Why Mary Was Sinless

[Farsight one]

I really know nothing about greek or latin or the like, so I have nothing to say about the rest of your post, but...
[quote name='NewReformation' post='1210201' date='Mar 7 2007, 10:51 PM']C: I don't believe the Roman Church is a Christian Institution, nor has been so for many hundreds of years.[/quote]If you say it has not been so for many hundreds of years, than is it safe for me to assume that it once was?

If it once was a Christian Institution, then it must still be one, since the Catholic church has remained ultimately unchanged for 2000 years. So, either it still is, or it never was. Which is it?

[Mr.Cat]

A: The Christians used Latin heavily within the first hundred years and the scriptures were translated into Latin for hundreds of years after Christianity’s founding. Furthermore, I have provided the case for Greek but one’s objection to the use of Latin is null unless one can disprove that the Christians used Latin and that the phrase they used was “Gratia Plena”.

B: This is not what happened but Protestants often do this to try to dispute other verses of Scripture, for example the phrase “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Protestants often take it out of the Aramaic (Gospel of Matthew) in the attempt to disprove the traditional translation of this verse and its meaning. So in any case the Catholic argument does not present this problem but consistently the Protestant argument does.

C: The Church was called Catholic (noun) early as the year one ten on the Georgian calendar (110 AD) and all the early Church Fathers note that Saint Peter the Apostle was the Rock and his successors govern the Church. Moreover, there is much evidence that Saint Peter and Paul the Apostles were in Rome thus suggesting the center of the Christian Church was in Rome, thus the Roman Catholic Church. But our Blessed Lord commanded that His Church be visible (which Protestants can offer no explanation to why their brand of Christianity did not appear till a thousand years later) and further that His Church be “Apostolic” (which again Protestants can offer no explanation why this is broken in their beliefs).

D: Any good “Bible Thumper” should know that our Blessed Lord never once in any of the Gospels commanded anything to be written down and further that never once do the writers of the New Testament write as if it will some day be incorporated into a singular canon we know as the Bible. So the question of what canons (books) should be included or excluded falls to the Church, which happened at a Catholic Council and otherwise was advocated by Catholic Saints whom we look at Christianity. There was no other form of Christianity (Gnostics existed but they are not Christian) other than the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years. Therefore Protestants have to argue that the “visible” church fell into error while the “invisible” church did not but this is completely contradictory to the gospel and Protestants whom often use the gospels reject those whom put it together.

E: The point was to show that the statement “full of grace” when referring to Saint Stephen the Martyr does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. (Which I have given evidence of) This is a poor Protestant argument that is proposed by a hand full of Apologists on their side of things. It is moreover a question to test to see if a Catholic really knows what they are talking about and I have shown that I do. ([b]All due respect intended[/b])

[i]Baptist Belief is an offshoot of Puritan Belief that would fall under the realm of Protestantism that means, “protesting ones” namely protesting against the Church[/i]. [i]Since what you propose is against Church doctrine and you continue in dissent from the Church, this meaning fits correctly[/i].

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[scardella]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1209925' date='Mar 7 2007, 03:58 PM']Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.[/quote]

That's a mistranslation, buddy. I hope this next part comes out properly... κεχαριτωμενη (the Greek, transliterated Kecharitomene) is literally translated "full of grace." The traditional translation dating back at least to Jerome in the late 300's as been "gratia plena" or "full of grace." The following quote from Wikipedia is basically what I was taught in my theology classes.

[quote name='Wikipedia']Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced". The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state.[/quote]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1209932' date='Mar 7 2007, 04:05 PM']Jesus is the sole sinless being. Sorry, not a generalization. Jesus was a "human," yes, but He was also God.[/quote]

Jesus is fully human (also fully God), not kinda-sorta or mostly human.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Okay...Let me restate my question. How can one be filled with grace before the passion, death, and resurection of our blessed Lord?[/quote]If you read the other posts, you'll see that that's explain in scripture.

[quote]The phrase used to translate "highly favored" is actually χαριτόω or κεχαριτωμενη which means "From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured."

