin.

It is not correct to say that the church teaches these things. The Roman Catholic Church teaches them, and maybe some others, such as "high church" Anglicans, but not "the church" as a whole

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I have read the writings of many men, both Catholic and Protestant, including Greek scholars, to form my beliefs. While I could be wrong, my belief stems not just from the interpretation of that one word but from all of Scripture. While important, this is not an essential doctrine. My salvation does not depend upon getting this right.

You have put your faith in the magisterium of the church. How do you know that was the right thing to do? What if you have misunderstood the Scriptures and the RCC is not God's church on earth? Does that make you a god unto yourself? We all have to decide what to believe, and God gave us a rational mind and the Holy Spirit to guide us. Our difference is that my faith is based upon the Word of God alone and not the Word plus traditions. I see many contradictions between Scripture and RCC teachings on doctrines that are not difficult to understand. I don't reject everything the RCC teaches. We have many doctrines in common.

I look forward to heaven when our eyes will be open, all will be revealed, and we will know nothing but joy no matter what we got right or wrong in this life.

Peace be with you, and I get the impression that you wish to serve God rather than men. Is this true? I ask because I once believed, as you do, that the Catholic Church is unbiblical and made up of man’s tradition. I would search out scholars that agree with me to make myself feel better.
. I rejoiced in 2002 when the sexual abuse scandal broke because I thought finally we can all see how fake it is and give up the charade. I thought biblical truth would triumph over man’s tradition. How could it be God’s Church when it is full of scoundrels and evil men?

I can give you more specific details if you wish, but I can say that God was not done with me. I was constantly challenged, in my own mind not by a specific person. I did not want the Catholic Church to be true

The first doctrine was purgatory. I said God that is not biblical. We are cleansed from sin and have the righteousness of Christ when we believe, right? I did not hear an audible voice of God, but my understanding was as though I was speaking with Him. My word says, in my servant Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that your works will be purged with fire prior to entering heaven. I thought but that is not Catholic Purgatory, that is just your cleansing fire at the judgement seat to prepare us for eternal joy in heaven, that happens instantly. He said but you are purged with fire right? Yes Lord.

Several scriptures kept running through my mind. Unless God builds the house they labor in vain that build it.. Lean not to your own understanding… scripture is of no private interpretation… I said ok those are good scriptures but what does this have to do with the Catholic Church?

Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares, and my scripture that says there is One Lord, One Faith, one baptism, one forgiveness of sins. Is Christ divided? I said no, we are united by faith in you. He said oh really, then why can’t you stop sinning?

I said that my flesh is too weak. I cannot keep the whole law, I am not under law, I am under grace. I am not saved by works, but by faith. He said do you really think that I would save you by my grace and leave you in sin? I have come to redeem sinners, not sin itself. Repent for now is the day of salvation and the day of mercy before God, not some unforeseen future. I said ok, but what does this have to do with the Catholic Church? He said you will know them by their fruits. I said oh that is easy, the Catholic Church is so full of rotten fruit, I will keep looking

He said ah ah ah, the fruits you look for are not in others, because you cannot take a splinter out of your brother’s eye when there is a log in your own. What is happening in myself? It was then that I trusted God and submitted whole heartily to Christ and His Church. When I did, the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The grace of God came upon me like I never knew. How do I know it was God and not Satan, because scripture says Satan does not cast out Satan. God’s grace is mighty to save and it flows through His Church and His sacraments. This understanding happened over the course of 16 years, but the cleansing of my sin began immediately on my submission. I give my testimony here because Christian Forums was where it all started.

I can only ask you, what are your fruits?
Are you chaste? Do you love your enemies? Do you have the peace that passes understanding? Do you rejoice in suffering or do you expect God to give you material blessings in this world in exchange for your faith? Do you take sin seriously or are waiting to be cleansed later?
Only you can answer these questions and I cannot judge you. Are you able to look at others and consider all of them as better than yourself?
Do you feel the hand of God in your life or do you strive to do everything yourself? Do you know God loves you and all His creatures?

I can only tell you that the grace of God is real. I was blind but now I see, lame but now I walk

I would wish the same for you, peace be with you

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It is not correct to say that the church teaches these things. The Roman Catholic Church teaches them, and maybe some others, such as "high church" Anglicans, but not "the church" as a whole

I am trying to understand this according to CF rules, and honestly do not want to be insulting.
You may say that the Catholic Church is not THE Church. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
When we look at history, we get a different picture. There is the Apostolic Church and those that departed from her.

