Why Catholicism

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178281' date='Jan 28 2007, 12:33 AM']
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.
[/quote]
Please study Greek. The word used can also mean "many."

Anyway, speaking in general terms doesn't necessarily indicate that each individual fits the general term. For instance: "all humans have four limbs." Well, we'd say that's true categorically, but that's not actually accurate if you're talking about all individuals. Some don't. St. Paul was making a general statement about the nature of humanity, not a statement about each individual.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178136' date='Jan 27 2007, 09:33 PM']
[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.
[/quote]

Christ is Mary's Savior. She says so in the Magnificat.

The Catholic Dogma states that Christ saved her because His merits were applied to her (as they are applied to all the baptized) at the moment of her conception, in anticipation of her fiat and of Christ's sacrifice. My point was to clarify the Catholic teaching, not to defend it. For the defense, I've offered numerous arguments already, including the language used, the Ark of the New Covenant argument, etc. I haven't seen you really argue against them yet (of course, maybe I missed it, I'm quite tired and need to go to bed), so I'd ask you to do so before making me type it all out again or find more sources for you.

[quote][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.[/quote]

As I've pointed out, it wouldn't have been possible that Mary could bear Christ if she were a sinner. What we know about the Ark of the Covenant forbids it.

[quote][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?[/quote]

No one is saying that. We're saying that she was sinless AND needed a Savior.

[quote][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.[/quote]

Does everything have to have a prophecy about it to be true? As I said earlier, the Ark of the Covenant could not be touched by sinners without their immediate death resulting. This is because they bore God spiritually. If a woman, then, was to bear God not only spiritually but also physically, don't you think she would have to pure in order not to be killed? Mary had to be sinless out of necessity because if she was not, she would have been obliterated by God's presence.

[quote][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?[/quote]

There are two sides to passing on a nature, the giving and the receiving. In the Immaculate Conception, Mary was preserved free from sin. Her mother only had a fallen nature to give her, but it was purified before Mary received it. If that had not happened, Mary would have had a fallen nature to give to Christ. It would have to be purified likewise before He could receive it. The problem is that Jesus is the redeemer, not the redeemed. For Him ever to be purified or even preserved implies that He could have been otherwise...it simply isn't fitting.

[quote][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?[/quote]

See above answer. Add to it the fact that Mary didn't have a sinful nature because if she had one, she would have been obliterated by God's presence. If she didn't have a sinful nature, then God couldn't have purified her nature in giving it to Jesus.

God bless,

Micah

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1178330' date='Jan 28 2007, 02:13 AM']
Please study Greek. The word used can also mean "many."

Anyway, speaking in general terms doesn't necessarily indicate that each individual fits the general term. For instance: "all humans have four limbs." Well, we'd say that's true categorically, but that's not actually accurate if you're talking about all individuals. Some don't. St. Paul was making a general statement about the nature of humanity, not a statement about each individual.
[/quote]
Again, someone is mistaking Paul for YHWH.

YHWH is the author and Paul is the writter.

What part of this scripture do you not understand.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

YHWH is the author of the Bible and that Scripture, not PAUL!

[RezaMikhaeil]

Full Truth: I'm taking it that you're a Messianic Jew?

[quote]Original Sin: This doctrine created by augustine has evolved and it states that everything Adam and Eve did, we are guilty of it too. So if they had premaritial sex, we are guilty of it. We are guilty of everything Adam and Eve did. The Orthodox East disagree with this and believe in the ancestral sin where Adam and Eve brought in sin into this world, and we have to deal with this fallen world. But the sins that Adam and Eve did, we are not guilty of them.[/quote] I'd agree with this statement 100%, thou I didn't write it.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] In the Greek Septuigent writing, that's true but the original Hebrew, we don't know for sure.