Now, if you want to get technical, the phrase "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" which is found in Acts 6:8 and John 1:14.
Acts 6:8 8στεφανος δε πληρης χαριτος και δυναμεως εποιει τερατα και σημεια μεγαλα εν τω λαω[/quote]

It's also important to note that to believe God's grace is upon her, doesn't make her sinless, it depends on the specific definition that one's giving to such a phrase.

In regards to the statement that Catholics have always believed this, yadayadayada, that isn't exactly factual. Originally [back when the 4 rites were united] there was a single church, after the great schism, it was only the Romans that assumed that St. Mary was sinless [the sore thumb], where as the other churches proclaimed [as they do today] that she was sinless. Now it's true that some of our liturgies use similar words as the Romans but they are defined differently.

Again the situation stands: If St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless, then her mother would have to be sinless in order to bear a sinless child as well.

In regards to the ark of the cov claim: It's true that the ark couldn't be touched, even to stablize it, otherwise those individuals that were sinful that touched it would be destroyed. Therefore if St. Mary was the Ark literally [not just symbolically] and possessed the same responsibility as the ark, then whoever touched her would be destroyed too but obviously lots of people touched her, namely to help her [as the individual in scriptures that attempted to stabilize the ark that was destroyed attempted to do].

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

Grace and Sin cannot dwell in the same place just as light and darkness cannot dwell in the same place, therefore if she was eternally full of grace ([i]gratia plena[/i]) it means that it is impossible that she be with sin at any moment in time.

As I quoted from the Church Fathers the theology of the Blessed Virgin being pure from the stain of sin is very evident even in the two hundreds and three hundreds, the “great schism” not occurring for another eight hundred years. Therefore the argument that the Latin Rite of the Church proposed this first making a stumbling block is false, also it is silly because the first writers that really start to call her “immaculate” are the Eastern Rites of the Church. This proposal shows a lack of historical understanding on the issue.

The Blessed Virgin must be pure from the tainting of sin because she is the Second Eve as foretold in Book of Genesis, that enmities be placed between the woman and her seed foretelling the final defeat of Satan. There is no other woman and man in the Sacred Scriptures having this protection from Satan (that Satan have no claim upon them) meaning that they are free from sin. If this is not the Blessed Virgin the first promise of the redeemer is not met and our Blessed Lord cannot be the savior. This is why the Blessed Virgin must be pure from sin for if you attack her immaculate conception you are attacking the legitimacy of our Blessed Lord.

Therefore her mother does not have to be sinless and this proposal is one that reflect poor understanding of the Scriptures and of the Theology...

She is the Ark of the New Covenant but she is a perfected fulfillment of the old. The old ark was constructed by sinful man by the instruction of God; therefore the new ark could come from sinful woman, Saint Ann. The ark was merely an object and a shadow of what was to come, thus to impart the understanding that sin may not touch the ark God protected it from ANY defilement. Because the Blessed Virgin is a perfected fulfillment it makes sense that the same applies that no touch of sin may hold their grip on her, thus it is not a person touching the ark that they were slew but rather that “sin” was touching the ark. So the Blessed Virgin is preserved from even the touch of sin in grace.

The Scriptures likewise make a very compelling argument, which I can propose on request, that she must be the ark. Also the early Church proposed that she was the new ark in the second century. So it doesn’t make sense that Protestants are now retracting this claim and attempting to attack her Immaculate Conception.

But if we were to fall to the falsehoods of Protestantism and the misconstruing of theology that she could not be touched by sinful man at all instead of being she could not be touched by sin, no where in the Sacred Scriptures is the Blessed Virgin touched other than by our Blessed Lord. So even under their little argument it doesn’t go to disprove anything but rather is just again a misconstruing of the scriptures.

But for those whom still have doubt about she being the ark and other people touching her, there are those in the Scriptures (The High Priest) whom could touch the ark and indeed all things being made new in Christ we are made priests (of Baptism and not of Holy Orders). So the theology fits pretty well and we cannot presume that she being the New Ark she will be exactly the same, for example she isn’t a big box.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210245' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:54 PM']A: The Christians used Latin heavily within the first hundred years and the scriptures were translated into Latin for hundreds of years after Christianity’s founding. Furthermore, I have provided the case for Greek but one’s objection to the use of Latin is null unless one can disprove that the Christians used Latin and that the phrase they used was “Gratia Plena”.

