Why Catholicism

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1177901' date='Jan 27 2007, 12:56 PM']
Reza, you can only use a certain number of quote boxes in a single post. Try using color coding instead.
[/quote]

Thanks for the suggestion, I wasn't aware of that.

[color="#FF0000"]Is it just the Council of Chalcedon that you don't accept, or all subsequent Councils as well?[/color] All subsequent councils as well [thou not all of them added, changed or subtracted theology so if it doesn't contradict the theology of the church, I wouldn't have nothing against it on a personal level

[color="#FF0000"]As I've pointed out, it doesn't say so in prophecy, but it does say so in typology (Ark of the Covenant). [/color] That's the problem that I got, wit believing something as such.

[color="#FF0000"]This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.

[color="#FF0000"]We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] So by "pre-emptive way" you're suggesting that you was going to sin and therefore in the future needed a savior?

[color="#FF0000"]Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate.[/color] If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.

St. Clement of Alexandria: The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin

Tertullian: God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

The theology of St. Mary being sinless is a relatively new doctrine, to be honest.

[color="#FF0000"]She didn't choose to be a virgin out of fear, but out of love. I wouldn't say anything different. However, Mary's fiat was made with her whole life, not just with the one occasion she had the chance to say it. She was entirely dedicated to God's will.[/color]

Well if you're saying that if someone were to touch her, that they would fall to the ground and die, that's fear. St. Mary thou chose [see Luke, let it be so...] to remain a virgin, to adhere to God's Will, through it doesn't mean that she wasn't sinless. It's also very possible to be entirely dedicated to God's Will but sin from time to time. St. Antony the Great, St. Mina the Miraculous, were both men that dedicated everything to Jesus Christ but were still sinful human beings that made mistakes.

[color="#FF0000"]Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.[/color] I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?

[color="#FF0000"]To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.[/color] So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?

[color="#FF0000"]No one has the power to change doctrine. We only have the power to further define and explain what is true...not to change truth. [/color] Well let me address something then, the Roman Church is kinda the "sore thumb" on alot of issues. Originally there were 4 Sees and Rome was one of them [as you know]. The other churches strongly agree on most of the issues at hand and Rome is greatly the sore thumb on a great number of them, therefore what makes you believe that Rome was the only one that genuinely preserved these traditions and everyone of the others happen to change and change in unison together? St. Mary's immaculate conception, for example, the other churches disagree strongly on and have facts that date back to the beginning of their churches, yet Rome is the sore thumb on this issue.

Rome has gone as far as attempting to define the mystery of "at what point does the bread actually become Christ's body" but I don't see their basis for their ruling on this issue, claiming an exact point that it becomes Christ's body, from ordinarly bread. Maybe there is scientific evidence of this, I just havn't seen the evidence for it yet and again Rome stands alone on this claim.

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The primary reason Mary was sinless is because she had to be sinless in order to bear God (St. Anne, Mary's mother, did not have to bear God and therefore didn't have to be sinless). This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.[/quote]

That's an interesting theory. Do you have any historical basis for it just out of curiosity? I ask as anyone can just make up a theory, like I said it's about dignity,not necessity per se. I'm sure I could find an old testament idea to back it up.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1177952' date='Jan 27 2007, 05:28 PM']
That's an interesting theory. Do you have any historical basis for it just out of curiosity? I ask as anyone can just make up a theory, like I said it's about dignity,not necessity per se. I'm sure I could find an old testament idea to back it up.
[/quote]
Well, of course, this matter is one for the theologians, but, as demonstrated, it simply makes no sense to say that Mary had to be Immaculate so that Christ could be. I think it goes without saying that the Tradition of the Church holds the Blessed Virgin as the Ark of the New Covenant. As we know, the Ark of the Covenant was covered in pure gold. It was seen as a pure thing. The Ark was only ever to be held by the poles of acacia wood attached to it, but never by direct contact. As we also know, when David was leading the Ark in procession, it almost fell. One of the Hebrews, presumably out of good intention, held out his hands and pushed it a bit to help sturdy it. He died immediately. Any exegete would have to say that this all seems to be due to the very pure nature of the Ark.

