Mary Sinless?

[jackmt]

That's what we Catholics have been telling you all along.

Who are you Catholics to be telling us who follow the Lord's Word alone anything? The Word teaches us that. Why do we need you?

BTW, I am former RC.

Scripture and Tradition complement each other, and so the two musn't be divorced from the other or set at odds with one another. The saints are canonized in view of both infallible mediums of divine revelation. And although Scripture is the objective norm to go by, it is the "Catholic" Church which has the final authority to declare (the power to bind and loose) someone a saint.

Where does this authority you claim come from and how is one to verify or falsify it?

Also, tradition cannot be made equal to God's authoritative Word; it must be subjected to, and in accordance with, His revealed will in Scripture.

Paul exhorted the Corinthians to imitate him, as he also imitated Christ. But not unlike any saint before or after him, he struggled with temptation because of a wounded, sinful human nature (Rom 7:15). Are you proposing that we err by imitating the apostle?

From what in anything I said do you derive this? I have said as much as you in regards to this.

Has anyone said that we are to imitate how the saints behave in heaven? However, we do emulate them in their heavenly praise when we sing hymns during services of worship.

So then, if we cannot know of their actions in heaven, where in any of this is justification for prayer to the dead in Christ?

Nor should we follow Judas' example, and he's no saint.

Agreed. I hope you don't think I suggested we should.

We have extra-biblical sources of the deeds of Christian martyrs, for example, during the great Roman persecutions. Their acts reflected the Gospel.

Again, agreed. And we can only know this by knowing Scripture and comparing their acts against Scripture.

Care to elaborate? You seem to insinuate that the Catholic Church venerates the saints for their ungodly behaviour.

You pray to the dead in Christ, you pray for the dead in purgatory (no such place exists, or Christ died in vain if His atonement was insufficient), you venerate the dead, offer services in their names, make graven (engraved) images of them (but you can only guess at their likeness), etc., etc.

In principle there is no difference between them, just as there is no difference between a godly Christian and godly non-Christian.

There is no such thing as a godly non-Christian. A man cannot be godly apart from salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I anticipate your response to this and the concommitant Scripture verses. I will answer them then.

 

[justinangel]

Who are you Catholics to be telling us who follow the Lord's Word alone anything? The Word teaches us that. Why do we need you?

By "we Catholics" I meant Narnia and I, who never said that we are to imitate Paul or any saint apart from their imitation of Christ. I had the impression that you overlooked what we said and tried to correct us.


You forget where the NT comes from. And you confuse the written word of God with your own word ("Mary was a sinner."), one of the great 21 fallacies of sola scriptura.

BTW, I am former RC.

So are two former friends of mine, because one wanted to divorce his wife and the other wanted to have an abortion which the Catholic Church forbids. So what?

Where does this authority you claim come from and how is one to verify or falsify it?

The authority comes from Christ himself (Mt 16:17-19). And the claim can be verified by the history of the Church. Read the testimonies of the Church Fathers. For example,

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flows onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers."
St. Cyprian, To the Lapsed 1 (A.D. 250)

Also, tradition cannot be made equal to God's authoritative Word; it must be subjected to, and in accordance with, His revealed will in Scripture.

Scripture (the written word of God) proceeds from Tradition (the spoken word of God) [Lk 1:1-4]. and so for this reason it is infallible and must be interpreted in light of Tradition. Tradition, on the other hand, musn't be subjected to the fallible interpretations of Scripture by private individuals who have severed themselves from the histroric Christian faith.

"We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition: nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God [the four bishoprics / patriarchates of the "Catholic" Church] have by succession transmitted to us."
Origen, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 244)

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures ... Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 5:12 (A.D. 350)

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
St. Ephraem of Syria, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 (A.D. 370)

From what in anything I said do you derive this? I have said as much as you in regards to this.

So then, if we cannot know of their actions in heaven, where in any of this is justification for prayer to the dead in Christ?