B: This is not what happened but Protestants often do this to try to dispute other verses of Scripture, for example the phrase “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Protestants often take it out of the Aramaic (Gospel of Matthew) in the attempt to disprove the traditional translation of this verse and its meaning. So in any case the Catholic argument does not present this problem but consistently the Protestant argument does.

C: The Church was called Catholic (noun) early as the year one ten on the Georgian calendar (110 AD) and all the early Church Fathers note that Saint Peter the Apostle was the Rock and his successors govern the Church. Moreover, there is much evidence that Saint Peter and Paul the Apostles were in Rome thus suggesting the center of the Christian Church was in Rome, thus the Roman Catholic Church. But our Blessed Lord commanded that His Church be visible (which Protestants can offer no explanation to why their brand of Christianity did not appear till a thousand years later) and further that His Church be “Apostolic” (which again Protestants can offer no explanation why this is broken in their beliefs).

D: Any good “Bible Thumper” should know that our Blessed Lord never once in any of the Gospels commanded anything to be written down and further that never once do the writers of the New Testament write as if it will some day be incorporated into a singular canon we know as the Bible. So the question of what canons (books) should be included or excluded falls to the Church, which happened at a Catholic Council and otherwise was advocated by Catholic Saints whom we look at Christianity. There was no other form of Christianity (Gnostics existed but they are not Christian) other than the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years. Therefore Protestants have to argue that the “visible” church fell into error while the “invisible” church did not but this is completely contradictory to the gospel and Protestants whom often use the gospels reject those whom put it together.

E: The point was to show that the statement “full of grace” when referring to Saint Stephen the Martyr does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. (Which I have given evidence of) This is a poor Protestant argument that is proposed by a hand full of Apologists on their side of things. It is moreover a question to test to see if a Catholic really knows what they are talking about and I have shown that I do. ([b]All due respect intended[/b])

[i]Baptist Belief is an offshoot of Puritan Belief that would fall under the realm of Protestantism that means, “protesting ones” namely protesting against the Church[/i]. [i]Since what you propose is against Church doctrine and you continue in dissent from the Church, this meaning fits correctly[/i].[/quote]

A: And your point would be what? Again, I refer you to the fact that the Bible was originally written in Greek, not Latin. We have to go to the Greek to get the actual meaning, not Latin.

B: Since I'm not those Protestants, your argument is rendered null and void.

C: It appears from Scripture that the church was originally headquartered in Jerusalem. And I would argue vehemently that Baptists were around long before any group of Protestants, and are possibly as old as the Roman Church itself.


D: That's nice.

E: Baptist belief is not an offshoot of Puritanism, although Puritans did incorporate into Baptist churches.

Edited March 8, 2007 by NewReformation

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1210227' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:27 PM']I really know nothing about greek or latin or the like, so I have nothing to say about the rest of your post, but...
If you say it has not been so for many hundreds of years, than is it safe for me to assume that it once was?

If it once was a Christian Institution, then it must still be one, since the Catholic church has remained ultimately unchanged for 2000 years. So, either it still is, or it never was. Which is it?[/quote]

The Roman church has picked up and dropped doctrines over this two thousand year history. I hardly call that unchanged.

[iggyjoan]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1209297' date='Mar 6 2007, 06:59 PM']The only person who lived a sinless life was the Jesus Christ. Mary wasn't sinless. Don't get me wrong. Mary was indeed a good woman, but she sinned.[/quote]


no she did not.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1210458' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:52 PM']no she did not.[/quote]

Prove it. Unless the Bible states otherwise, the evidence points that she did sin.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1210443' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:32 PM']The Roman church has picked up and dropped doctrines over this two thousand year history. I hardly call that unchanged.[/quote]Name a few.

[iggyjoan]

"For he hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21



Plus, we're not supposed to take the Bible literally, and by literally I mean wordforwordforwordforword. Time changes, people change, truths change.


