Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

bbbbbbb · Sep 3, 2015

justinangel said:
My point is that the NT is not the prime source for determining a divine truth which you claimed. And I explained how it isn't. I doubt you even read my post.

I thought we were discussing the Church's belief in Mary being sinless.

No earlier than the 13th century? Perhaps you should take the time to read what the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church wrote by the 13th century instead of only reading the Bible which doesn't do much good on its own. .

That is absolute nonsense. Prior to the 3rd century we don't have any extant writings on the PVM in the apologetic works of the ECFs because the doctrine wasn't a contentious issue with heretics at the time.

I have provided historic citations in other threads concerning the PVM. What you're referring to is Mary's virginity during the birth of Jesus, which is connected to Mary being sinless and Eve's anti-type. But the virginitas in partu does presuppose the virginitas post partem. Mary is the gate that points eastward. Here are a few samples.

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man."
St. Hippolytus,Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII [c. A.D.210]

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]

13. "The Holy Virgin is herself both an honourable temple of God and a shrine made pure, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings. By reason of her surpassing purity [she is] the Divine incense of oblation ( = προθέσεως),and oil of the holy grace, and a precious vase bearing in itself the true nard; [yea and] the priestly diadem revealing the good pleasure of God, whom she alone approacheth holy in body and soul. [She is] the door which looks eastward, and by the comings in and goings forth the whole earth is illuminated. The fertile olive from which the Holy Spirit took the fleshly slip (or twig) of the Lord, and saved the suffering race of men. She is the boast of virgins, and the joy of mothers; the declaration of archangels, even as it was spoken: "Be thou glad and rejoice, the Lord with thee"; and again, "from thee"; in order that He may make new once more the dead through sin.

14. "Thou didst allow her to remain a virgin, and wast pleased, O Lord, to lie in the Virgin's womb, sending in advance the archangel to announce it [to her]. But he from above, from the ineffable hosts, came unto Mary, and first heralded to her the tidings: "Be thou glad and rejoice." And he also added, "The Lord with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." But she was in tumult, and pondered in her mind what sort of tidings was this. But then in seemly fashion, I ween, the grace chose out the Holy Virgin; for she was wise in all ways, nor was there her like among women of all nations."
St. Gregory Thaumaturgas, Homily Concerning the Holy Mother of God [ d. A.D. 270]

"[T]hey [those engaged in the public transport service] came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs."
St. Peter of Alexandria, "The Genuine Acts of St. Peter of Alexandria," [c. 305 A.D.]

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ (John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate"
St. Hilary of Potiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary."
St. Athanasius, "Discourses Against the Arians," [c. 360 A.D.]

"Some dare to claim that Mary became fully Joseph's wife after the Savior's birth. How could she who was the dwelling-place of the Spirit, who was overshadowed by the divine power, ever become the wife of a mortal and bear children in pain, according to the ancient curse? It is through Mary, "blessed among women," that the curses uttered in the beginning have been removed according to which a child in such torments cannot be called blessed. Just as the Lord entered through all closed doors, so he came out if an original womb, for this virgin bore him truly and really without pain."
St. Ephrem of Syria, Nisibene Hymns (Hymn Against Heresies) [A.D. 361]

"The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25)."
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on the Gospel of Matthew [A.D. 370]

"And to holy Mary, [the title] 'Virgin' is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled."
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, "Medicine Chest Against All Heresies," [c. 375 A.D.]

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."
St. Ambrose, "Commentary on Psalm 118," [c. 387 A.D.]

The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin"
St. Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 [ante A.D. 379]

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin"
Didymus the Blind, The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, that court of the eternal king."
Pope St. Siricius, "Letter to Bishop Anysius," [c. 392 A.D.]

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave... "That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself--of whom, even herself, all are rightly called children of the bridegroom--but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the mother of that very head."
St. Augustine of Hippo, "Holy Virginity," [c. 401 A.D.]

"His [Christ's] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained."
Pope St. Leo the Great, "Sermon 22," [c. 450 A.D.]

Shall I go on until the 13th century? Gee, I didn't even cite Jerome in his contention with Helvidius. I've met Protestants who claimed that the PVM "theory" started with him. Ignorance is bliss.

PAX

We have a difference of opinion regarding the nature of historical documentation. Primary documentation of any historical event comes from eyewitnesses. Secondary documentation comes from individuals who heard it from eyewitnesses. Tertiary documentation comes from those who heard it from secondary sources. There is no doubt in my mind that primary documentation is the best form of documentation, especially when the primary sources have been thoroughly vetted and authenticated.

You will agree, I believe, that an essential aspect, according to modern Catholic dogma, of Mary's sinlessness is her perpetual virginity. If, for one reason or another, her virginity was lost then she would no longer be sinless.

As we have seen, several of the ECF's took the position that Mary lost her virginity when she gave birth to Jesus Christ. I will ask you which position you hold concerning the birth of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that he mysteriously emerged from the side of Mary, leaving his umbilical cord, placenta, and Mary's hymen intact, thus preserving her virginity? Or, do you believe that Jesus Christ came into this world through the means of natural birth, which means that Mary's hymen was then broken, and her virginity was lost forever?

justinangel · Sep 3, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
We have a difference of opinion regarding the nature of historical documentation. Primary documentation of any historical event comes from eyewitnesses. Secondary documentation comes from individuals who heard it from eyewitnesses. Tertiary documentation comes from those who heard it from secondary sources. There is no doubt in my mind that primary documentation is the best form of documentation, especially when the primary sources have been thoroughly vetted and authenticated.'

The books of the NT were "thoroughly vetted and authenticated" by the Catholic Church with the Decree of Pope Damasus l in the late 4th century. You can't believe that they are works truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error unless you put your faith in the infallibility of the Church which likewise has declared Mary to be sinless and ever-virgin. No biblical scholar and historian has the charismatic ability to ensure that Paul's letters to the Corinthians are "God-breathed" and Clement of Rome's letter to the same Christian community isn't. The Bishop of Rome wrote that letter while the apostle John was still alive. Anyway, our Marian dogmas belong to the deposit of faith which includes sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God - whose transmission is safeguarded by its source the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 16:12-13). The documents of the Church Fathers are memorials of this tradition and not tradition itself. The oral tradition is the spoken word of God by the apostles and their valid successors in the episcopacy and which relies on the testimony of human witnesses. The prime source of the Church's awareness of Mary's perpetual virginity per se would be Mary herself, the Apostles, and all the faithful who gathered together with them in the cenacle at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the prime source of the Church's understanding of the significance and purpose of Mary being ever-virgin. Holy Scripture serves as the objective norm by which the Church's understanding of this divine mystery increases and deepens through reflection and discernment.

