Why Mary Was Sinless

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Uh...limbo was never a doctrine.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1210480' date='Mar 8 2007, 05:31 PM']Mary as Co-Redemptrix. No more limbo for babies.[/quote]

And what is your understanding of Co-Redemptrix?

[Mr.Cat]

A: I read what “you thought” but you never listed the source and it was not complete suggesting you took it out of context if it was taken from somewhere. In addition, this does not give the whole argument of what I have written. Also I have provided an extensive quote of the word in question (the Greek) that explains its whole meaning.

B: If you are not protesting church doctrine then I presume you accept and embrace all that is taught by the Catholic Church. I am happy we could settle this.

C: The only other group until the Great Schism claiming to be Christian other than the Catholics was the Gnostics whom everyone considered to be not Christian. So if you are Gnostic I applaud the thought since they were considered gone a thousand years ago. Moreover, because Baptist Historians put their origins from the Puritans.

D: Then I presume your lack of argument proposes that you don’t have an argument?

E: In point “E” that you responded to I never mentioned them, in other points I did. Although, the idea that Baptist appeared anytime before the seventeen hundreds is completely silly and the question of your apostolic succession comes into play.

Baptist did arise from the Reformation the roots are from Calvinist, to Huguenot, to Puritan, and then to Baptist. But regardless the word “Protestant” has absolutely nothing to do with the Reformation but has to do with the fact you protest Catholic doctrine.

[b]NewReformation[/b]: To be quite honest I am highly offended by anyone who dares start an argument without providing any proof uses such poor debate tactics. You have never once addressed the issues of the Blessed Virgin being the Second Eve, the Ark, Above the Angels, being the Mother of God, or anything else. You refuse to even speak of what the early Christians proposed about the Blessed Virgin and why they made the translation “gratia plena”. Then they sit back accusing the Catholic Church of wrong doing again without any proof. So your whole debate tactic is “focualing” or rather you pick a single thread of an argument and propose it is wrong and thus without any explanation why proposes the entire argument is wrong. Then when someone presents evidence to the contrary you then attack their validity without ever showing your own. [u]I find that a very hostile tone without any intention of true discussion[/u]. But [b]because [u]I am indeed Christian I do not wish to offend others simply because they offend me[/u][/b].

* Limbo was never officially taught by the Catholic Church.
* The Doctrine of the Blessed Virgin as the Co-Redemptrix can be found in the writings of Saint Augustine and before.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1210469' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:12 PM']"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.[/quote]

You're wrong... the Bible is to be taken literally:

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Catholic Church:[/b]
The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89[/quote]

BTW, there's what the Catholic Bible says:

[quote][b]Douay-Rheims; ad Corinthios II, Caput V:[/b]
21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.[/quote]

and here's the Haydock footnote:

[quote]
[b]Fr. Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition; II Corinithans, Chapter Five:[/b]
Ver. 21. Him (Christ) who knew no sin, (who had never sinned, nor was capable of sinning) he (God) hath made [4] sin for us. I had translated, with some French translators, he hath made a sacrifice for sin, as it is expounded by St. Augustine and many others, and grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, in which the sacrifices for sins are divers times called sins, as Osee iv. 8. and in several places in Leviticus, by the Hebrew word Chattat, which signifies a sin, and is translated a victim for sin. But as this is nt the only interpretation, and that my design is always a literal translation of the text, not a paraphrase, upon second thoughts I judged it better to follow the very words of the Greek, as well as of the Latin text. For besides the exposition already mentioned, others expound these words, him he hath made sin for us, to signify that he made Christ like unto sinners, a mortal man, with the similitude of sin. Others that he made he reputed a sinner; with the wicked was he reputed; (Mark xv. 28.) God having laid upon him all our iniquities. (Isaias liii. 6.) --- That we might be made the justice of God in him; that is, that we might be justified and sanctified by God's sanctifying grace, and the justice we receive from him. (Witham) --- Sin for us. That is, to be a sin-offering, a victim for sin. (Challoner)
[url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id183.html"]http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id183.html[/url][/quote]

[iggyjoan]

AGH too many big words...

that's still not proof. : lol

but seriously wordforword literally? like sacrificing animals and junk literally? i dont think so. not anymore.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210357' date='Mar 8 2007, 09:44 AM']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.