Some say that the Catholic Church apostacized and lost the right to be called the Church, but does that hold up under scrutiny of the word of God?

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that He built on the rock of Peter. I have heard the arguments of petros and Petras, but they neglect that our Lord taught in Aramaic, a language that has no distinction between Petros and Petras. In fact the word for little rock is lithos. -as and -os are just gender distinctions that are not present in Aramaic, not a distinction between rock and little rock.

We have Jesus before His Ascension breathing on the Apostles and giving them the power to forgive sins and gave them the great commission to baptize and teach the faith to all nations

We also have the parable of the wheat and the tares that tells us that the devil will send in his minions to pollute the Church. He did not say to depart from the Church and start a new one. He said to continue with the Church until the day of judgement. The Catholic Church is the only one that can claim to be THE Church by right of apostolic succession and the Chair of Peter.

To disprove that, you will have to study all of Catholic doctrine and show definitively that it is anti-biblical and not just differ from your opinion of scripture

Like the Ethiopian Eunuch that was reading the Bible says. How can I know what it means unless someone interprets? The Apostles have the authority to interpret, others have opinions

Are there evil people in the Catholic Church? Absolutely, but the Church is the body of Christ not necessarily the people that claim membership to her. The parable of wheat and tares proves this

The Catholic Church considers all Protestant groups a separate brethren by baptism. We grieve for them because the fullness of the faith is not known just as we grieve for the tares in the Church

The existence of separated brethren and high church that have left does not disprove the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

What authority do you use to support your view?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

From a sermon by Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century before any schisms

From a sermon by Saint Sophronius, bishop


Through Mary, the Father's blessing has shone forth on mankind


Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you. What joy could surpass this, O Virgin Mother? What grace can excel that which God has granted to you alone? What could be imagined more dazzling or more delightful? Before the miracle we witness in you, all else pales; all else is inferior when compared with the grace you have been given. All else, even what is most desirable, must take second place and enjoy a lesser importance.


The Lord is with you. Who would dare challenge you? You are God’s mother; who would not immediately defer to you and be glad to accord you a greater primacy and honour? For this reason, when I look upon the privilege you have above all creatures, I extol you with the highest praise: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you. On your account joy has not only graced men, but is also granted to the powers of heaven.


Truly, you are blessed among women. For you have changed Eve’s curse into a blessing; and Adam, who hitherto lay under a curse, has been blessed because of you.


Truly, you are blessed among women. Through you the Father’s blessing has shone forth on mankind, setting them free of their ancient curse.


Truly, you are blessed among women, because through you your forebears have found salvation. For you were to give birth to the Saviour who was to win them salvation.


Truly, you are blessed among women, for without seed you have borne, as your fruit, him who bestows blessings on the whole world and redeems it from that curse that made it sprout thorns.


Truly, you are blessed among women, because, though a woman by nature, you will become, in reality, God’s mother. If he whom you are to bear is truly God made flesh, then rightly do we call you God’s mother. For you have truly given birth to God.


Enclosed within your womb is God himself. He makes his abode in you and comes forth from you like a bridegroom, winning joy for all and bestowing God’s light on all.


You, O Virgin, are like a clear and shining sky, in which God has set his tent. From you he comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber. Like a giant running his course, he will run the course of his life which will bring salvation for all who will ever live, and extending from the highest heavens to the end of them, it will fill all things with divine warmth and with life-giving brightness.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This is a sermon from St Aelred in the 12th century almost 300 years before the Protestant schism

From the sermons of St Ælred of Rievaulx


Mary, our Mother


Let us come to his bride, let us come to his mother, let us come to the best of his handmaidens. All of these descriptions fit Blessed Mary.


But what are we to do for her? What sort of gifts shall we offer her? O that we might at least repay to her the debt we owe her! We owe her honour, we owe her devotion, we owe her love, we owe her praise. We owe her honour because she is the Mother of our Lord. He who does not honour the mother, will without doubt dishonour the son. Besides, scripture says: ‘Honour your father and your mother.’