[color="#FF0000"][b]This simply put is the first prophecy of the redemption of mankind, the coming of the new Eve and the new Adam[/b][/color] I totally agree with this, I just don't see that prophesy, prophesying St. Mary, to be sinless but nonetheless definately without a doubt the Theotokos, none can reject this title from her [unless you're caught in a heresy, as some Christian "sects" or "denominations"].

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] I'm not sure that I follow you here, are you saying that someone that is bound by the original sin of adam and eve cannot hate sin and the devil?

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] If you assume that one cannot hate the devil and be bound by the original sin but in regards to the Saints I'd say that St. Therese [to point out a Roman Saint] hated the devil with everything inside of her, thou she wasn't perfect, I dont believe that she was pleased by the fact of being bound by that original sin and would break that if given the opportunity but even if not given the opportunity, she would make every opportunity to suppress the devil through doing good daily. What I love about St. Therese is that she proved that doing good daily in small ways, is doing good in a giganitic way.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] I would totally agree that the scriptures don't have error [which is why I'm compelled to believe that St. Mary wasn't without error and wasn't sinless] but what I do believe is that the Roman tradition could be wrong and should be corrected if it that is the case. What made me chose orthodoxy from the beginning and seperate myself from the Protestant church was to get back to the origins of Christianity, therefore I don't trust a single individual or tradition more then those that lived in the initial 3 centuries.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] I never made this connection before, thank you for sharing.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Because she could not out of her own power be immaculate, it was ordained by God[/b][/color] But again, if God had the ability to keep St. Mary from obtaining her mother's human nature, then why couldnt God keep Jesus [himself] from obtaining his mother's human nature likewise?

[color="#FF0000"][b]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?[/b][/color] Thank you very much, Protestant boards don't like me too much, so I'm greatly happen to see a group of people that share a similar doctrinal stance and are willing to discuss it properly. I havn't gotten into a vast amount of Roman Theological writings to be honest. I have gotten into Dave Armstrong a little bit [I'd actually stumbled upon his appologetics of the Eucharist being literal once and used it in a Protestant discussion] and I'd liked a great amount of what he had to say. I'm mostly into writings of the Early Church Fathers and Saints of the first 3 centuries the most thou, I find great comfort in their writings above the vast majority of others in this modern era.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Let me first say that Mary herself wanted to be called by the Immaculate Conception when she appeared to St Bernadette[/b][/color] See I can't really speak much on this to be honest. It's someone's personal experience and could be true or not, I dunno. I know that she's blessed numerous Coptic Churches and never said nothing of this sort, but again... who am I to discredit someone else's experiences? I wasn't there and can't say yes or no and I'm not a Bishop so its not my job to make a judgement call on the validitity of someone else's experiences ya know?

[color="#FF0000"][b]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[/b][/color] This could equally be applied to her Theotokos status, even if you didn't believe her to be sinless.

[color="#FF0000"][b]We can't begin to imagine what kind of person God would make to bear Him[/b][/color] This could be taken several ways, its very easy for us to say "if I were God, I would be bore into the world as such" but that doesn't mean that Jesus did that, something that we're got to remember is that Jesus did everything very different then most had expected him. Jews of that era, as we see in the scriptures and tradition, had anticipated a very powerful [possibly military type] leader to free them from the Romans, and everyone of their impressions of Jesus was false, so they didnt have faith to believe in him. Jesus chose to come into this world to be an ordinary carpenter, rather then a militant leader, a president, a rich man, etc. That's why I choose not to proclaim that Jesus would have a sinless woman be impregnanted in order for him to come into this world [and jump to that conclusion] just because that's what I would have done. If God didn't say that its a requirment, if its not in scriptures and I dont see it in the Early Church Fathers writings, etc... then I tend to not believe it.

[color="#FF0000"][b]I just need to say I think the pivot point in this discussion is on Perfection vs Sinlessness.[/b][/color] Not that I'm Roman Catholic and/or believe that St. Mary is sinless, but if I were Roman Catholic and/or believed that St. Mary was sinless, this would be a key factor for me, this is a very important point to be discussed.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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 Sola Scriptura[/b][/color] That used to be me!!! If its not in scripture [interpreted as my word of faith church taught me to interpret it at the time] then its not true... man that was a weird era in my life.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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.[/b][/color] This could have some traction, if gone more into depth with credible sources sited [such as Early Church Fathers].