[b]Please provide scripture that states this as such, but on a side note, an individual can have God's grace or favor upon them and not be perfect, we've seen that with countless Saints.[/b]

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.

[b]Actually I have yet to see those quotes, atleast in this thread, maybe I missed them, please provide quotes again but I'd like to review some Early Church Fathers.[/b]

[b]Tertullian proclaimed [long before his Montanism era] that St. Mary was sinless and did so in accordance with the church's doctriine of that day. Now it's true that he forfeited his sainthood upon joining Montanism but that has no affect upon his view of St. Mary, just as it has no affect upon him introducing the word "trinity" into the churches doctrine, which he was also praised for doing. In previous threads, I'd given numerous other quotes, which I'm able to do again if you'd like from Saints and Early Church Fathers alike. If you consider St. Cyril of Alexandria a Saint, you should read his writings and you'll find that he doesn't believe in the sinlessness of St. Mary. If you study Pope St. Kyrillos VI's reign, you'll find that St. Mary appeared to the church more then she ever had before within that decade and never ever hinted at the idea that she was sinless while on earth, even when being witnessed by millions of people including Muslims.[/b]

[b]If you study history you'll see that the theological school in alexandria [back when the church was united] was the forfront of a great amount of the Christian doctrine that we use today, more Saints came out of there then any other in the early church, etc. and it's doctrines have remained consistent with not holding St. Mary to a sinless position. Only God is sinless, which is what testifies of his divinity.[/b]

[b]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.[/b]

[b]You should study the Eastern Rites more closely, you'd see that they've never held to the theory that St. Mary was sinless [and even now, none of them do, Rome is out on her own with that doctrinal stance][/b]

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.

[b]Just because God protects someone from Satan doesn't mean that they are sinless. Read Job, it's very clear that Job had God's protection prior to God allowing Satan to tempt/test him, and again, nowhere in scripture [or anywhere else for that matter] does it say that the woman that bore our Lord has to be sinless, that doctrine might be something that makes sense in your mind but that doesn't make it fact because the scriptures don't support it and as I'd pointed out, the other rites unanimously disagree with Rome.[/b]

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...

[b]No because scriptural theology doesn't state that, its something that you've implied [as has Rome] but not something that scripture has stated. The Theory that you [and other Romans] seem to hold is that if St. Mary wasn't sinless, then Jesus wouldn't be sinless but that isn't logical because otherwise St. Mary's mother would have to be sinless. A sinful human being cannot give birth to a sinless individual, unless God creates a miracle, as he did with Jesus Christ's conception, despite his mother not being sinless.[/b]

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.

[b]And again, she could symbolically be the second ark but that doesn't mean that she's sinless. The original ark was so powerful, that if you even touched it to stablize it, you were struck to the ground, no human being could touch it that had sin, yet St. Mary didn't go through life not having anyone touch her. Her virginity was untouched but that isn't what's being disputed.[/b]

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.

[b]It's not just Protestants, it's every single Orthodox Rite also, as I'd mentioned... Rome is the sore thumb, not everyone else... everyone else is the majority, Rome is the minority[/b]

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.

[b]You dont think someone [even another woman] ever shaked her hand, hugged her, etc? That's a ridiculous claim[/b]

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.

[b]If you assume that all literal examples of the original ark can't be matched to St. Mary, then you can't assume that she was sinless either. It's logical to believe that her virginity was untouched, yes but sinless... I dont see that connection. [/b][/quote]

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

If you do believe light and darkness can dwell in the same place I would suggest a class in science. But I remind you that “sola scriptura” (Bible Alone) is a heretical doctrine that has no proof what so ever. So it does not even need to be in the Bible and for that reason I wont post any relvant posts in full but I would suggest reading [b]John 1:5[/b], [b]Isaias 58:10[/b], and [b]Acts 26:18[/b].[quote][b]Post #21 on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." [b]Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (A.D. 235)[/b].

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." [b]Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)[/b].

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." [b]Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370)[/b].