What then shall we say, brethren? Is she not our mother? Certainly, brethren, she is in truth our mother. Through her we are born, not to the world but to God.


We all, as you believe and know, were in death, in the infirmity of old age, in darkness, in misery. In death because we had lost the Lord; in the infirmity of old age, because we were in corruption; in darkness because we had lost the light of wisdom, and so we had altogether perished.


But through Blessed Mary we all underwent a much better birth than through Eve, inasmuch as Christ was born of Mary. Instead of the infirmity of age we have regained youth, instead of corruption incorruption, instead of darkness light.


She is our mother, mother of our life, of our incorruption, of our light. The Apostle says of our Lord, ‘Whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification and redemption.’


She therefore who is the mother of Christ is the mother of our wisdom, mother of our righteousness, mother of our sanctification, mother of our redemption. Therefore she is more our mother than the mother of our flesh. Better therefore is our birth which we derive from Mary, for from her is our holiness, our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption.


Scripture says, ‘Praise the Lord in his saints’. If our Lord is to be praised in those saints through whom he performs mighty works and miracles, how much more should he be praised in her in whom he fashioned himself, he who is wonderful beyond all wonder.



I retrieved these two sermons from the spiritual reading for today in the Liturgy of the Hours. They show that Mary was highly honored before the Church went into schism and was not the cause of that schism. Why is she not as well honored by our separated brethren today?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

This is a sermon from St Aelred in the 12th century almost 300 years before the Protestant schism

From the sermons of St Ælred of Rievaulx


Mary, our Mother


Let us come to his bride, let us come to his mother, let us come to the best of his handmaidens. All of these descriptions fit Blessed Mary.


But what are we to do for her? What sort of gifts shall we offer her? O that we might at least repay to her the debt we owe her! We owe her honour, we owe her devotion, we owe her love, we owe her praise. We owe her honour because she is the Mother of our Lord. He who does not honour the mother, will without doubt dishonour the son. Besides, scripture says: ‘Honour your father and your mother.’


What then shall we say, brethren? Is she not our mother? Certainly, brethren, she is in truth our mother. Through her we are born, not to the world but to God.


We all, as you believe and know, were in death, in the infirmity of old age, in darkness, in misery. In death because we had lost the Lord; in the infirmity of old age, because we were in corruption; in darkness because we had lost the light of wisdom, and so we had altogether perished.


But through Blessed Mary we all underwent a much better birth than through Eve, inasmuch as Christ was born of Mary. Instead of the infirmity of age we have regained youth, instead of corruption incorruption, instead of darkness light.


She is our mother, mother of our life, of our incorruption, of our light. The Apostle says of our Lord, ‘Whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification and redemption.’


She therefore who is the mother of Christ is the mother of our wisdom, mother of our righteousness, mother of our sanctification, mother of our redemption. Therefore she is more our mother than the mother of our flesh. Better therefore is our birth which we derive from Mary, for from her is our holiness, our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption.


Scripture says, ‘Praise the Lord in his saints’. If our Lord is to be praised in those saints through whom he performs mighty works and miracles, how much more should he be praised in her in whom he fashioned himself, he who is wonderful beyond all wonder.



I retrieved these two sermons from the spiritual reading for today in the Liturgy of the Hours. They show that Mary was highly honored before the Church went into schism and was not the cause of that schism. Why is she not as well honored by our separated brethren today?

Where was all this praise for Mary in Paul's epistles? How about Peter's? John? James? The Book of Acts? The Apostles themselves left us no praise of Mary. Where do they teach Mary was sinless? You say the Catholic Church is the church of the Apostles yet the Apostles had almost nothing to say about Mary which is quite the ommission given how central she is to Catholic theology. Why would they leave such an important topic completely untouched in their writings? The same with Peter being the head of the church. Even Peter himself makes no reference to it and the Gospel written from his accounts (Mark's) does not even record the words about "the rock."

These were later developments by men and not the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I am trying to understand this according to CF rules, and honestly do not want to be insulting.
You may say that the Catholic Church is not THE Church. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
When we look at history, we get a different picture. There is the Apostolic Church and those that departed from her.

Some say that the Catholic Church apostacized and lost the right to be called the Church, but does that hold up under scrutiny of the word of God?