[color="#FF0000"][b]She was singled out by God to carry His Child -- to be the Mother of God Incarnate. [/b] [/color] This is an undeniable fact, wheather or not St. Mary was sinless.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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. [/b] [/color] From the Roman perspective, this is without a doubt the "known truth" but stating this to individuals that dont believe this, without more sited references of truth, its easily discredited.

[color="#FF0000"][b]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).[/b][/color] This is true to an extent, we also take the Eucharist to forgive our sins [thou I do understand what you were saying, you meant because Orthodox have the same view (atleast I think )]

[color="#FF0000"][b]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?[/b][/color] First, YHWH is but a single being in the bigger picture of THE TRINITY [wow that was cool to write... ] 2nd the scriptures that St. Paul wrote did have a bit of St. Paul's perspective in them, thou the scripture you sighted might not have but some of them did [such as in Corinthians, where St. Paul speaks on Marriage from his opinion].

[color="#FF0000"][b]Only Yeshua was Sinless and perfect.[/b][/color] So is it a sin to refer to him as "Jesus" now too?

Reza

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1177576' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:39 AM']
Christ was sinless correct? Yes. Where did Christ "get" His flesh? Mary. If Mary was not without sin, what is to stop Christ from receiving Mary's sin? Nothing, Christ would have receive original sin from His mother. But we know Christ is sinless, and He received His flesh from His mother alone.

What about when Christ was in her womb? When they where one, sharing everything. God, Christ can not come in to contact with sin, can not be one with sin, how then could Mary be sinful, and Christ be sinless yet share everything like any mother and child?

What the mother eats the child eats, the mothers blood flow is the child's blood flow. This is how original sin is pass to generations. If Mary was sinful how did Christ not contact that sin? They where one, Christ can not be one with sin, but if Mary was sinful then God was too, at least in her womb.

Sin is the absence of Grace, yet we both agree she was "Full" of Grace. Full of Grace, not like us partly graceful and partly sinful.

How can Mary be Full of Grace, yet still have room for sin? When sin is the absence of Grace?
[/quote]



a few questions.... where did mary come from then? going by this reasoning of passing down sin, her ancestral line must have born without sin other wise it would have passed on to her, then jesus. doesnt make any sense. anyways, christ certainly could have been born without sin, as all babies are. whats special about christ is that he never sinned as his life went on. all babies are born innocent, passing down sins seems full of carp and paradoxes.

[mortify]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178281' date='Jan 28 2007, 12:33 AM']
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?
[/quote]

Did you believe Jesus sinned? Or is He an exception?

[quote]a few questions.... where did mary come from then? going by this reasoning of passing down sin, her ancestral line must have born without sin other wise it would have passed on to her, then jesus. doesnt make any sense. anyways, christ certainly could have been born without sin, as all babies are. whats special about christ is that he never sinned as his life went on. all babies are born innocent, passing down sins seems full of carp and paradoxes[/quote]

J_lol, it is unfortunate you judge with such haste when it's clear you don't understand the doctrine. When Adam sinned he was alienated from God. Even though we don't inherit his *personal sin* we do inherit his fallen state. This is what we refer to when we speak of Original Sin, as far as I understand. We are all born without personal sin, which is what you talk about when you say "all babies are born without sin."