It isn't a question of being able to know the actions of the saints in heaven, but rather of the necessity to have to know how they behave, for there is no such thing as moral as opposed to immoral behaviour in heaven. The saints have exemplified proper Christian conduct while still alive here on earth. However, we do know they pray for us, since they are alive in Christ as members of his mystical body.

Agreed. I hope you don't think I suggested we should.

Not at all. My point is that we are expected to emulate the saintliness of the faithful who have gone before us in spite of their human imperfections. Judas is no saint, since he failed to persevere and succumbed to the unpardonable sins of despair and impenitence. So we cannot look to him as a spiritual role model despite the good things he may have done in his life. Unlike Judas, Peter repented of his denial of Christ, subjecting himself to God's merciful love, and so we must emulate the apostolic zeal he subsequently derived from his faith.

[QUOTES] Again, agreed. And we can only know this by knowing Scripture and comparing their acts against Scripture. [/quote]

Certainly Scripture is the objective norm to go by when examining the life of any saint beyond apostolic time.

You pray to the dead in Christ, you pray for the dead in purgatory (no such place exists, or Christ died in vain if His atonement was insufficient), you venerate the dead, offer services in their names, make graven (engraved) images of them (but you can only guess at their likeness), etc., etc.

There is nothing wrong with supplicating the saints in heaven for their prayerful support. Prayer to the saints isn't the same thing as trying to conjure up the spirits of the deceased and seek forbidden knowledge through them. It was a universal practice in the early Church. The Corinthians offered up their baptism on behalf of the dead in Christ, which Paul acknowledged instead of condemned.

Purgatory does exist, and this doctrine is scriptural. The reason why you cannot accept it is because of your erroneous understanding of Christ's propitiatory act. Not until Martin Luther and Jean Calvin arrived, was the idea of Christ paying a legal debt for our sins ever heard of in Christendom. If it were true that Christ did in fact sufficiently pay a legal debt for our sins, purgatory would be unnecessary, but then so would hell.

The veneration of the saints during public celebrations has been going on since earliest times in the Church and have never been condemned by the governing authority of the Magisterium. The 5th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553), however, anathemetaized those who objected to the use of images of Jesus, Mary, and the Saints. As sentient beings it's nice to have a picture of our loved ones in our possession when we are separated from them by long distances to feel closer to them. The same principle applies in our communion with the saints. And it makes no difference how accurate their images are in likeness. Nor do these images represent false gods as in OT times. Such a charge is so naiive. You must have left the Catholic Church because you didn't sufficiently understand the Faith.

There is no such thing as a godly non-Christian. A man cannot be godly apart from salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I anticipate your response to this and the concommitant Scripture verses. I will answer them then.

So what you are saying is that a person cannot lead a righteous life unless he is first saved. But the truth is that a person will not be saved unless he first leads a righteous life now that Christ has died for all men. What makes you think that the Spirit of God cannot dwell in the hearts of non-Christians? Peter saw that whoever fears God and acts righteously is just before Him. He is referring to both the Jews and the Gentiles in every nation before they have even heard the Gospel proclaimed or been baptized.

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him (faith) and acts uprightly (works) is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:35

I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life ... All the dead were judged according to their deeds."
Revelation 19, 12-13

All the dead include non-Christians and athiests to boot. There will be no distinctions made between the baptized and unbaptized on the day of judgment. The sheep will be separated from the goats and the wheat from the chaff on the basis of how all the dead conducted their lives in the fear of God, or in good conscience, and in the spirit of charity. Sufficient grace has been granted to all men through the merits of Christ.

PAX

 

[Zeek]

There is nothing wrong with supplicating the saints in heaven for their prayerful support.

And we see this in operation and through the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter...anyone???

Prayer to the saints isn't the same thing as trying to conjure up the spirits of the deceased and seek forbidden knowledge through them. It was a universal practice in the early Church. The Corinthians offered up their baptism on behalf of the dead in Christ, which Paul acknowledged instead of condemned.