Why did the Ark have to be pure, though? Afterall, it held Aaron's staff, the Law, and the Manna, not God? Yet we know that a part of the Ark was the Mercy Seat, which was upon the angels. It is there that God would "sit" (or have His presence) with Israel. The Ark had to be pure because it represented God's heavenly dwelling and the seat of God's authority. For a man to touch it would be a sort of repeat of the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel...man grasping after the divine.

Now, since the Ark of the Old Covenant bore God in a spiritual way and the BVM bore God in a spiritual-corporeal way, then it follows that she would have to be pure as well. Notice that the gold was the nature of the Ark, and "pure" was the state of that nature. So it is with Mary: her nature is human, but she is purely human. We are all fallen and lacking something...Mary is more perfectly human than we are. To be purely or perfectly human is to exist as if before the fall, to be immaculate. However, all this proves is that anyone who touched Mary would be smited (I would argue that the womb is the actual vessel corresponding to the Ark, since it's clear people could touch Mary's hands or face, etc.; perhaps Mary's other parts correspond to the acacia wood poles of the Ark, i.e. that by which you may carry or lead the Ark; this makes it understandable how St. Joseph could touch and take care of Mary, but emphasizes even more how he needed to respect her virginity).

Now, as is apparent from the Scriptures, anyone who touches the chosen vessel of God is smited. How much more would one be smited if one unworthy touched God Himself? Mary, had she not been immaculate, would have been destroyed. She needed to be kept free from all stain of sin and indeed she was. Being immaculate, she was a vessel worthy of God. This works in two ways: 1) God was able to find suitable accomodations in Mary, and 2) Mary was able to bear God without being destroyed. The dignity aspect and the necessity aspect go hand in hand.

[-I---Love]

[b]I don't know if it is against unstated rules to jump in b/t two ppls responses...if so let me know and I apologize...[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.

[b]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a difference between sinlessness and perfection. Perfection is higher than sinlessness. Mary still needed a Savior b/c although she was graced to be w/out sin, she was still not perfect. For example she could have had an imperfection, like being too critical of herself. If I am too critical of myself it is not a sin that I need forgiven of, but a flaw, or imperfection that I need to improve on.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate.[/color] If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.

[b]Again, I differentiated b/t perfection and sinlessness above. Also, we see from JC that human nature can be separated from original sin. JC was 100% human but by the grace of God freed from original sin. Again, the same goes for Mary. I understand what you are suggesting by a hence necessary never-ending lineage of ancestors being sinless. However, thought about in more detail this isn't the case. Perhaps Jesus [i]could[/i] have been born from Mary even if she had original sin. But, it was [i]more fitting[/i] we must agree, for the Son of God, to be honored in such a way, that he was housed in sinlessness for 9 months! If one is not convinced w/ the [i]necessity[/i] of Mary being born w/out sin in anticipation for JC, I think one can easily agree how much more fitting and honorable it was. The [i]analogy[/i] w/ the Arc of the Covenant seems to work (read Hail Mary by Dr. Hahn)[/b]

St. Clement of Alexandria: The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin

Tertullian: God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

The theology of St. Mary being sinless is a relatively new doctrine, to be honest.

[b]He showed quotes, you showed quotes. How are you proving that the doctrine is "relatively new." Where are dates? Where are any of both of your quotes [i]in context[/i]?[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.[/color] I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?

[b]Again, a difference b/t sinlessness and perfection. Were it possible for [i]us[/i] to make the choice if we want to be sinless, there could be no original sin. Also, one does not only need to be w/out sin to be a Savior for others, but one needs to be God. There is more to being God than sinlessness [i]and[/i] even imperfection too.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.[/color] So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?