You will agree, I believe, that an essential aspect, according to modern Catholic dogma, of Mary's sinlessness is her perpetual virginity. If, for one reason or another, her virginity was lost then she would no longer be sinless.

Yes, Mary's chastity is equated with her being without sin. It was for Irenaeus who drew a parallel between Mary and Eve. He drew on what he must have learned in his youth from Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John, that is by the oral tradition and not by gleaning written documents.

As we have seen, several of the ECF's took the position that Mary lost her virginity when she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

You must be imagining things, because I certainly haven't seen that. Only Tertullian believed that, which by the way has been debated by some. He appears to have believed in the PVM when he wrote his Monogamy.

I will ask you which position you hold concerning the birth of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that he mysteriously emerged from the side of Mary, leaving his umbilical cord, placenta, and Mary's hymen intact, thus preserving her virginity? Or, do you believe that Jesus Christ came into this world through the means of natural birth, which means that Mary's hymen was then broken, and her virginity was lost forever?

I believe that the birth of Christ was natural and miraculous just as his conception was. How it happened, only God knows. But Mary did not give birth as mothers ordinarily do, since she hadn't fallen from grace.

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

PAX
:angel:

"How shall this be, seeing I do not know man?"

Dialogist · Sep 3, 2015

abacabb3 said:
The testimony of tradition (Some quotes came from this link)

While none of the preceding verses definitively prove that Mary has ever sinned, several are suggestive that she had and two of them elevate the importance of discipleship above simply being Christ’s mother. Not surprisingly, the ancient church did not take a definitive stand on the issue because the Scriptural evidence did not demand it. However, quite a few Church Fathers appear to credit Mary with wrongdoing or insufficient faith:

Examples of insufficient faith:

He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).

Has no bearing on your argument, but as far as I know Tertullian not considered a Church Father by either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

bbbbbbb · Sep 4, 2015

justinangel said:
The books of the NT were "thoroughly vetted and authenticated" by the Catholic Church with the Decree of Pope Damasus l in the late 4th century. You can't believe that they are works truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error unless you put your faith in the infallibility of the Church which likewise has declared Mary to be sinless and ever-virgin. No biblical scholar and historian has the charismatic ability to ensure that Paul's letters to the Corinthians are "God-breathed" and Clement of Rome's letter to the same Christian community isn't. The Bishop of Rome wrote that letter while the apostle John was still alive. Anyway, our Marian dogmas belong to the deposit of faith which includes sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God - whose transmission is safeguarded by its source the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 16:12-13). The documents of the Church Fathers are memorials of this tradition and not tradition itself. The oral tradition is the spoken word of God by the apostles and their valid successors in the episcopacy and which relies on the testimony of human witnesses. The prime source of the Church's awareness of Mary's perpetual virginity per se would be Mary herself, the Apostles, and all the faithful who gathered together with them in the cenacle at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the prime source of the Church's understanding of the significance and purpose of Mary being ever-virgin. Holy Scripture serves as the objective norm by which the Church's understanding of this divine mystery increases and deepens through reflection and discernment.

Yes, Mary's chastity is equated with her being without sin. It was for Irenaeus who drew a parallel between Mary and Eve. He drew on what he must have learned in his youth from Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John, that is by the oral tradition and not by gleaning written documents.

You must be imagining things, because I certainly haven't seen that. Only Tertullian believed that, which by the way has been debated by some. He appears to have believed in the PVM when he wrote his Monogamy.

I believe that the birth of Christ was natural and miraculous just as his conception was. How it happened, only God knows. But Mary did not give birth as mothers ordinarily do, since she hadn't fallen from grace.

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

PAX

"How shall this be, seeing I do not know man?"

Interesting. I knew that your Church considers sexual intercourse of any sort to be sin, but I did not know that giving birth was also a sin.

justinangel · Sep 4, 2015

abacabb3 said:
The testimony of tradition (Some quotes came from this link)

While none of the preceding verses definitively prove that Mary has ever sinned, several are suggestive that she had and two of them elevate the importance of discipleship above simply being Christ’s mother.

Could you kindly cite which Fathers considered discipleship more important than the Divine Maternity? Perhaps you're taking things out of context. But if not, it makes no difference, since the individual theological opinions of the Fathers are fallible.

Mary's dignity as Mother of God surpasses that even of the Twelve Apostles. The apostolate is a form of temporal ministry. Mary is more than a minister, she is the mother of our Lord and Saviour with whom she was closely united in his work of redemption. What Jesus merited for the entire human race is of eternal value. The world had been reconciled with God. What the apostles might have gained in their ministry was of temporal value, since no human soul is assured of the attainment of salvation in its instrumental application upon conversion. Many who are predestined to grace and come to believe through faith may fall and revert to their sinful way of life. But the favour God has formally granted the whole world in His mercy is irrevocable. The dignity conferred on Mary rests on the merits of her divine Son. Ministers serve to convert and baptise people, whereas Mary served to open the gates of Heaven in collaboration with Jesus. Her association in her Son's work was immeasurably more important than the Apostles' collaboration was. If Mary had refused her consent to be the mother of our Lord and Saviour, the Twelve would never have been chosen. The Old Testament prophets received visions and foretold the coming of the Messiah in view of Mary's fiat which God foreknew would be freely given by her.

Further, Mary had a far deeper understanding of the divine mystery of redemption than the Apostles or any of Christ's disciples had long before they were chosen and the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. None of the Apostles could have spoken about the virginal conception of Christ, his birth, his infancy, his hidden life, and how his heart and soul had been affected in his passion and death as well or accurately as Mary could. She was our Lord's mother. He was her flesh and blood. She not only could know and understand him personally in a way no apostle ever could, but she must have learned so much from him in their intimate relation to each other during their thirty-three years together under the same roof which none of the Apostles ever possibly could have. Thus they couldn't have performed their ministry ideally without Mary's counsel. St. Ambrose tells us: " 'It is not strange that St. John should have spoken better of the mystery of the Incarnation than the others did; he lived at the source of heavenly secrets" (De Institutione Virginias, c. 9). What he speaks of in his Gospel about Christ he received from Mary.The authors of the Synoptic Gospels speak of the Incarnation from a temporal historical perspective, whereas John speaks of it transcendentally from the viewpoint of eternity. Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus more on Jesus as the Son of Man; John focusses much more on Christ's divinity. I believe, since John was Jesus' beloved disciple being personally closer to him than the other apostles were, Mary must have confided with him much more or perhaps even exclusively, which could explain why he hadn't lost faith as the others had when Jesus was arrested. She must have been a source of strength and encouragement for him. They stood together at the cross while the other apostles were in hiding fearing for their lives. They even refused to believe Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead. All this while Mary and John had already known even before the women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body.