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that He built on the rock of Peter. I have heard the arguments of petros and Petras, but they neglect that our Lord taught in Aramaic, a language that has no distinction between Petros and Petras. In fact the word for little rock is lithos. -as and -os are just gender distinctions that are not present in Aramaic, not a distinction between rock and little rock.

The "church" Jesus said would withstand the gates of hell is the church universal. The body of all believers no matter what earthly church they attend and that church cannot and will not be overcome by Satan.

While Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each word that was chosen in the Greek, was chosen for a reason. We are reading a bare-bones, written account. We don't know what inflection Jesus may have used or if He pointed with His hands when He spoke those words. Perhaps He pointed to Himself when He said "and upon this rock I will build my church?" We don't have recorded for us any discussion that took place afterward where perhaps the meaning was made more clear. While all four Gospels include this account, only Matthew's records Jesus' words about "the rock."

We can only go by what was written, as the rest is speculation, but I find nothing outside that one account in Matthew that would support that God's church on earth is built on Peter. Peter never mentions it in his epistles, nor does Paul. That one account in Matthew, which can be legitimately understood in other ways, is not enough for me to believe the church is built on Peter. Paul said it is built on the prophets and the Apostles. Jesus said He is the chief cornerstone. The fact that centuries later the Catholic church claims their Pope is the successor to Peter does not make it so.

We have Jesus before His Ascension breathing on the Apostles and giving them the power to forgive sins and gave them the great commission to baptize and teach the faith to all nations

We also have the parable of the wheat and the tares that tells us that the devil will send in his minions to pollute the Church. He did not say to depart from the Church and start a new one. He said to continue with the Church until the day of judgement. The Catholic Church is the only one that can claim to be THE Church by right of apostolic succession and the Chair of Peter.

You assume by "church" Jesus meant a specific institution on earth as opposed to the church universal. We are instructed in Scripture to avoid the company of those who would lead us astray. Sometimes departing is the only way. You also assume Peter had the authority to name a successor. Maybe his office was only for him to last until the end of his life by which time the church would be firmly established and would have no need for a single head? We don't even know with 100% certainty that Peter made it to Rome much less headed the church there. That bishops of regional churches would have successors is logical but that doesn't mean Peter had special powers or authority to hand to his successor even if he made it to Rome.

To disprove that, you will have to study all of Catholic doctrine and show definitively that it is anti-biblical and not just differ from your opinion of scripture

This has been done by many scholars over the centuries, but it makes no difference to Catholics because you can just say, "That's your opinion," and dismiss what was said. So your statement makes no sense given that you would dismiss any definite proof as just an opinion.

Like the Ethiopian Eunuch that was reading the Bible says. How can I know what it means unless someone interprets? The Apostles have the authority to interpret, others have opinions

His was a unique case, though, as he had no Scriptures and no teacher. God does gift some with the gift of teaching. They have a gift for understand and explaining things in ways that are beneficial to others. This is true in all areas of life. The Ethiopian Eunuch evidently had some exposure to the OT but had likely never sat in a Synagogue and been taught. He also likely did not have personal access to a copy. He wanted someone to explain it to him. The vast majority of Scripture is easily understood by anyone who can read. It does not take years of seminary training and linguistic expertise to understand. We are blessed to live in an age where the Bible is easy to own although sadly not in some countries. The Apostles are no longer with us but we have the next best thing. We have their written words and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Are there evil people in the Catholic Church? Absolutely, but the Church is the body of Christ not necessarily the people that claim membership to her. The parable of wheat and tares proves this

The Catholic Church considers all Protestant groups a separate brethren by baptism. We grieve for them because the fullness of the faith is not known just as we grieve for the tares in the Church

According to the Council of Trent, Protestants are anathema as we believe salvation is by faith alone. I have also read Catholic documents that say those baptized outside the Catholic church can be considered "separated brethren" so long as they do not knowingly and willingly reject the teachings of the Catholic church. My paraphrase. In other words, if you are separated by ignorance, you are still covered by the church but if you willingly reject the Catholic church, then you are outside her salvation. That would mean someone like me is considered anathema and beyond salvation because I willingly and knowingly departed from her. By the church's own teaching, most Protestants are not separated brethren.

The existence of separated brethren and high church that have left does not disprove the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

What authority do you use to support your view?