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

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius[b], Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (AD 373)[/b].
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1209963"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1209963[/url][/quote]If you read the quotes of theses Saints all of them are of the Eastern Rites, the reason for this is the Western Rites were dealing with much dispute over the nature of our Blessed Lord while the Eastern did not. So they were allowed more theological freedom in the early Church to define more issues concerning the Blessed Virgin. [quote][b]Post #25 on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
In another post I broke apart the Protestant misconstruing of the Scriptures to say “highly favored one”.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1210156"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1210156[/url][/quote] [quote][b]Post #21 on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
Also I quoted why it is "Full of Grace" in another post...
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1210156"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1210156[/url][/quote][quote][b]Post #12 on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
Genesis 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]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1209893"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1209893[/url][/quote]The Scriptures do say she has to sinless otherwise the first prediction of the savior is not fulfilled. Moreover, the protection of God is an absolute in this matter for the hatred that is placed between the Blessed Virgin and the Serpent is so that she has no mark of sin upon her so that she can crush the head of the serpent, as the original translations until the eighteen hundreds proposed.[quote][b]Post #15 on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
Ark of the New Covenant: The Blessed Virgin is the Ark of the New Covenant for in the Sacred Scriptures she is referred to as being the Ark, namely by Saint John the Apostle in his writing of the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation). This although does not make her like the Old Ark but rather she is a perfected fulfillment of what the old was. In this light she does not require to have immaculate parents for those who constructed the original ark (sinful humans) were under the same instruction. When we read the scriptures of where those people touched the ark it was either in dominion over it or influence it, therefore this shadows that the hand of Satan (his dominion of sin) will not touch the Blessed Virgin. Likewise the Blessed Virgin because she bore the New Covenant she is the New Ark being pure and immaculate. The early church writers say to the effect that while the old ark was of gold she is of purity. She is a pure vessel for our Blessed Lord not because He “required” a pure vessel but rather that it is not in the dignity of the Son of God to be born of a sinful woman.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1209271"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1209271[/url][/quote][quote][b]Post #35 on Thursday, March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat[/b]
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.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65379&view=findpost&p=1210357"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1210357[/url][/quote]The Ark was pure and immaculate from sin, not from being touched by man. Which the ark being a shadow of what was to come and merely an object the way humans perceive objects and people are different things. Likewise our Blessed Lord was accused of being unclean for going among the unclean but He rebuked this claim, likewise would hold true for the Blessed Virgin. But as I pointed out in another post never in the Scriptures does it tell of anyone but our Blessed Lord touching the Blessed Mother.

Concerning the Catholic Church being the minority, I was not aware that one could so easily reconcile all the beliefs of those outside of the Church into a singular opposition to make the audacious statement that Rome is the minority. From a purely non-religious attitude that doesn’t make sense. Moreover, when did Christianity come what “most people” believe but when you add the numbers together there are more Catholics overall or people who do believe in the Immaculate Conception. Most of all because the Schismatic Orthodox are speaking of returning to the Church, so this argument really isn’t necessary most of all because I quoted several Orthodox Saints (whom they considered to be fathers in writing from one of their councils) so the objection is really just political rather than theological.

What is ridicules is that Protestants are so completely ignorant of the scriptures and their actions so often violate the scriptures. Any person who holds the Word of God true in their hearts could not be at the same time a Protestant.

An Ark (a box) cannot sin but it was pure (for what reason, to show that there was to be a more perfect ark that would be even more pure). The argument that the Blessed Virgin isn’t made out of gold or wood is not relevant to the discussion for Saint Luke and Saint John certainly make strong points within the Scriptures for this theology and the early writers of Christianity do propose her being the Ark.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1210579' date='Mar 8 2007, 06:33 PM']AGH too many big words...

that's still not proof. : lol

but seriously wordforword literally? like sacrificing animals and junk literally? i dont think so. not anymore.[/quote]

It is proof...

[b]116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83[/b]

The Bible is to be taken literally. We are to take that God commanded Moses to sacrifice animals LITERALLY. If you would like to know why the Old Covenant is fufilled and consummated, you can take a look that the New Testament.