Finally, Mary occasionally suffered as only a mother could out of love for her only child during her Son's public ministry, and especially during his passion and death. Her heart was broken when the scribes and Pharisees called Jesus a seducer and blasphemer, a transgressor of the law, a collaborator with Satan, and even one who was himself possessed by the devil. No persecution the apostles ever suffered in the name of their Master, even when combined together, could temporally appease the Divine justice and make reparation for the sins of humanity as much as Mary did. The merit of her love for Jesus had twofold value: the salutary mother's love for her Son in his humanity and her perfect love for her Son in his divinity. No person among our Lord's disciples appreciated the holiness and righteousness of Jesus more than Mary had at the time of the Jewish Pasch. None of them could yet fully grasp the magnitude of the injustice that was committed against him by unworthy sinners whom her Son still loved nonetheless. But Mary knew. Their hearts couldn't have been pierced as Mary's was, since none of them were Jesus' mother. Their relationship with Jesus was that between a lord and his servants. They could never have even believed that Jesus was the Son of God or else they would have all knelt before the cross and worshipped him. But Mary knew he was, and she adored him as they both suffered for each other because of sin. Jesus was more than a son to her when she suffered interiorly for his sake. He was her God.

Hence, the temporal satisfaction for sins that she could make on behalf of the human race, because of her perfect maternal love for her Son and the God-man and her understanding in faith, could never be achieved by any of Christ's disciples regardless of how much faith they may have had. The dignity of being our co-Redemptrix exclusively belongs by right to Mary. This is a designation that cannot by right belong to any of Christ's disciples in the order of grace. The value of Mary's suffering was enhanced by the offense she felt as no other person could feel because she was sinless. Mary was more sensitive to the evil works and the ravages of sin because she had no affinity with them, and thereby she was far more adversely affected by the evil that was perpetrated against her righteous Son and God. Nor could any inordinate self-love tarnish and diminish her perfect love for Jesus and God. The holy Mother's sacrifice in union with her holy Son's sacrifice were sufficient to appease the wrath of God, temporally and eternally. She alone was intimately united with her Son in the redemption of the whole world. It was by this association between the Mother and her Son that the apostles received all the signal graces they needed from Jesus to carry out their ministry faithfully through Mary's intercession and dispensation. Jesus had this in mind when from the cross he made his mother the mother of all his disciples.The Church has designated Mary the Queen of Apostles.

"The Lord has done great things for me, and holy is his name."

PAX.
:angel:

Standing Up · Sep 4, 2015

justinangel said:
No biblical scholar and historian has the charismatic ability to ensure that Paul's letters to the Corinthians are "God-breathed" and Clement of Rome's letter to the same Christian community isn't.

Off topic again. Clement wasn't an eyewitness, nor did he know eyewitnesses (like Mark knew Peter). Therefore, Clement's letter isn't even close to the same "God breathed" scriptures.

patricius79 · Sep 4, 2015

justinangel said:
Could you kindly cite which Fathers considered discipleship more important than the Divine Maternity? Perhaps you're things out of context. But if not, it makes no difference, since the individual theological opinions of the Fathers are fallible.

Mary's dignity as Mother of God surpasses that even of the Twelve Apostles. The apostolate is a form of temporal ministry. Mary is more than a minister, she is the mother of our Lord and Saviour with whom she was closely united in his work of redemption. What Jesus merited for the entire human race is of eternal value. The world had been reconciled with God. What the apostles might have gained in their ministry was of temporal value, since no human soul is assured of the attainment of salvation in its instrumental application upon conversion. Many who are predestined to grace and come to believe through faith may fall and revert to their sinful way of life. But the favour God has formally granted the whole world in His mercy is irrevocable. The dignity conferred on Mary rests on the merits of her divine Son. Ministers serve to convert and baptise people, whereas Mary served to open the gates of Heaven in collaboration with Jesus. Her association in her Son's work was immeasurably more important than the Apostles' collaboration was. If Mary had refused her consent to be the mother of our Lord and Saviour, the Twelve would never have been chosen. The Old Testament prophets received visions and foretold the coming of the Messiah in view of Mary's fiat which God foreknew would be freely given by her.

Further, Mary had a far deeper understanding of the divine mystery of redemption than the Apostles or any of Christ's disciples had long before they were chosen and the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. None of the Apostles could have spoken about the virginal conception of Christ, his birth, his infancy, his hidden life, and how his heart and soul had been affected in his passion and death as well or accurately as Mary could. She was our Lord's mother. He was her flesh and blood. She not only could know and understand him personally in a way no apostle ever could, but she must have learned so much from him in their intimate relation to each other during their thirty-three years together under the same roof which none of the Apostles ever possibly could have. Thus they couldn't have performed their ministry ideally without Mary's counsel. St. Ambrose tells us: " 'It is not strange that St. John should have spoken better of the mystery of the Incarnation than the others did; he lived at the source of heavenly secrets" (De Institutione Virginias, c. 9). What he speaks of in his Gospel about Christ he received from Mary.The authors of the Synoptic Gospels speak of the Incarnation from a temporal historical perspective, whereas John speaks of it transcendentally from the viewpoint of eternity. Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus more on Jesus as the Son of Man; John focusses much more on Christ's divinity. I believe, since John was Jesus' beloved disciple being personally closer to him than the other apostles were, Mary must have confided with him much more or perhaps even exclusively, which could explain why he hadn't lost faith as the others had when Jesus was arrested. She must have been a source of strength and encouragement for him. They stood together at the cross while the other apostles were in hiding fearing for their lives. They even refused to believe Mary Magdalene that Jesus had risen from the dead. All this while Mary and John had already known even before the women went to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body.

Finally, Mary occasionally suffered as only a mother could out of love for her only child during her Son's public ministry, and especially during his passion and death. Her heart was broken when the scribes and Pharisees called Jesus a seducer and blasphemer, a transgressor of the law, a collaborator with Satan, and even one who was himself possessed by the devil. No persecution the apostles ever suffered in the name of their Master, even when combined together, could temporally appease the Divine justice and make reparation for the sins of humanity as much as Mary did. The merit of her love for Jesus had twofold value: the salutary mother's love for her Son in his humanity and her perfect love for her Son in his divinity. No person among our Lord's disciples appreciated the holiness and righteousness of Jesus more than Mary had at the time of the Jewish Pasch. None of them could yet fully grasp the magnitude of the injustice that was committed against him by unworthy sinners whom her Son still loved nonetheless. But Mary knew. Their hearts couldn't have been pierced as Mary's was, since none of them were Jesus' mother. Their relationship with Jesus was that between a lord and his servants. They could never have even believed that Jesus was the Son of God or else they would have all knelt before the cross and worshipped him. But Mary knew he was, and she adored him as they both suffered for each other because of sin. Jesus was more than a son to her when she suffered interiorly for his sake. He was her God.