[b]That's not the intended meaning. Naturally barren women are still [i]open[/i] to the possibility of having children. Couples that use contraceptives are closing themselves off to the possibility of having children. By using NFP, etc., couples are not closing off the possibility, but are following the biological cycle of a woman to determine when she is naturally able to conceive. There are no artificial means preventing pregnancy should her time of ovulation or something else shift.[/b]

[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1178012' date='Jan 27 2007, 06:32 PM']
That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.
[/quote]

It was Christ who made her sinless and perfect in the first place; thus, He is her Savior. Had He not done so, she would have inherited original sin. That makes Him her Savior. Essentially, the teaching is that His merits on the Cross, which exist outside of time, were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception, to preserve her, free from all stain of sin, in anticipation of the Redemptive work of Christ on the Cross. There is no contradiction in it; the Church doesn't say that she was perfect on her own, but still needed a Savior; the Church teaches that she was saved by the Savior, but that this happened at her conception.

[quote]If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.[/quote]

Ah, but I was arguing against that. You have to recognize that in theology, there are two types of situations: necessity and fittingness. Now, of necessity, Mary was immaculate because she had to bear God, which St. Anne did not have to do. Therefore, Mary had to be immaculate and St. Anne did not. Mary was immaculate.

However, Mary being sinless, one of two things could happen:

1. [i]Mary could pass on fallen human nature to Christ and God could purify it at Christ's conception.[/i] However, this is not possible for two reasons. First, because Mary didn't have a fallen nature to pass on to Christ. Second, because to say that Christ's nature had to be purified or preserved from sin is an injustice to Christ...it would make Christ one of the redeemed, rather than the redeemer. Therefore, it only makes sense that Christ's nature was purified already and that He received it in that form as it was transmitted from a pure creature. Mary, therefore, had to be immaculate at least before she conceived Jesus in her womb. Because of the nature of fallen nature, it is not the case that one can be conceived with a fallen nature, but later lose all concupiscience. Even Baptism does not repair the fallen nature completely: we are still inclined to sin. So this possibility makes no theological sense.

2. [i]Mary could pass on a pure human nature to Christ.[/i] Humans do pass on their nature exactly as it is, unless God intervenes. Now, just because Christ did get His nature from Mary does not mean that Mary got her immaculate nature from her mother, St. Anne. As I said, God can intervene. This is what the Immaculate Conception is: St. Anne and St. Joachim conceived Mary, whom, at the very moment of her conception, God preserved free from all stain of original sin. This does not mean that St. Anne or St. Joachim were free from original sin. It means that God intervened. As stated above, it doesn't make sense to say that God would intervene at Christ's conception, nor does it make sense to say that God, if He was going to have Mary be sinless for Christ's conception, would purify Mary later in life.

Saying that Christ got His pure nature from Mary is not the same as saying that Mary had to be pure so that He could get His pure nature from Mary. God could have purified Mary later in life, before Christ's conception, it just isn't as fitting. God also could have purified the human nature at Christ's conception (although this would mean that Mary was passing on fallen nature, which would mean that she would be fallen and unable to bear Christ).

The reason, as stated above, for Mary's Immaculate Conception is that it is worthy of God and it is durable enough to withstand God's glory.

[quote]I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?[/quote]

First, as I said, what is needed to repay for sin is an infinitely good sacrifice, which can only come from an infinite good. Only God is infinite, so only God can repay for sin. No human person, no matter how pure, could do it.

As for others being sinless, there may be others who were as sinless as possible, but they still had original sin. Mary didn't even have that.

[quote]So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?[/quote]

You can't accidentally sin.

[Theoketos]

I would like to point out that some Coptics are outside union with Rome.

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48284"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48284[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"]I would like to point out that some Coptics are outside union with Rome.[/color] You're right [thou we're not arguing this] that the original Copts are not in communion with the Roman Church, and we were never part of it to be honest.