You are leaping to a conclusion, Paul did not arbitrate on this practice, he merely mentioned it to make a specific point.

Ciao. Zazal

 

[justinangel]

And we see this in operation and through the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter...anyone???

First of all, the Church wasn't born yet when Jesus was preaching. Nor was he concerned with dictating beforehand what devotional practices should be espoused by the Church. Second, the letters of Peter and Paul certainly imply in some areas that we should supplicate the departed saints for their prayers as much as petition the faithful who are still alive on earth. Both the living and the dead are alive in Christ as members of a royal priesthood of believers and stewards of divine grace. Suffice it to say, the NT Epistles are occasional pastoral letters addressed to particular communities concerning specific issues. So we musn't expect to find everything the early Christians believed and practicsed enumerated in any of the letters. Paul never mentions the virgin birth in any of his letters, but that doesn't mean he never believed in the Incarnation. However, his belief is implicitly contained in his Christological writings.

You are leaping to a conclusion, Paul did not arbitrate on this practice, he merely mentioned it to make a specific point.

You are rationalizing. Paul alluded to a practice that evidently existed in the NT Church. And if it were taboo, Paul certainly would have admonished the Corinthians instead of dismissing the matter as normal. 1 Corinthians 15:29 does clearly reflect 2 Maccabees 12: 41-45, however much you wish to deny this.

PAX

 

[Zeek]

First of all, the Church wasn't born yet when Jesus was preaching. Nor was he concerned with dictating beforehand what devotional practices should be espoused by the Church.

That's interesting, in conversations with Catholic friends they have often used Gen 20:7 and Job 42:8 to demonstrate this practice was initiated and endorsed before the time of Jesus.

Second, the letters of Peter and Paul certainly imply in some areas that we should supplicate the departed saints for their prayers as much as petition the faithful who are still alive on earth.

Not in any Bible I have ever read. Are you sure you are not reading something into Scripture because it then aligns with what you have been taught and now believe?

Suffice it to say, the NT Epistles are occasional pastoral letters addressed to particular communities concerning specific issues. So we musn't expect to find everything the early Christians believed and practicsed enumerated in any of the letters.

That is fair comment...the proviso has to be that if we see any practice or tradition that is in conflict with sound doctrine as taught by Jesus and the Apostles, we should reject it.

Paul never mentions the virgin birth in any of his letters, but that doesn't mean he never believed in the Incarnation. However, his belief is implicitly contained in his Christological writings.

I'm glad that in this case you demonstrate that the context of the whole council of G-ds Word is the arbiter.

You are rationalizing. Paul alluded to a practice that evidently existed in the NT Church. And if it were taboo, Paul certainly would have admonished the Corinthians instead of dismissing the matter as normal. 1 Corinthians 15:29 does clearly reflect 2 Maccabees 12: 41-45, however much you wish to deny this.

I don't have a 'wish or desire' to deny anything...I am only interested in the truth. You are using what many theologians think is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture to infer that Paul mentioned it in a positive light, this is what you said..."The Corinthians offered up their baptism on behalf of the dead in Christ, which Paul acknowledged instead of condemned." That is putting a positive spin on a neutral observation, and if you apply sound exergesis you will see that the rest of Scripture does not endorse the practice in any shape or form....therefore if anything can be positively and scripturally assumed from this passage, it is not that Paul either accepted it or taught it.

In Him. Zazal

 

[justinangel]

That's interesting, in conversations with Catholic friends they have often used Gen 20:7 and Job 42:8 to demonstrate this practice was initiated and endorsed before the time of Jesus.

But this practice was not an objective concern of his when he preached the coming of the kingdom and being reconciled with the Father. And although our Lord is not recorded as exhorting us to pray for the dead, he does allude to the existence of purgatory which gives us cause to do so (Mt 5: 25-26; 12:32; 18:34). Also, when Jesus cried out to God from the cross, the Jews standing near thought he was calling on Elijah for his help. So supplicating the righteous who have gone before us appears to have been practiced by the ancient Jews. Jesus wasn't chided for apparently attempting something sacrilegious or scoffed for attempting the impossible. In his letter, James uses Elijah as a model of what it means for a saint or righteous person to act as a type of mediator in collaboration with God as his fellow worker in the divine plan of salvation (5: 16-20). And as a Jew, like the ones who had stood by the cross of Jesus, he must have believed that Elijah could still be counted on for his prayers and the channeling of grace through them although he had departed from this life.