Hence, he temporal satisfaction for sins that she could make on behalf of the human race, because of her perfect maternal love for her Son and the God-man and her understanding in faith, could never be achieved by any of Christ's disciples regardless of how much faith they may have had. The dignity of being our co-Redemptrix exclusively belongs by right to Mary. This is a designation that cannot by right belong to any of Christ's disciples in the order of grace. The value of Mary's suffering was enhanced by the offense she felt as no other person could feel because she was sinless. Mary was more sensitive to the evil works and the ravages of sin because she had no affinity with them, and thereby she was far more adversely affected by the evil that was perpetrated against her righteous Son and God. Nor could any inordinate self-love tarnish and diminish her perfect love for Jesus and God. The holy Mother's sacrifice in union with her holy Son's sacrifice were sufficient to appease the wrath of God, temporally and eternally. She alone was intimately united with her Son in the redemption of the whole world. It was by this association between the Mother and her Son that the apostles received all the signal graces they needed from Jesus to carry out their ministry faithfully through Mary's intercession and dispensation. Jesus had this in mind when from the cross he made his mother the mother of all his disciples.The Church has designated Mary the Queen of Apostles.

"The Lord has done great things for me, and holy is his name."

PAX.

That is beautiful.

justinangel · Sep 4, 2015

Standing Up said:
Off topic again. Clement wasn't an eyewitness, nor did he know eyewitnesses (like Mark knew Peter). Therefore, Clement's letter isn't even close to the same "God breathed" scriptures.

Off topic? I was responding to bbbbb who raised the issue, although perhaps unwittingly. If someone is going to argue based on a faulty assumption, I can't help but to respond.

According to your criteria, canonising Luke's Gospel is questionable. First of all, he never witnessed the gospel events and relied on human witnesses who claimed they did. True, he was a companion of Paul and learned much from him also, even about Mary, but unlike Peter, the apostle of the Gentiles never witnessed the gospel events either. What he learned came directly from the original apostles. So we don't find Luke in the same viable position as we find Mark. You should know that it wasn't until the 2nd century that the Church Fathers decided to include Luke's gospel along with the others after some debate. They questioned whether he was actually the original author.There are a few critical biblical scholars today who still argue that he wasn't. But the Church has already infallibly ruled that he was.

Now going back to Clement, the 3rd successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome, doesn't this sound "God-breathed"?

1Clement 13:1
Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all
arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which
is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Let not the wise man boast in
his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his
riches; but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, that he may
seek Him out, and do judgment and righteousness most of all
remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching
forbearance and long-suffering:

This letter was read at the time in the church at Corinth along with the gospels during Mass on Sunday. And I should add, that John was still alive at the time when it was written. The two of them must have occasionally communicated with each other, since Clement was the Bishop of Rome who succeeded Peter in the divine office and held universal jurisdiction for that reason.

PAX

Standing Up · Sep 4, 2015

justinangel said:
Off topic? I was responding to bbbbb who raised the issue, although perhaps unwittingly. If someone is going to argue based on a faulty assumption, I can't help but to respond.

According to your criteria, canonising Luke's Gospel is questionable. First of all, he never witnessed the gospel events and relied on human witnesses who claimed they did. True, he was a companion of Paul and learned much from him also, even about Mary, but unlike Peter, the apostle of the Gentiles never witnessed the gospel events either. What he learned came directly from the original apostles. So we don't find Luke in the same viable position as we find Mark. You should know that it wasn't until the 2nd century that the Church Fathers decided to include Luke's gospel along with the others after some debate. They questioned whether he was actually the original author.There are a few critical biblical scholars today who still argue that he wasn't. But the Church has already infallibly ruled that he was.

Now going back to Clement, the 3rd successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome, doesn't this sound "God-breathed"?

1Clement 13:1
Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all
arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let us do that which
is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Let not the wise man boast in
his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his
riches; but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, that he may
seek Him out, and do judgment and righteousness most of all
remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching
forbearance and long-suffering:

This letter was read at the time in the church at Corinth along with the gospels during Mass on Sunday. And I should add, that John was still alive at the time when it was written. The two of them must have occasionally communicated with each other, since Clement was the Bishop of Rome who succeeded Peter in the divine office and held universal jurisdiction for that reason.

PAX

Clement believed in the phoenix too.

Luke was Paul's "scribe" also. But you reject Paul's account of his eyewitness to the risen Christ and direct teaching. Instead preferring someone who believed in myths. Par for the course.

prodromos · Sep 5, 2015

justinangel said:
According to your criteria, canonising Luke's Gospel is questionable. First of all, he never witnessed the gospel events and relied on human witnesses who claimed they did. True, he was a companion of Paul and learned much from him also, even about Mary, but unlike Peter, the apostle of the Gentiles never witnessed the gospel events either. What he learned came directly from the original apostles. So we don't find Luke in the same viable position as we find Mark.

Actually, Luke is listed among the Seventy Two disciples according to Church Tradition.

justinangel · Sep 6, 2015

Standing Up said:
Clement believed in the phoenix too.

Incredible! :doh:

Luke was Paul's "scribe" also. But you reject Paul's account of his eyewitness to the risen Christ and direct teaching. Instead preferring someone who believed in myths. Par for the course.

I believe Paul's account of his conversion. But I know that he wasn't directly taught by Jesus as the Twelve had been. What I question is whether your criteria is all that we have to go on, since we still don't know for sure who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews [A.D. 60-62] which was included in the Canon after much indecision. At the turn of the century, Paul, Barnabas, and even Clement of Rome (a "believer in myths") were among the candidates, and later some questioned whether Luke or Apollos might have been the author. It seems that this letter was included because of how comprehensively it explains the role of Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant which completes every fundamental thing we should know about him that pertains to our salvation. Other than that we can only assume, judging by the date, that the author knew the apostles and was directly taught by them. Meanwhile, we might ask ourselves why none of Ignatius' letters were included in the canon, seeing he was known to be a disciple of John. Perhaps it contains too much content that doesn't apply to succeeding generations. What we have in the NT fundamentally covers all the basics and is materially sufficient. So we may assume that God Himself arranged all this for our benefit exclusively through these authors by His inspiration. And what they did write proceeded from the oral Apostolic Tradition.