[quote][b]Douay-Rheims; ad Hæbros, Caput V:[/b]
6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises.
7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them:
12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.
13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.[/quote]

[quote][b]Douay-Rhiems; ad Hæbros, Caput VII:[/b]
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life:
17 For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.
18 There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof:
19 (For the law brought nothing to perfection,) but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God.
20 And inasmuch as it is not without an oath, (for the others indeed were made priests without an oath;
21 But this with an oath, by him that said unto him: The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever.)
22 By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue:
24 But this, for that he continueth forever, hath an everlasting priesthood.[/quote]

[quote][b]Douay-Rheims; ad Hæbros, caput X:[/b]
1 For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect:
2 For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer:
3 But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year.
4 For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me:
6 Holocausts for sin did not please thee.
7 Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God.
8 In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law.
9 Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth.
10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.[/quote]

[quote][b]Douay-Rheims; ad Corinthios II, Caput III:[/b]
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is in glory.
12 Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence:
13 And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void.
14 But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void).
15 But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
16 But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.[/quote]

Let us also not forget sacred Tradition which is equal to Scripture:

[quote][b]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:[/b]
On Tradition.

34 Q. What is meant by Tradition?
A. Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered.

35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept?
A. The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy.

36 Q. What importance must we attach to Tradition?
A. We must attach to Tradition the same importance as the revealed word of God which Holy Scripture contains.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM[/url][/quote]

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Council of Trent; Part III - the Decalogue:[/b]
But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light* which the depraved morals and long-continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php[/url][/quote]

[quote][b]The Oecumenical Council of Florence; Session XI, Bull of union with the Copts:[/b]
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/Council_florance.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/Council_florance.php[/url][/quote]

[quote][b]Mystici Corporis, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII[/b]
32. If we consider closely all these mysteries of the Cross, those words of the Apostle are no longer obscure, in which he teaches the Ephesians that Christ, by His blood, made the Jews and Gentiles one "breaking down the middle wall of partition...in his flesh" by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void "that He might make the two in Himself into one new man," that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross." [40]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii...christi_en.html[/url][/quote]

[quote][b]Mystici Corporis, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII[/b]
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii...christi_en.html[/url][/quote]

[aalpha1989]

STM, we are to take the [i]intended[/i] meaning literally, as interpreted by the Church. I'm not sure that we always know as much about the intended meaning as we pretend.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1210789' date='Mar 8 2007, 11:47 PM']STM, we are to take the [i]intended[/i] meaning literally, as interpreted by the Church. I'm not sure that we always know as much about the intended meaning as we pretend.[/quote]

Of course the Church knows the meaning of Scripture as she is the only one allowed to interpret it:

[quote][b]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:[/b]
31 Q. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?
A. We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church's interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM[/url][/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b]If you do believe light and darkness can dwell in the same place I would suggest a class in science.[/b]

I'm not suggesting that, nor have I ever suggested that. What I have suggested is that God's grace can be upon someone [as the other brother pointed out, the proper translation would be God's favor] without them being perfect. God's favor was upon Job and yet he wasn't perfect. God even had a hedge of protection around Job but Job wasn't perfect.

[b]But I remind you that “sola scriptura” (Bible Alone) is a heretical doctrine that has no proof what so ever.[/b]

I never mentioned sola scripture, nor have I ever hinted at it. What I did say is that Rome is THE ONLY CHURCH that consideres St. Mary the Theotokos to be sinless and that the scriptures dont say it, nor hint at it either, therefore it's either trust the one out of the four churches, that's the minority or trust the majority, the three out of the 4 churches [who's doctrine agrees].

[b]So it does not even need to be in the Bible and for that reason I wont post any relvant posts in full but I would suggest reading John 1:5, Isaias 58:10, and Acts 26:18.[/b]
It does need to be supported by the Bible because the Roman Church is outnumbered in her theology and needs something to support her claims, against the other 3 rites that proclaim that St. Mary isn't sinless and has the history to support it. If Rome's claims were supported in the scriptures, it would help validate her claims, otherwise she's just a sore thumb out on a limb alone.