Prove to me she did.

Edited March 8, 2007 by iggyjoan

[iggyjoan]

whoops double post

Edited March 8, 2007 by iggyjoan

[Mr.Cat]

Kindly in Christian Virtue I request you to read what I have written before this post in fill for it appears you are not aware of what I have written.

A: [b][u]I have provided the case and the proper translation for the Greek citing sources[/u][/b]; I have not seen anything opposing such a Greek translation. The early Christians first translated the Scriptures into Latin (such as the Jewish started to translate their scriptures to other languages). The early Christians translated the verse in question to “[i]gratia plena[/i]” and this translation has held up for two thousand years, also the early Church Fathers reaffirm this truth. So if one is to argue that “[i]gratia plena[/i]” is not the correct translation from the Greek one must supply the proper Greek translation with evidence in addition to explaining why the early Christians for nearly the first thousand and eight hundred years. So the Protestant case has not been represented.

B: I find Baptist doing this more often then anyone else and if I remember correctly Baptist are an offshoot of Puritans whom were Protestant and the Baptist whom also consider themselves Protestant. For Protestant means “protesting ones” or those whom protest the doctrines of the Catholic Church, since you are doing just that you are contradicting yourself to an extreme condition. If one wishes to continue in ligament discussion then I suggest one become more serious about the topic.

C: There is no proof in the Scriptures that the Church was centered in Jerusalem other than the arguments that sit around Saint James the Apostle (whom was appointed by Saint Peter the Apostle and whom never once defined anything concerning doctrine while Saint Peter had, in addition to the first one to sit on the throne in Jerusalem was Saint Peter whom later moved to Rome.) So this whole argument is very easily rebutted of which no evidence presented in this topic to support this. In addition, there is not writings of the “Baptist” until the seventeen hundreds after they off sprouted from the Puritans.

D: Since you have no rebuttal to this point I presume you admit that there was and still no other Church than the Catholic Church.

E: I never referred to Puritans or Baptist in this post although if you wish to know the history of your community of belief it is rather easily looked up. Baptists were a liberal offshoot of Puritan belief after they were expelled for belief in “direct communication with God.” (This was actually proposed by a woman.) That is historical fact. But because you do not have a rebuttal to this point I presume again you concede that this is not really an argument against the “full of grace” argument but rather it is a probe argument.

The Catholic Church has never rejected or abandoned a single dogmatic doctrine or any official doctrine that I can fathom. There is a growth over time in the understanding of those doctrines such as artificial contraception and natural contraception in concert with modern understanding leading to natural family planning. But this whole argument in this topic is starting to become less and less about the Blessed Virgin and more and more about (paraphrase) “THE CATHOLICS ARE WRONG, BECAUSE I KNOW SO!”

While I enjoy this conversation and even in presuming good intentions of those users involved I fear I will have to demand some evidence supporting the case against the Blessed Virgin or the Catholic Church; else this has gone off topic or the argument against the Church is merely hearsay (unfounded information). Further, if the primary objector to Catholic doctrine refuses to admit that by definition they are a Protestant and make other claims without any evidence I feel I will have to question the validity of the entire argument that such a user proposes.

The Blessed Virgin was immaculate and the Protestant (Baptist) arguments for this subject so far have failed to present any evidence to show otherwise. In fact even if the phrase is not “gratia plena” the Catholics here have presented enough evidence to still propose that she was indeed Immaculate.

[b]I personally and publicly apologize for the length of this message and for those whom may take offence to this post[/b]. In Christian virtue I most certainly do not intend to offend anyone here but I feel there is sufficient reason to believe that arguments are being made without any foundation or evidence against Catholic belief.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210471' date='Mar 8 2007, 04:14 PM']Kindly in Christian Virtue I request you to read what I have written before this post in fill for it appears you are not aware of what I have written.