[color="#FF0000"]It was Christ who made her sinless and perfect in the first place; thus, He is her Savior. [/color] How do you come to this conclusion? I dont see it in scripture and I dont see it in any other credible doctrines either, but definately enlighten me.

[color="#FF0000"]Had He not done so, she would have inherited original sin.[/color] Why did Jesus need St. Mary then to not inherit the original sin, as St. Mary you're saying didn't get it from St. Anne.

[color="#FF0000"]There is no contradiction in it; the Church doesn't say that she was perfect on her own, but still needed a Savior; the Church teaches that she was saved by the Savior, but that this happened at her conception.[/color] How is it possible to say that she was perfect [sinless] but didn't need a savior? The whole point of a savior, since the fall of Adam and Eve was to redeem those that have sinned. Adam and Eve were sinless and therefore didn't need a Savior, Jesus [and the prediction of him comming to redeem] was made after Adam and Eve had sinned, not before because there was no need for a Savior or Redeemer. Now I understand what the Roman Church teaches, I'm not debating that they teach that she was sinless, what I'm debating is that theology as a whole, in which I believe is faulty [but am willing to be enlightened].

[color="#FF0000"]Now, of necessity, Mary was immaculate because she had to bear God, which St. Anne did not have to do.[/color] However, where in prophesy did it say that the Mother of Jesus Christ [St. Mary] had to be sinless? I dont recall such a prophesy, predicted in a single place in the Bible or Jewish Oral Tradition.

[color="#FF0000"]Mary didn't have a fallen nature to pass on to Christ.[/color] Again thou, how is it that you say that Jesus Christ would have gotten her fallen nature passed onto him and St. Anne's fallen nature didn't come upon St. Mary during childbirth from her mother?

[color="#FF0000"]Humans do pass on their nature exactly as it is, unless God intervenes. Now, just because Christ did get His nature from Mary does not mean that Mary got her immaculate nature from her mother, St. Anne. As I said, God can intervene. [/color] Then why can't God intervene to keep Jesus from getting his mother's sinful nature, as you're claiming happened with St. Anne and St. Mary?

[color="#33FF33"]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a difference between sinlessness and perfection. Perfection is higher than sinlessness. Mary still needed a Savior b/c although she was graced to be w/out sin, she was still not perfect. For example she could have had an imperfection, like being too critical of herself. If I am too critical of myself it is not a sin that I need forgiven of, but a flaw, or imperfection that I need to improve on. [/color]

You very much could have a point with this, I'd like to see you expand on this more and see others comments on this theological doctrine.

[color="#33FF33"]He showed quotes, you showed quotes. How are you proving that the doctrine is "relatively new." Where are dates? Where are any of both of your quotes in context?[/color] I decided to quote other church leaders because of his quoting of them and I wanted to assure that there's another side. In regards to datess, the individuals that I'd quoted were from the 3rd century [Tertullian for sure, St. Clement I'm pretty sure, it could have been before thou, if I remember correctly] and therefore came before those that he'd quoted. In regards to context, I believe it's pretty self-explanatory but you're welcome to research further into it. Another important figure to quote is St. Cyril the Great. His writings proclaim that St. Mary did have sin and that Jesus was the only individual that ever has been that walked the earth without sin.

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

Gen. 3:15
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm[/url]

The phrase “her seed” is “spermatos” is a very special phrased used, it is not used anywhere else in Scripture or in this context, which the idea of enmities being placed are not noted anywhere else in the whole of Scriptures. This simply put is the first prophecy of the redemption of mankind, the coming of the new Eve and the new Adam.

Enmities mean a solemn hatred and separation. It would be impossible for a person under Original Sin or any sin to solemnly hate the serpent (evil one) or to have separation unless one was free from his reign, thus being free of sin. So this is referring to two persons whom are free from sin. It then speaks of a woman and her seed, likewise we find in the New Testament a woman and her seed; the Blessed Mother and our Blessed Lord. But notice that there is no reference to a husband, one has to ask why since the authorship of the Old Testament is most of the time more interested in the male side, why now is only the female side represented?