Ignatius of Antioch appealed to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church when he contended with the Gnostics and Hellenistic Jews over the Christian beliefs in the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. Unless the Scriptures were interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition, they could not serve as an infallible source of divine revelation. It appears for him that the oral Tradition of the Church was the prime or chief source of the fullness of divine revelation which is contained in the OT.

"If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…"
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110)

Since apostolic time tradition has been understood to be a handing down of divine truth from one person and generation to another. It is a mode of transmitting the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who safeguards this transmission as much as He has safeguarded the written word of God. Thus, Paul writes: '"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...." (1 Cor 11:23); '...I know whom I have believed (Jesus), and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us' (2 Tim 1:11-14); 'You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Tim 2:1-2). The Holy Spirit ensures that what God the Father has willed to reveal to the Church through His Son for our salvation is perpetuated in its full integrity as it is handed on to all generations. For this reason Christ commissioned his apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations and, by physically laying his hands on them, imparted to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These same gifts were imparted to those whom the apostles appointed in the same physical manner, who in turn appointed their successors in the divine office as well so that the divine truth should be preserved and perpetuated through all generations ad finitum.

Many Protestants mistakenly believe Catholics look only to Tradition, especially when professing their Marian beliefs. But this conclusion of theirs rests on the faulty premise that there is no Scriptural support for these beliefs or that there is contrary Scriptural evidence ("All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). However, such reasoning is the result of failing to acknowledge that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition. In reality Catholics have always maintained since earliest time that Scripture and Tradition stand together in a symbiotic form of relationship. Both mediums of divine revelation form a single deposit of faith originating with the apostles. Scripture and Tradition compliment and confirm one another. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; whereas sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church. In this sense Paul tells us that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The Bride of Christ is "unblemished" insofar she is in custody of the deposit of faith and has the divinely given authority to preach the divine truth by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. Both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition are the result of the active operation of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus calls "the Spirit of truth" (Jn. 14:17).

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199)

The authority to finally determine what God has intended His written word to mean lies exclusively with the Church as the Rule of Faith under the proper teaching authority instituted by Christ, namely the Magisterium which proceeds from Peter and the Apostles. To presume that Paul means in the distributive sense that each human individual has committed personal sins by all having contracted the stain of original sin without exception not only contravenes sacred Tradition, but also rashly defies the divinely appointed teaching office of the Church. The written word of God proceeds from the unwritten word of God. And since Tradition is infallible, the written word is infallible, being so only when joined with Tradition in the single deposit of faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Ignatius of Antioch bears witness to this Catholic understanding of how these two mediums of divine revelation co-exist with one another so that the fullness of the divine truth should be manifested and properly understood.

The NT becomes a fallible source of divine revelation when it is taken out of the hands of the proper teaching authority by Protestant theologians and ministers and is divorced from sacred Tradition, inasmuch as the OT becomes a fallible source to the Jews who have rejected Christ and the teachings of the Church since apostolic time. This is what Irenaeus implies in principle when he writes: "Heretics [Gnostics] assent to neither Scripture nor Tradition" (A.H.3.2.1). With regard to the Church's Marian tradition of the Mother of God being sinless, which the Gospel of Luke confirms according to the Church's judgement, what God means to say in Romans 3:23 is to be taken in a collective sense, and so there can be exceptions to the rule. Surely an infant which has died could never have committed any personal sins. So if there are exceptions to the rule with regard to personal sins, which human beings in general potentially can commit in their fallen state, then there must be an exception to the rule of contracting the stain of original sin. We find this exception in Mary who was preserved from contracting the stain of sin by God's intervening sanctifying grace at the first instant of her conception in the womb, while she was still subject to inherit this stain along with all of Adam's descendants. There is no contradiction here between Scripture and Tradition at all, though Protestants may think they see one at first glance, which they would then see as a confirmation of their own novel convictions: that Mary was sinful by nature and consequently must have sinned.

Hence, there are numerous passages in Scripture which contradict the Protestant interpretation of Romans and support the Catholic teaching and confirm the Catholic Tradition of Mary being without sin. In addition to prophecies pertaining to Mary (Gen. 315; Isa. 66:7; Ps. 50:2), we have OT prefigurements of Mary in the Hebrew matriarchs and heroines. In Genesis 11, there is Sarah, the free wife of Abraham and woman of promise opposed to the slave wife Hagar. Although she is barren and aged, she miraculously bears an only son who is to be called Isaac by God's command. Isaac is destined to become the father of a great nation - Israel in the person of Jacob. Mary, on the other hand, is the free spouse of the Holy Spirit and the free woman of promise who God foretold to the serpent would be at enmity with it and thus free from the slavery of sin. "Whoever commits sin is a slave of sin" (Jn. 8:34). She is a virgin, but miraculously conceives an only son whom she is to call Jesus by God's command. Jesus is to be the ruler of all nations with a rod of justice, the head of the mystical body which is the Church - the new Jerusalem come down from heaven - and the firstborn of many brethren (Rom.8:29).

Esther is captured and enslaved with her people by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), but because of her exceptional beauty, he chooses her from among all the Jewish maidens to be his wife and to reign with him as Queen of Persia (2:1-18). She, abhors the thought of being his wife, not only because he is an evil Gentile who has enslaved her own people, but also because she is a righteous woman who observes the Torah and is already married to Mordechai, according to the Talmud. But the king forces her to be his wife and to lay with him whenever he summons her. Meanwhile, all the Hebrew captives are condemned to death through the schemes of an enemy, the king's highest official Haman, except Esther because of her relation to the king. Taking advantage of being the king's wife and queen, apparently by divine providence, she manages to thwart the plot of her people's enemy and saves them from certain death in collaboration with God. Mary is prefigured by Esther. Alone of her race, she is not subjected to spiritual death because of original sin. By divine favour, Mary is granted a singular privilege which permits her to assist her Son in defeating our enemy Satan and delivering us from the condemnation of spiritual death. She is chosen because she is the fairest woman of her race.