A: [b][u]I have provided the case and the proper translation for the Greek citing sources[/u][/b]; I have not seen anything opposing such a Greek translation. The early Christians first translated the Scriptures into Latin (such as the Jewish started to translate their scriptures to other languages). The early Christians translated the verse in question to “[i]gratia plena[/i]” and this translation has held up for two thousand years, also the early Church Fathers reaffirm this truth. So if one is to argue that “[i]gratia plena[/i]” is not the correct translation from the Greek one must supply the proper Greek translation with evidence in addition to explaining why the early Christians for nearly the first thousand and eight hundred years. So the Protestant case has not been represented.

[b]And I have posted a rebuttal, in the Greek, demonstrating that this is an erroneous viewpoint to hold.[/b]

B: I find Baptist doing this more often then anyone else and if I remember correctly Baptist are an offshoot of Puritans whom were Protestant and the Baptist whom also consider themselves Protestant. For Protestant means “protesting ones” or those whom protest the doctrines of the Catholic Church, since you are doing just that you are contradicting yourself to an extreme condition. If one wishes to continue in ligament discussion then I suggest one become more serious about the topic.
[b]
Am I those people?[/b]

C: There is no proof in the Scriptures that the Church was centered in Jerusalem other than the arguments that sit around Saint James the Apostle (whom was appointed by Saint Peter the Apostle and whom never once defined anything concerning doctrine while Saint Peter had, in addition to the first one to sit on the throne in Jerusalem was Saint Peter whom later moved to Rome.) So this whole argument is very easily rebutted of which no evidence presented in this topic to support this. In addition, there is not writings of the “Baptist” until the seventeen hundreds after they off sprouted from the Puritans.
[b]
Who said Baptists were called Baptists prior to the Reformation?[/b]

D: Since you have no rebuttal to this point I presume you admit that there was and still no other Church than the Catholic Church.
[b]
Nope, I don't admit that. [/b]

E: I never referred to Puritans or Baptist in this post although if you wish to know the history of your community of belief it is rather easily looked up. Baptists were a liberal offshoot of Puritan belief after they were expelled for belief in “direct communication with God.” (This was actually proposed by a woman.) That is historical fact. But because you do not have a rebuttal to this point I presume again you concede that this is not really an argument against the “full of grace” argument but rather it is a probe argument.


[b]Actually, you did refer to them. And Baptists are not a liberal offshoot of Puritans. I would contend that Baptists can trace their heritage to the Walendsians, if not back farther. You are the one who brought up Puritans and Baptists, so I would contend that you suppose that this somehow has something to do with the argument.[/b]

The Catholic Church has never rejected or abandoned a single dogmatic doctrine or any official doctrine that I can fathom. There is a growth over time in the understanding of those doctrines such as artificial contraception and natural contraception in concert with modern understanding leading to natural family planning. But this whole argument in this topic is starting to become less and less about the Blessed Virgin and more and more about (paraphrase) “THE CATHOLICS ARE WRONG, BECAUSE I KNOW SO!”


While I enjoy this conversation and even in presuming good intentions of those users involved I fear I will have to demand some evidence supporting the case against the Blessed Virgin or the Catholic Church else this has gone off topic or the argument against the Church is merely hearsay (unfounded information). Further, if the primary objector to Catholic doctrine refuses to admit that by definition they are a Protestant and make other claims without any evidence I feel I will have to question the validity of the entire argument that such a user proposes.

Since Protestants appeared during the Reformation, I reject the label.

The Blessed Virgin was immaculate and the Protestant (Baptist) arguments for this subject so far have failed to present any evidence to show otherwise. In fact even if the phrase is not “gratia plena” the Catholics here have presented enough evidence to still propose that she was indeed Immaculate.

[b]Baptists didn't arise from the Reformation. Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us. All mankind are sinners, made so because of the sin of Adam. [/b]

[b]I personally and publicly apologize for the length of this message and for those whom may take offence to this post[/b]. In Christian virtue I most certainly do not intend to offend anyone here but I feel there is sufficient reason to believe that arguments are being made without any foundation or evidence against Catholic belief.
[b]You started the argumentative tone.[/b][/quote]
.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1210466' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:59 PM']Name a few.[/quote]
Mary as Co-Redemptrix. No more limbo for babies.