As for your comment about Mary, it is a common one but I personally don't understand it. I think people are forgetting that Mary was made immaculate by the Merits of Christ's Cross at her conception precisely [u]because of Jesus[/u]. Her status depends and revolves around Jesus. If He was an ordinary man we can expect ordinary things about Mary but if He was God, and He is God, we'd expect extraordinary things about Mary. It seems so natural I can't understand why other's don't see it. God has been preparing man since the exile from Eden for His own coming. He will take on our form and dwell among us. Who is worthy to bear God? Who is worthy to provide that flesh that will clothe our beautiful God? Is the average sinner worthy? Is even the least among sinners worthy? [b]Absolutely not[/b]. Mary had to be perfect as far as God's grace can make a human perfect, and believe me, with grace incredible things can happen.

Remember, Christ made Mary as He saw fit, the more we esteem her the more we esteem the one who created her.

[quote]I'm Prot and i started the convo.[/quote]
Shucks desertwoman! I thought you were either cath or ortho! That icon pic had me fooled!

God bless,
Mort

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"][b]Did you believe Jesus sinned? Or is He an exception?[/b][/color] Great point!!!

[color="#FF0000"][b]Who is worthy to bear God? Who is worthy to provide that flesh that will clothe our beautiful God? Is the average sinner worthy? Is even the least among sinners worthy? Absolutely not. Mary had to be perfect as far as God's grace can make a human perfect, and believe me, with grace incredible things can happen.[/b][/color] I believe the major issue with people not believing this, is that this doctrine is only upheld by the Roman Church and appears [thou Romans might not agree] to have came out of nowhere. It's not mentioned in the Bible and a great amount of credible sources also deny it, such as St. Cyril and St. Clement of Alexandria, so it doesn't seem to hold much traction, unless someone on this board can build a better case for it, theologically and doctrinally.

Now I'm not saying that you're wrong because I'm not in the position to accuse a single individual, but this is the appearance.

Why this appearance, because God never mentions in the scriptures that Jesus's mother had to be sinless [or was sinless]. It seems that you're saying, as if it were a prophesy in the Bible thou it wasn't, that a "prerequisite" for being the Mother of Jesus Christ is sinlessness but that isn't what Jesus or the Bible has stated and isn't held by the majority of churches and wasn't mentioned by the majority of Early Church Fathers [and was refuted by several]. As I'd mentioned previously, we [humans] often [in our minds] get this idea that if we were God "this is how we would do things" but God does things differently. Just as God chose to be a carpenter rather then a military leader, a doctor, etc. God also might have chosen to be born from, not a sinless woman, but a woman with great sin, and that wouldn't, in the least bit, deminish his divinity. Jesus is God and nothing can remove that, weather St. Mary is sinless or not.

Just as Jesus chose to dwell among the tax collectors and other "lower statue" individuals rather then ultra religious individuals, Jesus chose to be a carpenter rather then a rich and powerful king of this world, and could have [thou you would disagree] chosen to be born to a sinner, and it wouldn't have changed his statue. What was a criteria for his mother, was for her to be a virgin, with an untouched sexuality [which was fulfilled] and for her to be an "ever-virgin", which was also fulfilled.

Reza

Edited January 28, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Katholikos]

Thanks for this interesting discussion, y'all.

Reasons I became Catholic and not Orthodox:

1. Lack of a central authority. There is no Orthodox Church. I would have had to become Russian Orthodox, or Greek, or Ukrainian, or Coptic (or . . . etc.), all ethnic distinctions. (There is no Irish Orthodox Church. : )

2. Orthodox Churches (plural) are identified with the country in which they developed and suffer from caesaropapism, which puts State above Church (similar to early Anglicanism and Lutheranism).

3. Ability to cope with issues that develop over the centuries is hampered by the Orthodox inability to hold councils. They accept only the first seven ecumenical councils. Consequently, their development of doctrine is hampered -- they are stuck in time. This has caused disparity even in the contents of the Bibles used among them. If councils are a valid way of settling doctrinal disputes and solving problems, why stop at seven?

4. No one can speak for the whole of Orthodoxy. Therefore, Orthodoxy is silent on the critical issues of the age and is irrelevant in world affairs. No one in Orthodoxy could have ended Communism as John Paul II the Great did. Where is the strong Orthodox voice in the public square on the issues of the day like abortion, stem cell research, and homosexual marriage, for example?