Finally, Scripture often confirms or aids the confirmation of what belongs to Tradition by the use of words (pantes) and expressions (kecharitomene) employed by the authors through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These help us to understand what God really has in mind to tell us. And they sometimes meaningfully extend beyond the primary context as is the case with prophecies. Mary spoke prophetically when she proclaimed: "Behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed" (Lk.1:48). Many Protestant commentators have said that what Mary means by being blessed (makaria) is that she has been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus. In its primary fulfilment the prophecy is true. Unless Mary is the mother of our Lord, there is no reason for us to rejoice in Mary's happiness together with her on account of this pre-eminent favour. Yet we are still left with the prophecy's secondary fulfilment which is actually alluded to in the following verse: "The Almighty has done great things for me." What Mary is alluding to has yet to be realized in the future and is connected with the present moment and her state. The original word makarizó (μακαρίζω) in the given context literally means "to be pronounced blessed as a result of enjoying benefits or privileges that extend from being the mother of our Lord by God's grace." Thus the great things God has done for Mary are blessings that rest on the Divine Maternity which in itself is a blessing of the highest honour any woman could ever receive by the gratuitous grace of God. However, the future generations which pronounce Mary blessed are not merely paying her honour for having been chosen to be the mother of the Lord. As we have seen, the Greek word for "blessed" is more than an honorary term. It refers to how one stands in their personal relationship with God. The secondary fulfilment of Mary's prophecy is found in these benefits and privileges that extend from her Divine motherhood which future generations of the faithful shall acknowledge as blessings that by virtue of her maternal right exclusively belong to her in the order of grace. And these privileges are also connected with Mary's association with her Son in his work of redemption for which other reason she was chosen to be his mother. Jesus was not made by a woman only to acquire his flesh and blood from her.

Protestant scholar Donald G. Dawe in his exegesis of this verse concurs that the Greek word for "blessed" is "more than a polite honorific term". In his work The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Ecumenical Perspective, he informs us that this same word was used in Patristic literature to characterize the martyrs. "The highest expression of this blessedness was in the possibility of their ascension into heaven to dwell in the immediate presence of God." In other words, they weren't simply blessed for having died for Christ in faith. In the same vein, when Jesus says "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God," the highest expression of their blessedness is seeing God. Thus Mary's divine motherhood is not the highest expression of her being blessed in the eyes of future generations. This verse is vital to the Catholic dogma of the Assumption. In this verse we not only see her role in the Incarnation, but also the final consummation of salvation in Heaven. In Mary's case, this final consummation would be her assumption into Heaven. This is something all generations shall especially rejoice in for Mary's sake alone, since the Assumption is one of the privileges she has been graced with for being the Mother of God. The future generations shall not pronounce Mary blessed for simply having died and gone to Heaven. This is the blessed hope of all the faithful who die in the state of grace. The redemption of our bodies is a divine truth which has already been made manifest by the resurrection of Christ. But Mary is speaking prophetically about herself in particular. There is a secondary fulfilment that exclusively applies to her which is her Assumption body and soul into Heaven pending our own resurrection. Mary is one person whom by all the other faithful is pre-eminently pronounced blessed. She has been granted this privilege that no other Christian shall ever receive, not only because she is the mother of our Lord, but also because of the other associated benefit extended to her - that being the Immaculate Conception.

PAX
:angel:

"Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you."

prodromos · Sep 6, 2015

Standing Up said:
Clement believed in the phoenix too.

Because he makes reference to a well known fable? You're a funny guy SUP.

justinangel · Sep 6, 2015

prodromos said:
Actually, Luke is listed among the Seventy Two disciples according to Church Tradition.

I wouldn't go so far as to capitalise the t in tradition. True, there is 'a tradition' of Luke being one of the Seventy-Two (There is also 'a tradition' of Joseph being a grandfather when he met Mary.), but it is derived only from the fact that he is the author of the only gospel which mentions these additional disciples. But unlike John, he never refers to himself in his gospel, so there's really not much to gone on to base this assumption. On the contrary, By reading 1:1-4, it appears that Luke did not personally know Jesus, so he couldn't have been sent out by him. He refers to the events recorded in his gospel as having been delivered to him by those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word". What we do know of Luke in the Book of Acts is that he was a Greek convert from Antioch whom his travelling companion Paul called a physician. They journeyed together from Philippi to Jerusalem during Paul's return from Rome at the end of his third missionary journey.

PAX

justinangel · Sep 6, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Interesting. I knew that your Church considers sexual intercourse of any sort to be sin, but I did not know that giving birth was also a sin.

First of all, thank you kindly for capitalising the C in church.

Second, if you want to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches about sexual intercourse, don't read Loraine Boettner. The truth is the Church teaches that sex outside of marriage (fornication) is a grave sin against God. And, of course, having a sexual extra-marital affair (adultery) is a mortal sin as well. It is a mortal sin against God to have sex of any kind outside of marriage. Moreover, since certain kinds of sexual acts are gravely immoral and intrinsically evil, such acts cannot be justified under any circumstances, including within a marriage. Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc. Such acts are grave sins because they are contrary to the goodness of God and contrary to the goodness of human beings, who are created in God's image. They only serve to gratify oneself. These acts are also unnatural and deviant because they violate the natural law. God created man and woman so that their sexual relations within marriage would consist of genital to genital intercourse, open to life and creating a family in a bond grounded purely in love and respect for each other. In any deviant sexual act, inside or outside of marriage, the other person becomes an object of pleasure and is dehumanised. God's intention and purpose are mocked whenever we act in an unnatural way contrary to how God originally created us.

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Hebrews 13, 4

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Ephesians 5, 25-27

Third, whatever gave you the idea that the Catholic Church regards giving birth a sin?

I'm unsure what you mean by that.

PAX
:angel:

"Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness,but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness."

Standing Up · Sep 6, 2015

justinangel said:
I believe Paul's account of his conversion. But I know that he wasn't directly taught by Jesus as the Twelve had been.

Oh oh, an argument against Tradition. Are we off topic again?

patricius79 · Sep 7, 2015

justinangel said:
Incredible!

I believe Paul's account of his conversion. But I know that he wasn't directly taught by Jesus as the Twelve had been. What I question is whether your criteria is all that we have to go on, since we still don't know for sure who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews [A.D. 60-62] which was included in the Canon after much indecision. At the turn of the century, Paul, Barnabas, and even Clement of Rome (a "believer in myths") were among the candidates, and later some questioned whether Luke or Apollos might have been the author. It seems that this letter was included because of how comprehensively it explains the role of Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant which completes every fundamental thing we should know about him that pertains to our salvation. Other than that we can only assume, judging by the date, that the author knew the apostles and was directly taught by them. Meanwhile, we might ask ourselves why none of Ignatius' letters were included in the canon, seeing he was known to be a disciple of John. Perhaps it contains too much content that doesn't apply to succeeding generations. What we have in the NT fundamentally covers all the basics and is materially sufficient. So we may assume that God Himself arranged all this for our benefit exclusively through these authors by His inspiration. And what they did write proceeded from the oral Apostolic Tradition.

Ignatius of Antioch appealed to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church when he contended with the Gnostics and Hellenistic Jews over the Christian beliefs in the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. Unless the Scriptures were interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition, they could not serve as an infallible source of divine revelation. It appears for him that the oral Tradition of the Church was the prime or chief source of the fullness of divine revelation which is contained in the OT.