John 1:5 is in direct mentioning of Jesus, not anyone else but Jesus

Isaiah 58:10, "if you deprive yourself for the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, your light will rise in the darkness, and your darkest hr will be like noon." This doesn't mean that we won't have darkness ever and will be sinless thou, as St. Moses the Black was once told, "Only slowly do the rays of the sun drive away the night and usher in a new day, and thus, only slowly does one become a perfect contemplative."

Acts 26:18, [i]"...to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light[/i] [comes from Jr. 1:5-8], from the dominion of Satan to God, and receive, through faith in me, forgiveness of their sins and share in the inheritance of the sanctrified".

[b]If you read the quotes of theses Saints all of them are of the Eastern Rites, the reason for this is the Western Rites were dealing with much dispute over the nature of our Blessed Lord while the Eastern did not. So they were allowed more theological freedom in the early Church to define more issues concerning the Blessed Virgin.[/b]

You've got to read them within the context, not just as you believe they should be taken. As you quoted Origen saying:

[b]"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244).[/b]

Origen also repeatedly said in his writings that St. Mary wasn't sinless.

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

If you were to read the full context of Ephraem, you'd see that it was in reference to her virginity, not her as a human being, being sinless... so as we can see, there's a context and the terms need to be defined properly.

[b]The Scriptures do say she has to sinless otherwise the first prediction of the savior is not fulfilled.[/b]
This is almost humorous for several reasons, the first being that you said that the bible didn't need to say and the second is how you interpret it as you believe it should be, but not according to that written in the scriptures:

[b]"I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike it's heel"[/b]

It doesn't say [b]she shall crush thy head[/b] It says that Jesus [her offspring] will crush his [satan] head.

[b]The Ark was pure and immaculate from sin[/b]

As was St. Mary's virginity, that to which Jesus came through as prophesied about in Ezekiel 44:2

[b]Concerning the Catholic Church being the minority, I was not aware that one could so easily reconcile all the beliefs of those outside of the Church into a singular opposition to make the audacious statement that Rome is the minority[/b]

Just research it: Every Orthodox disagree with Rome, every Protestant disagrees with Rome, and everyone else that isn't affiliated with either of these groups... Rome is definately the oddball.

[b]when you add the numbers together there are more Catholics overall or people who do believe in the Immaculate Conception.[/b]

No there isn't, if you add all the orthodox together, you'll find that we outnumber the Roman Church easily but those demographics are not even possible to conduct and those that have been conducted are just speculation. If you read statistics, you'll find that in America you can find that there are Statistics that say that Penecostalism is the fastest growing and has the most believers, if you read other statistics it will says Rome/Orthodox do, it all depends on the individual doing them and even then, it's impossible to find out 100%.

[b]the early writers of Christianity do propose her being the Ark[/b]

Actually that's a slight distortion, they propose at her womb [Ezek 44:2] being the ark, not her as a whole being sinless.

Last but not least:

[b]What is ridicules is that Protestants are so completely ignorant of the scriptures and their actions so often violate the scriptures. Any person who holds the Word of God true in their hearts could not be at the same time a Protestant.[/b]

This is a ridiculous and ignorant statement, there are protestants that dont adhere to sola scriptures [if you weren't aware], that believe the Eucharist is to be literally taken as a sacrament, etc. The statement that you said is often applied to Romans inside of the Orthodox realm also, and it works equally well, so I wouldn't be so quick to insult other's faith and over generalize everyone that quickly, especially when I'm not a Protestant and I dont understand how that applies to this subject [other then to take a stab at somebody].

Reza

Edited March 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[iggyjoan]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1210774' date='Mar 9 2007, 01:20 AM']It is proof...

The Bible is to be taken literally. We are to take that God commanded Moses to sacrifice animals LITERALLY. If you would like to know why the Old Covenant is fufilled and consummated, you can take a look that the New Testament.
Let us also not forget sacred Tradition which is equal to Scripture:[/quote]


Yes, I know Moses DID sacrifice animals, but God doesn't want us to anymore.

And how is that proof? Would God let a sinful woman bear his only begotten SON? I don't think so.