5. Orthodox Churches permit three remarriages following divorce. This is in opposition to Jesus' teaching and the Catholic position that a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved, and that remarriage in such cases is adultery.

6. The Orthodox now sanction contraception (flip-flop), which is contrary to Natural Law and the purpose of marriage. They claim to be pro-life, but are complicit in countless chemical abortions by allowing use of The Pill.

Orthodoxy has an appeal for those who love the beauty of liturgy but are opposed to the Catholic Church. For those, I recommend that they study the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who went from Catholic to Orthodox during the Great Schism, and then came home to Rome.

'Nuff said.

Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic!

--------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Original Sin: This doctrine created by augustine has evolved and it states that everything Adam and Eve did, we are guilty of it too. So if they had premaritial sex, we are guilty of it. We are guilty of everything Adam and Eve did. The Orthodox East disagree with this and believe in the ancestral sin where Adam and Eve brought in sin into this world, and we have to deal with this fallen world. But the sins that Adam and Eve did, we are not guilty of them.[/quote]

The Catholic view on original sin is the one attributed to the Eastern Orthodox above. We do not believe that if Adam and Eve had premarital sex (although, that's a poor example, since they were married since Eve's creation), that we are guilty of it, too.



[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178354' date='Jan 28 2007, 02:38 AM']
Again, someone is mistaking Paul for YHWH.

YHWH is the author and Paul is the writter.

What part of this scripture do you not understand.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

YHWH is the author of the Bible and that Scripture, not PAUL!
[/quote]
YHWH is the author and so is St. Paul. YHWH inspires, St. Paul puts into words...that means that the Scriptures come from God, but also that they come from St. Paul. This is not contrary to Scripture.

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1178439' date='Jan 28 2007, 05:30 AM']
[color="#FF0000"][b]Who is worthy to bear God? Who is worthy to provide that flesh that will clothe our beautiful God? Is the average sinner worthy? Is even the least among sinners worthy? Absolutely not. Mary had to be perfect as far as God's grace can make a human perfect, and believe me, with grace incredible things can happen.[/b][/color] I believe the major issue with people not believing this, is that this doctrine is only upheld by the Roman Church and appears [thou Romans might not agree] to have came out of nowhere. It's not mentioned in the Bible and a great amount of credible sources also deny it, such as St. Cyril and St. Clement of Alexandria, so it doesn't seem to hold much traction, unless someone on this board can build a better case for it, theologically and doctrinally.
[/quote]

Reza, If I understand correctly you are Coptic, you know there are things we both believe that are not explicitly stated in the bible. The word "consubstantial," to describe the relationship between the Father and Son in the council of Nicea, is foriegn to the bible, as is the word "Trinity." The Greeks have personally defined that there is a difference between God's Essence and Energies, though this is not explicit in the bible nor in patristic writing. We have to accept that some doctrines develop but development is not innovation. Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception may be foriegn to some Easterners but you have to remember the West has had more councils, our theology is more developed.

Now to say that this doctrine came out of no where is false. What do you make of these Eastern witnesses?

[b]St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350):[/b]
"Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, [u]no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother.[/u]" (Poem to Christ)

"My Lady Most Holy, [u]All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate[/u] ...[u]Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment[/u] ...Flower unfading, purple woven by God, [u]alone Most Immaculate.[/u]" (Ibid)

[b]St. John Damascene (645-750):[/b]
"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most [u]holy fetus[/u] grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens...[u]This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first[/u]. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice....[u]She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.[/u]" (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)

[b]St. Athanasius of Alexandria[/b]
"He (Christ) took it (His body) from a [u]pure and unstained Virgin[/u], who had not known man." (On the Incarnation of the Word 8)

"The Holy Scriptures, which instructs us, and the life of Mary, Mother of God, suffice as an ideal of [u]perfection[/u] and the form of the heavenly life." (De Virginitate, 255)

[b]St. Epiphanius:[/b]
"Whoever honors the Lord also honors the [u]holy vessel[/u]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel." (Haer, 78, 21; PG 42, 733A)

"Only you Jesus and your Mother are more beautiful than everything. For on you, O Lord, there is no mark; [u]neither any stain in your Mother.[/u]" (Carnina Nisibena 27, 8).