"If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…"
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110)

Since apostolic time tradition has been understood to be a handing down of divine truth from one person and generation to another. It is a mode of transmitting the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who safeguards this transmission as much as He has safeguarded the written word of God. Thus, Paul writes: '"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...." (1 Cor 11:23); '...I know whom I have believed (Jesus), and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us' (2 Tim 1:11-14); 'You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Tim 2:1-2). The Holy Spirit ensures that what God the Father has willed to reveal to the Church through His Son for our salvation is perpetuated in its full integrity as it is handed on to all generations. For this reason Christ commissioned his apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations and, by physically laying his hands on them, imparted to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These same gifts were imparted to those whom the apostles appointed in the same physical manner, who in turn appointed their successors in the divine office as well so that the divine truth should be preserved and perpetuated through all generations ad finitum.

Many Protestants mistakenly believe Catholics look only to Tradition, especially when professing their Marian beliefs. But this conclusion of theirs rests on the faulty premise that there is no Scriptural support for these beliefs or that there is contrary Scriptural evidence ("All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). However, such reasoning is the result of failing to acknowledge that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition. In reality Catholics have always maintained since earliest time that Scripture and Tradition stand together in a symbiotic form of relationship. Both mediums of divine revelation form a single deposit of faith originating with the apostles. Scripture and Tradition compliment and confirm one another. Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; whereas sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of God declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church. In this sense Paul tells us that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The Bride of Christ is "unblemished" insofar she is in custody of the deposit of faith and has the divinely given authority to preach the divine truth by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. Both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition are the result of the active operation of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus calls "the Spirit of truth" (Jn. 14:17).

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199)

The authority to finally determine what God has intended His written word to mean lies exclusively with the Church as the Rule of Faith under the proper teaching authority instituted by Christ, namely the Magisterium which proceeds from Peter and the Apostles. To presume that Paul means in the distributive sense that each human individual has committed personal sins by all having contracted the stain of original sin without exception not only contravenes sacred Tradition, but also rashly defies the divinely appointed teaching office of the Church. The written word of God proceeds from the unwritten word of God. And since Tradition is infallible, the written word is infallible, being so only when joined with Tradition in the single deposit of faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Ignatius of Antioch bears witness to this Catholic understanding of how these two mediums of divine revelation co-exist with one another so that the fullness of the divine truth should be manifested and properly understood.

The NT becomes a fallible source of divine revelation when it is taken out of the hands of the proper teaching authority by Protestant theologians and ministers and is divorced from sacred Tradition, inasmuch as the OT becomes a fallible source to the Jews who have rejected Christ and the teachings of the Church since apostolic time. This is what Irenaeus implies in principle when he writes: "Heretics [Gnostics] assent to neither Scripture nor Tradition" (A.H.3.2.1). With regard to the Church's Marian tradition of the Mother of God being sinless, which the Gospel of Luke confirms according to the Church's judgement, what God means to say in Romans 3:23 is to be taken in a collective sense, and so there can be exceptions to the rule. Surely an infant which has died could never have committed any personal sins. So if there are exceptions to the rule with regard to personal sins, which human beings in general potentially can commit in their fallen state, then there must be an exception to the rule of contracting the stain of original sin. We find this exception in Mary who was preserved from contracting the stain of sin by God's intervening sanctifying grace at the first instant of her conception in the womb, while she was still subject to inherit this stain along with all of Adam's descendants. There is no contradiction here between Scripture and Tradition at all, though Protestants may think they see one at first glance, which they would then see as a confirmation of their own novel convictions: that Mary was sinful by nature and consequently must have sinned.

Hence, there are numerous passages in Scripture which contradict the Protestant interpretation of Romans and support the Catholic teaching and confirm the Catholic Tradition of Mary being without sin. In addition to prophecies pertaining to Mary (Gen. 315; Isa. 66:7; Ps. 50:2), we have OT prefigurements of Mary in the Hebrew matriarchs and heroines. In Genesis 11, there is Sarah, the free wife of Abraham and woman of promise opposed to the slave wife Hagar. Although she is barren and aged, she miraculously bears an only son who is to be called Isaac by God's command. Isaac is destined to become the father of a great nation - Israel in the person of Jacob. Mary, on the other hand, is the free spouse of the Holy Spirit and the free woman of promise who God foretold to the serpent would be at enmity with it and thus free from the slavery of sin. "Whoever commits sin is a slave of sin" (Jn. 8:34). She is a virgin, but miraculously conceives an only son whom she is to call Jesus by God's command. Jesus is to be the ruler of all nations with a rod of justice, the head of the mystical body which is the Church - the new Jerusalem come down from heaven - and the firstborn of many brethren (Rom.8:29).

Esther is captured and enslaved with her people by King Ahasuerus (Xerxes), but because of her exceptional beauty, he chooses her from among all the Jewish maidens to be his wife and to reign with him as Queen of Persia (2:1-18). She, abhors the thought of being his wife, not only because he is an evil Gentile who has enslaved her own people, but also because she is a righteous woman who observes the Torah and is already married to Mordechai, according to the Talmud. But the king forces her to be his wife and to lay with him whenever he summons her. Meanwhile, all the Hebrew captives are condemned to death through the schemes of an enemy, the king's highest official Haman, except Esther because of her relation to the king. Taking advantage of being the king's wife and queen, apparently by divine providence, she manages to thwart the plot of her people's enemy and saves them from certain death in collaboration with God. Mary is prefigured by Esther. Alone of her race, she is not subjected to spiritual death because of original sin. By divine favour, Mary is granted a singular privilege which permits her to assist her Son in defeating our enemy Satan and delivering us from the condemnation of spiritual death. She is chosen because she is the fairest woman of her race.

Finally, Scripture often confirms or aids the confirmation of what belongs to Tradition by the use of words (pantes) and expressions (kecharitomene) employed by the authors through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These help us to understand what God really has in mind to tell us. And they sometimes meaningfully extend beyond the primary context as is the case with prophecies. Mary spoke prophetically when she proclaimed: "Behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed" (Lk.1:48). Many Protestant commentators have said that what Mary means by being blessed (makaria) is that she has been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus. In its primary fulfilment the prophecy is true. Unless Mary is the mother of our Lord, there is no reason for us to rejoice in Mary's happiness together with her on account of this pre-eminent favour. Yet we are still left with the prophecy's secondary fulfilment which is actually alluded to in the following verse: "The Almighty has done great things for me." What Mary is alluding to has yet to be realized in the future and is connected with the present moment and her state. The original word makarizó (μακαρίζω) in the given context literally means "to be pronounced blessed as a result of enjoying benefits or privileges that extend from being the mother of our Lord by God's grace." Thus the great things God has done for Mary are blessings that rest on the Divine Maternity which in itself is a blessing of the highest honour any woman could ever receive by the gratuitous grace of God. However, the future generations which pronounce Mary blessed are not merely paying her honour for having been chosen to be the mother of the Lord. As we have seen, the Greek word for "blessed" is more than an honorary term. It refers to how one stands in their personal relationship with God. The secondary fulfilment of Mary's prophecy is found in these benefits and privileges that extend from her Divine motherhood which future generations of the faithful shall acknowledge as blessings that by virtue of her maternal right exclusively belong to her in the order of grace. And these privileges are also connected with Mary's association with her Son in his work of redemption for which other reason she was chosen to be his mother. Jesus was not made by a woman only to acquire his flesh and blood from her.