Not in any Bible I have ever read. Are you sure you are not reading something into Scripture because it then aligns with what you have been taught and now believe?

Historically impossible. Belief in purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead and supplicating the saints in heaven for their prayers belonged to a tradition that had existed since long before the "Catholic" Church determined in the 4th century which books of Scripture were canonical. Those books which contravened the traditional beliefs of the Church were flatly rejected among other reasons. The truth is that Scripture proceeds from Tradition, and for this reason the former must be interpreted in light of the latter. Christians outside the Church since the 16th century suffer from the handicap of having to read into the Scriptures to accommodate their preconceived notions and novel doctrines that are alien to what the Church has traditionally taught from the beginning (collective amnesia). It wasn't until the so-called reformation that the doctrines of sola fide (a butchering of Romans), sola Christo, and sola Scriptura appeared in Christendom, though many Protestant thinkers have attempted to distort the teachings of the Church Fathers by isolating extracts and twisting their words to defend their beliefs as historically ancient. Meanwhile they intentionally ignore what a score of Fathers taught about purgatory and, to stay on topic, Mary's sinlessness.

"Accordingly, the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion, which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more - not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14 (ante A.D. 202)

Anyway, are you of the opinion that the faithful departed are no longer active members of the royal priesthood of believers and stewards of grace? May I remind you that the members who are cut off from the vine and no longer have any connection with us in the kingdom of heaven, according to Jesus' imagery in the Gospel of John, are the ones thrown into the fire for having borne bad fruit.

That is fair comment...the proviso has to be that if we see any practice or tradition that is in conflict with sound doctrine as taught by Jesus and the Apostles, we should reject it.

Purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead conflicts with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture based on the concepts of sola fide and sola Christo.

I'm glad that in this case you demonstrate that the context of the whole council of G-ds Word is the arbiter.

My point is that not everything Paul wrote in a letter of his was explicitly put down in writing. At times he does draw allusions, as he also does when he mentions the mystical body of Christ.

I don't have a 'wish or desire' to deny anything...I am only interested in the truth. You are using what many theologians think is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture to infer that Paul mentioned it in a positive light, this is what you said..."The Corinthians offered up their baptism on behalf of the dead in Christ, which Paul acknowledged instead of condemned." That is putting a positive spin on a neutral observation, and if you apply sound exergesis you will see that the rest of Scripture does not endorse the practice in any shape or form....therefore if anything can be positively and scripturally assumed from this passage, it is not that Paul either accepted it or taught it.

In Him. Zazal

2 Maccabees is canonical Scripture, whether the Protestant reformers liked it or not, and it reflects Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:29. We cannot know for sure whether the apostle was referring more specifically to the sacrament of baptism or more generally to associated works of penance. But it appears he did believe that the works (receiving the sacrament is a good work) of the Corinthians would benefit the departed souls of the faithful who may not have yet been admitted into heaven. Certainly, the glorious souls in heaven are no longer in need of our prayers.

Anyway, Zazal, we have digressed from the topic of this thread. Let me know if you are discussing the subject of purgatory and the saints on an appropriate thread, and hopefully I'll join you there.