The concept is there. It's obvious these saintly men did not think of Mary as an ordinary sinner but something much greater! Look at St John Damascene describe her as the second heaven! A heaven GREATER than the first! She is ABOVE the Cherubim and Seraphim! Is this referring to an ordinary sinner? [b]Of course not.[/b] How beautiful and true those saintly words are, and how far they seem from those who ascribe impurity to Mary.

Now, it is true that not all people believed in it, before the Solemn Declaration of the Dogma belief in the Immaculate conception was a theological opinion. One could reject it or accept it. But since our Lady revealed herself to be the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes, and the Holy Pontiff's solemn declaration of the dogma, we are bound to believe in it. All who accept this belief and honor the Holy Mother this way will reap many benefits.

There are explicit and implicit statements, I suggest reading up on this, the information is out there:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm[/url]


God bless,
Mort

Edited January 28, 2007 by mortify

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1178330' date='Jan 28 2007, 02:13 AM']
Please study Greek. The word used can also mean "many."

Anyway, speaking in general terms doesn't necessarily indicate that each individual fits the general term. For instance: "all humans have four limbs." Well, we'd say that's true categorically, but that's not actually accurate if you're talking about all individuals. Some don't. St. Paul was making a general statement about the nature of humanity, not a statement about each individual.
[/quote]
Okay, I'll play game.

Mary had to be without sin to bear the christ, because if she had sinned, that would make the Saviour have sin in his life as well, right.

So Mary's mom had to be without sin as well, as well as her father. Opps, I forgot, Catholics say Mary didn't have a father.

So Mary's grandmom and father must not have sinned, and their parents must not have sinned, and all the ancestors of Mary must not have sinned, so that mary can't have any sin in her.

That means, Adam and Eve must not have sinned either.

That means we're already saved and we don't need a saviour. WOO HOO, because there was no original sin.

WOOT! None of us need a saviour, because there is no sin in our lives. It is all in our minds.

Opps, just found out something out.

Mary wasn't full of grace, she was favoured.

And grace means - Favour, grace(-ious), pleasent, precious, [well-] favoured in the Hebrew.

And it means - Graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurateive or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): -acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy).

So the state of grace is favour from YHWH. It doesn't not necessarily mean without sin.

And so, Mary being chosen to bear the saviour means she had found favour in the sight of YHWH, not because she hadn't sin, but because she was whole hearted to the Lord.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178709' date='Jan 28 2007, 04:19 PM']
Okay, I'll play game.

Mary had to be without sin to bear the christ, because if she had sinned, that would make the Saviour have sin in his life as well, right.
[/quote]

Wrong. I never claimed that that was the reason she had to be sinless. I think it's fitting, but the necessary reason is different.



[quote]So Mary's mom had to be without sin as well, as well as her father. Opps, I forgot, Catholics say Mary didn't have a father.[/quote]

Catholics [b]DO[/b] say that Mary had a father...St. Joachim. That has always been Catholic teaching. If you don't know Catholic teaching, how do you expect to beat our theology?

Anyway, as I've already said, it's not logical to say that just because Mary was sinless, her mother had to be, too. Please read and respond to my arguments. I will not post them again and again.

[quote]So Mary's grandmom and father must not have sinned, and their parents must not have sinned, and all the ancestors of Mary must not have sinned, so that mary can't have any sin in her.[/quote]

Again, as I've stated, that's not logical.

[quote]That means, Adam and Eve must not have sinned either.[/quote]

Again, as I've stated, that's not logical. Please see my previous posts on this subject in this thread.