The only interpretation that makes any sense at all is this is foreshadowing the Blessed Virgin whom is immaculate that would bring forth by the Holy Spirit her pure and spotless Son into the world and redeem it. Therefore, if one rejects that the Blessed Virgin is sinless and immaculate then you also reject that our Blessed Lord is the savior of the world. For if He is free from sin but she isn’t this verse of scripture doesn’t make sense at all and the importance of it already shown and its meanings. Simply put, one could not get around this verse if one wanted to argue the Blessed Virgin sinned, the only possible argument you can propose is that the scriptures error.

If one proposes the scriptures error then one can question the entirety of scriptures, thus we can turn to sacred tradition that teaches that she is without sin.

The Blessed Virgin’s savior is our Blessed Lord. To understand the connection we turn to the Old Testament where God takes the rib of man to form the woman. Likewise upon the Cross the lance that pushed through the side of our savior is a parallel. This merit and grace redeemed our Blessed Mother before she was even created therefore she was chosen before the ages by God to be the “Mother of God.”

If a child is walking by a big hole falling in, if a man comes pulling the child out the man is the savior of the child. Likewise, if a woman walks by the same hole but before she falls in the man saves her, the man is still the woman’s savior but in a different light. In this little story the man is our Blessed Lord and the woman the Blessed Virgin. Because she could not out of her own power be immaculate, it was ordained by God.

[mortify]

Reza, you seem sincerely interested in the sinlessness of Mary, and that is a wonderful thing because many a time Grace is disguised this way. I'm just curious, since the majority of us are laymen, have you looked into any real theological writing on this?

Let me first say that Mary herself wanted to be called by the Immaculate Conception when she appeared to St Bernadette. There have been incredible miracles recorded at Lourdes and the Church regards the appearance of our Lady as genuine. The special love Catholics have for her has inundated us with countless graces. She certainly holds us dear to her and does what she can to get us closer to her Son.

With that said, I hope no one refuses communion with the Church built on Kephas because they can't comprehend the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps the problem is, one may feel giving such a title to Mary would dissuade worship from Christ. But the point that has been emphasized over and over is that this grace was bestowed on Mary not because of herself, but precisely because of her role in bringing the Savior into the world. The higher we esteem our Lady the higher we esteem our Lord, who made her as she is.

She is the New Eve, to even call her a saint is an understatement. We can't begin to imagine what kind of person God would make to bear Him. Just think, His beauty, His eyes, His hair... all comes from our Lady. It just seems so natural to think she was anything but ordinary. I just can't see our Lord creating an impure woman for himself. She would have been created to match His perfection as far as Grace can make a human perfect.

A worthy read:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm[/url]

God bless,
Mort

[angelusdomini]

[quote]In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."...
...The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death...
...The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor. [/quote]

I would recommend that anyone who is interested to read more here at [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm"]New Advent- Immaculate Conception[/url].
---------

BTW Reza, just wondering what you think about original sin, in the immediate context of the relationship b/w Adam and Eve on the one hand and God on the other; and thenin the context of its effects on mankind? Also, what as far as you know are the effects of original sin i.e. do we have concupiscence? Is this also removed by/at baptism?
I only ask because I think that the understanding on the nature of original sin could help shed more light on the subject at hand. In general I believe that the Catholic position would be that Adam and Eve were created in Original Justice and Grace. After the Fall, there was a privation of the Grace of God and an ATTATCHMENT to SIN. Thus the whole dominion of Satan thing. If man through his fallen nature finds sin- that which off from the grace of God, then he is under the dominion of the serpent. The woman spoken of in Genesis 3, upon whom enmity has been placed between her and the serpent, cannot at the same time be also under dominion of the Serpent. This is all clarified by what the consequences of Original Sin are.