Edited March 9, 2007 by iggyjoan

[Mr.Cat]

[b][i]"I'm not suggesting that, nor have I ever suggested that. What I have suggested is that God's grace can be upon someone [as the other brother pointed out, the proper translation would be God's favor] without them being perfect. God's favor was upon Job and yet he wasn't perfect. God even had a hedge of protection around Job but Job wasn't perfect."[/i][/b]

Job was not “highly favored” or “full of grace” so the example does not match up with the discussion. The story of Job is also supposed to represent that true faith regardless if we receive blessings or not is indeed faith, for that is what Satan complained about (his faith). If you read that is why Almighty God delivered him into such testing to prove that it was his faith that he willingly accepted and not something imposed on him or something he accepted because he was blessed with much success. So regardless of how you take the story of Job it isn’t relevant.

[b][i]"I never mentioned sola scripture, nor have I ever hinted at it. What I did say is that Rome is THE ONLY CHURCH that consideres St. Mary the Theotokos to be sinless and that the scriptures dont say it, nor hint at it either, therefore it's either trust the one out of the four churches, that's the minority or trust the majority, the three out of the 4 churches [who's doctrine agrees]."[/i][/b]

If I remember correctly our Blessed Lord only founded a single Church, so all other supposed “churches” are false. So let us more properly call them communities of belief. But when you look at the whole of Christianity most are Catholics meaning that the majority of Christianity therefore professes belief in the Immaculate Conception in some form or another. So this argument of numbers is pointless, moreover because at a time there were very few followers of our Blessed Lord, did that make Him wrong?

[b][i]"It does need to be supported by the Bible because the Roman Church is outnumbered in her theology and needs something to support her claims, against the other 3 rites that proclaim that St. Mary isn't sinless and has the history to support it. If Rome's claims were supported in the scriptures, it would help validate her claims, otherwise she's just a sore thumb out on a limb alone.

John 1:5 is in direct mentioning of Jesus, not anyone else but Jesus

Isaiah 58:10, "if you deprive yourself for the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, your light will rise in the darkness, and your darkest hr will be like noon." This doesn't mean that we won't have darkness ever and will be sinless thou, as St. Moses the Black was once told, "Only slowly do the rays of the sun drive away the night and usher in a new day, and thus, only slowly does one become a perfect contemplative."

Acts 26:18, "...to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light [comes from Jr. 1:5-8], from the dominion of Satan to God, and receive, through faith in me, forgiveness of their sins and share in the inheritance of the sanctrified"."[/i][/b]

It does not need to be supported by the New Testament Cannon since it came from the Church and the canons themselves admit that not everything is written there and they are very hard to understand. Also the Apostles themselves told the people to heed the oral teachings and traditions of the Church also to be constantly reminded who taught them the gospels, whom are the Apostles.

Saint John the Apostle writes in his gospel that the light shines in the darkness; this suggests that the darkness and light are separated much like in the story of creation where light and darkness are separated. This is important because this phrase is taken from what Biblical Theologians consider a recreation story of the New Covenant in Christ, so the relationship is strong.

The [b]Book of Isaiah [/b]is a very strong connection because it does show light and darkness are separated, likewise grace is often thought of as grace and darkness as sin. But your statement from “Saint Moses the Black” strengthens this argument for the Blessed Virgin was “Gratia Plena” (Full of Grace) so there was no room for darkness at all. So the Sun of Justice had already risen into her world from the moment of her conception.

The Book of Acts, written by Saint Luke the Apostle, proposes that we must be converted from darkness. Why must be turn away from darkness if it can exist in the same place at the same time? The point is it can’t. So each scripture verse is very relevant to your silly demand to where light and darkness cannot dwell in the same place at the same time.

[b][i]"You've got to read them within the context, not just as you believe they should be taken. As you quoted Origen saying:"[/i][/b]

I do, I enjoy reading the early church fathers...

[b][i]"Origen also repeatedly said in his writings that St. Mary wasn't sinless."[/i][/b]

Just don't write it, show it.

[b][i]"If you were to read the full context of Ephraem, you'd see that it was in reference to her virginity, not her as a human being, being sinless... so as we can see, there's a context and the terms need to be defined properly."[/i][/b]

Sadly this isnt the case at all, his argument is very clear. You are free to post and link something other than this thou.