PAX

 

[Zeek]

But this practice was not an objective concern of his when he preached the coming of the kingdom and being reconciled with the Father. And although our Lord is not recorded as exhorting us to pray for the dead, he does allude to the existence of purgatory which gives us cause to do so (Mt 5: 25-26; 12:32; 18:34). Also, when Jesus cried out to God from the cross, the Jews standing near thought he was calling on Elijah for his help. So supplicating the righteous who have gone before us appears to have been practiced by the ancient Jews. Jesus wasn't chided for apparently attempting something sacrilegious or scoffed for attempting the impossible. In his letter, James uses Elijah as a model of what it means for a saint or righteous person to act as a type of mediator in collaboration with God as his fellow worker in the divine plan of salvation (5: 16-20). And as a Jew, like the ones who had stood by the cross of Jesus, he must have believed that Elijah could still be counted on for his prayers and the channeling of grace through them although he had departed from this life.

Hi, I will just answer some of these briefly as it is meant to be about Mary's supposed sinlessness.

I believe you are drawing conclusions to fit your theology. The Jews were expecting Elijah as a fore-runner of Messiah, and Jesus had earlier explained that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah to some disciples. All we have here is mention of some bystanders thinking that Jesus is calling on Elijah. You can't in all honesty draw the conclusions you are attempting from this, it really is clutching at straws, especially over such a doctrine that would have such an impact in peoples daily lives...there is no way it would have been hidden, or that we would need to try and squeeze from Scripture what wasn't there.

"Accordingly, the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion, which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more - not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14 (ante A.D. 202)

I like some of the stuff that Clement has written, but this passage does not comply with any biblical perspective, and to me is a classic example of a tradition that has outrun Scripture and to some extent nullified such passages that expressly show that all our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus, and He has paid the price in full....and that includes sins committed after baptism.

1John 1: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Anyway, are you of the opinion that the faithful departed are no longer active members of the royal priesthood of believers and stewards of grace?

I don't believe we are given any explicit teaching on what those that have gone before us are doing, what we do know is that they are considered 'asleep in the L-rd' to us, and that they await their resurrected bodies.

May I remind you that the members who are cut off from the vine and no longer have any connection with us in the kingdom of heaven, according to Jesus' imagery in the Gospel of John, are the ones thrown into the fire for having borne bad fruit.

Like most Believers, I have a number of friends and relatives that have died and are with the L-rd...I look forward one day to being amongst them.

Purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead conflicts with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture based on the concepts of sola fide and sola Christo.

I don't divide the Body of the L-rd, and I certainly don't see my brethren as Catholics vs Protestants, even if you consider I have been brought up in the Protestant tradition. From a scriptural point of view, I try to hold fast what is true. At times I have heard some very good stuff come from the mouths of Catholics and I have heard some very unreasonable things fall from the mouths of what you would call Protestants...ultimately I am fully aware that G-d looks on the heart.

My point is that not everything Paul wrote in a letter of his was explicitly put down in writing. At times he does draw allusions, as he also does when he mentions the mystical body of Christ.

I don't have a problem with this...there are a number of things alluded to throughout Scripture that we no longer understand...even Paul mentions that the Jews have lost some of what was taught them concerning functions in the Temple (Heb 9:5). IMO what we should do is recognise our limitations and not try to fill in the blanks with suppositions, or impose unnecessary traditions on people, particularly if they obscure or nullify what has gone on before.

2 Maccabees is canonical Scripture, whether the Protestant reformers liked it or not, and it reflects Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:29. We cannot know for sure whether the apostle was referring more specifically to the sacrament of baptism or more generally to associated works of penance. But it appears he did believe that the works (receiving the sacrament is a good work) of the Corinthians would benefit the departed souls of the faithful who may not have yet been admitted into heaven. Certainly, the glorious souls in heaven are no longer in need of our prayers.

Seems very works based to me...surely Jesus paid the price, and that sacrifice satisfied the requirement of the Law...anything added to the blood has to be works based, and takes away from what Jesus accomplished. It is like saying, "Thanks L-rd, good effort but we also think it necessary to do such and such make sure our salvation!"

Anyway, Zazal, we have digressed from the topic of this thread. Let me know if you are discussing the subject of purgatory and the saints on an appropriate thread, and hopefully I'll join you there.

Will do...but just keep an eye on this section of the Forums in case I forget.

Kind regards. Zazal