Pax et Bonum. A.M.D.G

Edited January 28, 2007 by Angelus_Domini

[jeffpugh]

First of all, I have to say this is a beautiful discussion we have going here on Mary. I did not know the Orthodox Church's position on Mary was just this (I hopefully assumed we were on the same page with the Blessed Mother). I just need to say I think the pivot point in this discussion is on Perfection vs Sinlessness. I'm not totally sure about the whole deal, though, there IS a difference between perfection and sinlessness by definition. Mary's 'flaw' as one can put it is the fact that she did not totally know what she was getting into when she gave her 'Fiat'. Just what is scripturally pronounced. To back this, Mary is said to have "treasured these things [about Jesus] in her heart" (cf 1:41-51). As for the rest of the arguments (which I'm not ignoring), the same thing keeps getting stated over and over again and is not properly addressed. Either people are not reading all of the threads (which I actually did) or they're avoiding something. I most certainly would love to dialogue more about the Church and Mary, because I have a Protestant friend who doesn't even get as far as we all have here concerning Mary due to the closed-mindedness of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] (ironically, Prods don't use Latin anymore ). Maybe my friend is just closed minded or I'm a bumbling fool. I'll take both if necessary. Speaking of Protestants, is it just me or are many avoiding this thread like a bad cold or what? Please correct me if I'm wrong (this is one thing I'd definitely like to be wrong about).

Pax †

[FullTruth]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1177774' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:30 PM']
I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.

I think what you should b arguing, which you ay be but not very well, isn't that she HAD to be sinless, per se, but that she should (or had not per se) be sinless because Jesus is God. It's about the dignity. Dignity moreso than the mecanical nature of needing mary to be sinless.

If you follow..
[/quote]
For [b]all have sinned[/b], and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

What part of [b]all[/b] do you not understand?

Mary sinned because YHWH isn't a liar.

And before you say, God can't come out of a Sinful Mary, remember Yeshua was accused by the Pharisees of being a winebibber and a friend of publicans and sinners. Yeshua didn't care if he came out of sinners, because he loves being around them, and even develop in one.

Edited January 28, 2007 by FullTruth

[Nathan]

Mary wasn't your average person (St. Paul, in the passage above, is simply referring to average people). She was singled out by God to carry His Child -- to be the Mother of God Incarnate. Because of this, God bestowed upon Mary a special gift not known to regular people. This special gift was an immaculate state of grace: perfect purity. Only such a person could be worthy enough to carry the Lord in her womb, so God made her that way.

Similarly, when we receive the Eucharist -- the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ -- we must be in a state of relative purity, that is, free of mortal sins. Anything less makes us unworthy to receive the Lord into our bodies. Thankfully, because of the sinful nature of regular people, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1178279' date='Jan 28 2007, 02:24 AM'] Speaking of Protestants, is it just me or are many avoiding this thread like a bad cold or what? Please correct me if I'm wrong (this is one thing I'd definitely like to be wrong about).

Pax †
[/quote]


I'm Prot and i started the convo.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1178295' date='Jan 28 2007, 12:57 AM']
Mary wasn't your average person (St. Paul, in the passage above, is simply referring to average people). She was singled out by God to carry His Child -- to be the Mother of God Incarnate. Because of this, God bestowed upon Mary a special gift not known to regular people. This special gift was an immaculate state of grace: perfect purity. Only such a person could be worthy enough to carry the Lord in her womb, so God made her that way.

Similarly, when we receive the Eucharist -- the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ -- we must be in a state of relative purity, that is, free of mortal sins. Anything less makes us unworthy to receive the Lord into our bodies. Thankfully, because of the sinful nature of regular people, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).
[/quote]

Sorry, All means All, not All but Mary because she was special.

And Paul wasn't the author of the scripture, YHWH was, and Paul was just the vessel he used to write it. So again, are you saying YHWH is a liar?

Only Yeshua was Sinless and perfect.

Edited January 28, 2007 by FullTruth