Protestant scholar Donald G. Dawe in his exegesis of this verse concurs that the Greek word for "blessed" is "more than a polite honorific term". In his work The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Ecumenical Perspective, he informs us that this same word was used in Patristic literature to characterize the martyrs. "The highest expression of this blessedness was in the possibility of their ascension into heaven to dwell in the immediate presence of God." In other words, they weren't simply blessed for having died for Christ in faith. In the same vein, when Jesus says "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God," the highest expression of their blessedness is seeing God. Thus Mary's divine motherhood is not the highest expression of her being blessed in the eyes of future generations. This verse is vital to the Catholic dogma of the Assumption. In this verse we not only see her role in the Incarnation, but also the final consummation of salvation in Heaven. In Mary's case, this final consummation would be her assumption into Heaven. This is something all generations shall especially rejoice in for Mary's sake alone, since the Assumption is one of the privileges she has been graced with for being the Mother of God. The future generations shall not pronounce Mary blessed for simply having died and gone to Heaven. This is the blessed hope of all the faithful who die in the state of grace. The redemption of our bodies is a divine truth which has already been made manifest by the resurrection of Christ. But Mary is speaking prophetically about herself in particular. There is a secondary fulfilment that exclusively applies to her which is her Assumption body and soul into Heaven pending our own resurrection. Mary is one person whom by all the other faithful is pre-eminently pronounced blessed. She has been granted this privilege that no other Christian shall ever receive, not only because she is the mother of our Lord, but also because of the other associated benefit extended to her - that being the Immaculate Conception.

PAX

"Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you."

Wow.

Also, I wanted to mention that I see in the Letter of the Hebrews references to the Immaculate Mother of God, the Holy of Holies, the Sinless Ark of the Covenant:

Now even a first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. 9:2For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the Holy place. 9:3And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of holies; 9:4having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 9:5and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak severally. 9:6Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services; 9:7but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people: 9:8the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing; 9:9which is a figure for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect, 9:10being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation. 9:11But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, 9:12nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. 9:13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: 9:14how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 9:15And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 9:16For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. 9:17For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. 9:18Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.9:19For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 9:20saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. 9:21Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. 9:22And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. 9:23It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 9:24For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: 9:25nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; 9:26else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 9:27And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; 9:28so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.

10:1For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.10:2Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 10:3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. 10:4For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. 10:5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,

But a body didst thou prepare for me

Thus Scripture beautifully teaches that Mary was redeemed in a unique way, and is Heaven Itself.

Standing Up · Sep 7, 2015

patricius79 said:
Wow.
... Mary was redeemed in a unique way, and is Heaven Itself.

Good luck dwelling there.

justinangel · Sep 8, 2015

Standing Up said:
Oh oh, an argument against Tradition. Are we off topic again?

Incredible! :doh:

justinangel · Sep 8, 2015

Standing Up said:
Good luck dwelling there.

Good luck getting there.

patricius79 · Sep 8, 2015

Happy Birthday to the Immaculate Mother of God, the All-Holy and All-Compassionate Mother of Every Person!

The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, is one of my favorite books. It includes sermons for all the major Marian feastdays.

Here is a section from his sermon on the Feast of the Nativity (Birth) of the Mother of God.

The first is, that Mary was chosen by God to be the Mother of the divine Word. Hence Denis the Carthusian says (De Laud V. l. 1i. 3, passim), that as she was chosen to an order superior to the of all other creatures (for in a certain sense the dignity of Mother of God, as Father Suarez asserts (De Inc. p. 2, d. 1, s. 2), belongs to the order of hypostatic union), it is reasonable to suppose that from the very beginning of her life gifts of a superior order were conferred upon her, and such gifts as must have incomparably surpassed those granted to all other creatures. And indeed it cannot be doubted that when the Person of the Eternal Word was, in the divine decrees, predestined to make himself man, a Mother was also destined for him, from whom he was to take this human nature; and this Mother was our infant Mary. Now St. Thomas teaches that "God gives every one grace proportioned to the dignity for which he destined him"("Unicuique a Deo datur gratia secundum hoc ad quod eligitur"—P. 3, q. 27, a. 5). And St. Paul teaches us the same thing when he says, Who also hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament("Qui et idoneos nos fecit ministros Novi testamenti"—2 Cor. iii. 6); that is, the apostles received gifts from God, proportioned to the greatness of the office with which they were charged. St. Bernardine of Sienna adds, "that it is an axiom in theology, that when a person is chosen by God for any state, he receives not only the dispositions necessary for it, but even the gifts which he needs to sustain that state with decorum ("Regula firma est in sacra theologia, quod, quandocunque Deus aliquem eligit ad aliquem statum, omnia dona illi dispensat, quae illi statui necessaria sunt et illum copiose decorant"—Pro Fest. V. M. s. 10, a. 2, c. 1). But as Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, it was quite becoming that God should adorn her, in the first moment of her existence, with an immense grace, and one of a superior order to that of all other men and angels, since it had to correspond to the immense and most high dignity to which God exalted her. And all theologians come to this conclusions with St. Thomas, who says, "the Blessed Virgin was chosen to be the Mother of God; and therefore it is not to be doubted that God fitted her for it by his grace" ("Virgo fuit electa Mater Dei; et ideo non est dubitandum quin Deus, per suam gratiam, eam ad hoc idoneam reddidit"); so much so that Mary, before becoming Mother of God, was adorned with a sanctity so perfect that it rendered her fit for this great dignity. The holy Doctor says, "that in the Blessed Virgin there was a preparatory perfection, which rendered her fit to be the Mother of Christ, and this the perfection of sanctification" ("In Beata Virgine fuit perfectio quasi dispositiva, per quam reddebatur idonea ad hoc, quod esset Mater Christi, et haec fuit perfectio sanctificationis"—P. 3. q. 27, a. 4. 5).
http://www.marys-touch.com/Glories/DiscII.htm

Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

On and on

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Similar threads