[quote]That means we're already saved and we don't need a saviour. WOO HOO, because there was no original sin.[/quote]

Still not logical.

[quote]WOOT! None of us need a saviour, because there is no sin in our lives. It is all in our minds.[/quote]

Still not logical.

[quote]Opps, just found out something out.

Mary wasn't full of grace, she was favoured.

And grace means - Favour, grace(-ious), pleasent, precious, [well-] favoured in the Hebrew.[/quote]

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The word used is kecharitomene. Please see my previous posts in this thread on that topic.

[quote]And it means - Graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurateive or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): -acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy).

So the state of grace is favour from YHWH. It doesn't not necessarily mean without sin.

And so, Mary being chosen to bear the saviour means she had found favour in the sight of YHWH, not because she hadn't sin, but because she was whole hearted to the Lord.[/quote]

It would be helpful if you would read what I've written instead of assuming that you know what my point is.

You said, you'd "play that game." You still haven't addressed the definition of "panta" or "all." Please do so. It appears to me that you said you'd play the game and then played a completely different game.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you make it very hard to stay patient when your posts don't make any sense.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1178722' date='Jan 28 2007, 04:30 PM']
Wrong. I never claimed that that was the reason she had to be sinless. I think it's fitting, but the necessary reason is different.
Catholics [b]DO[/b] say that Mary had a father...St. Joachim. That has always been Catholic teaching. If you don't know Catholic teaching, how do you expect to beat our theology?

Anyway, as I've already said, it's not logical to say that just because Mary was sinless, her mother had to be, too. Please read and respond to my arguments. I will not post them again and again.
Again, as I've stated, that's not logical.
Again, as I've stated, that's not logical. Please see my previous posts on this subject in this thread.
Still not logical.
Still not logical.
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The word used is kecharitomene. Please see my previous posts in this thread on that topic.
It would be helpful if you would read what I've written instead of assuming that you know what my point is.

You said, you'd "play that game." You still haven't addressed the definition of "panta" or "all." Please do so. It appears to me that you said you'd play the game and then played a completely different game.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you make it very hard to stay patient when your posts don't make any sense.

Okay, lets play the definitation game.

Sorry, according to Strongs Concordance, it is pas.

Pas means

Including all the forms of decelension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: -all (manner of, means) alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

You're trumpted.

Let me reiterate this with these scriptures.

[/quote]

Sin is a heredity trait passed along from parents to children since Adam's disobedience.

[quote name='Romans 5:13-21'][b]Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:[/b]

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

[b]For if by one man's offence death reigned by one[/b]; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

[b]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[/b]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[b]For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners[/b], so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

[b]That as sin hath reigned unto death[/b], even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178734' date='Jan 28 2007, 04:44 PM']
Sin is a heredity trait passed along from parents to children since Adam's disobedience.
[/quote]
Posting quotes witout explaining your point means nothing. What is your point?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1178734' date='Jan 28 2007, 04:44 PM']
Sorry, according to Strongs Concordance, it is pas.

Pas means

Including all the forms of decelension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: -all (manner of, means) alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

You're trumpted.

Let me reiterate this with these scriptures.
[/quote]

Just because pas is the nominative form doesn't mean I was wrong for saying "panta" (one of the plural forms). What should matter is the form used in Scripture, really, which is "pantes": "pantes gar hemarton kai husterountai tes doxes tou theou."

Now, as your dictionary entry says, "pas" means "all" or "the whole." Notice that it does not mean "each." There is a difference because "all," "the whole," or even "any" do not mean the same as "each." As I said, it's a general statement about humanity, not a statement about each person.

[quote]Sin is a heredity trait passed along from parents to children since Adam's disobedience.[/quote]

Yes. That's what we call original sin. Mary was preserved from it because of the merits of Christ's sacrifice, which were applied to her in anticipation.

Please read my posts in this thread.