[b][i]"This is almost humorous for several reasons, the first being that you said that the bible didn't need to say and the second is how you interpret it as you believe it should be, but not according to that written in the scriptures:"[/i][/b]

"[b]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[/b]."Tell me another woman in scripture that is free from sin and has a son whom is also free from sin, which makes no mention of a father to her child. This has to be the Blessed Virgin and if this is not fulfilled then the New Testament is simply wrong. That is Biblical Theology and if you propose something different and claim to be right then I could go back to being Atheist and continue to rip apart Protestant theologies. Something I was always fascinated by as an Atheist is that Catholicism was logical, Protestantism was never logical. It was easy prey.

[b][i]"It doesn't say she shall crush thy head It says that Jesus [her offspring] will crush his [satan] head."[/i][/b]

The original translations do say she will crush his head (since the gender inflection is female, unless you claim Christ is a woman). But the theology is the same as the Angels casting the devils from Heaven that they were empowered by God. Likewise the humble handmaid empowered by God will crush the head of the serpent; it matches up with the ideology of the Old Testament. Moreover it’s the Divine Irony that a humble handmaid would defeat the proudest of the angels.

Even in Protestant translations it writes that she will strike the head (but distorted to say that the child will strike at the heel or vice versa) which suggests that the serpent wins or it is a stalemate, the reason for thousands of years of the Blessed Virgin she is stepping on a sake.

[b][i]"As was St. Mary's virginity, that to which Jesus came through as prophesied about in Ezekiel 44:2"[/i][/b]

(Shakes head) The Ark was free from impurity but this had nothing to do with virginity, I would suggest reading the accounts of the Ark again if you really think this argument works. If you like though I can post them for you.

[b][i]"Just research it: Every Orthodox disagree with Rome, every Protestant disagrees with Rome, and everyone else that isn't affiliated with either of these groups... Rome is definately the oddball."[/i][/b]

The schismatic Orthodox (whom is a small minority who left for political reasons) are planning on returning to the Church and it really depends on who you talk to. Because some of their Bishops agree and some don’t, but that unity as I said before doesn’t prove anything. But if you want to see the Blessed Virgin held in esteem look to the Orthodox and if you really get into their theology they do teach the Immaculate Conception it is just worded differently. But the oddballs are the Protestants whom have no Apostolic Succession and claim the Church of God fell for nearly a thousand and six hundred years then being reformed again and again. No Protestant community of belief agrees with each other, it’s shocking that you even use this argument. In fact this entirely disproves the Protestant argument because of the disunity that is among Protestants. So to even propose this argument you need a community of belief that agrees with each other, which when you start digging around not even the people among a Protestant sect agree with each other, the odd ball in this case is pretty clear.

[b][i]"No there isn't, if you add all the orthodox together, you'll find that we outnumber the Roman Church easily but those demographics are not even possible to conduct and those that have been conducted are just speculation. If you read statistics, you'll find that in America you can find that there are Statistics that say that Penecostalism is the fastest growing and has the most believers, if you read other statistics it will says Rome/Orthodox do, it all depends on the individual doing them and even then, it's impossible to find out 100%."[/i][/b]

I speak on a global level and on a global level Protestantism is dying. Catholicism is on the rise. I live in the Bible Belt, I see it all around me. Protestantism is self-destructing because no one agrees on the same verse none the less the whole of scriptures. Moreover they don’t even agree with all the doctrines that Christ taught. But I will assure you the Schismatic Orthodox are not big in numbers, in fact I think in membership they are one-fifth the size of the Latin Rite Church. So even if you could add all the Protestants together it still wouldn’t be enough on a global level but to this logic we could add together all the non-Christians to disprove Christianity. I am glad that thought process.

[b][i]"Actually that's a slight distortion, they propose at her womb [Ezek 44:2] being the ark, not her as a whole being sinless.

Last but not least:"[/i][/b]

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood." I love how you try to change the message of the early fathers without any proof at all...

[b][i]"This is a ridiculous and ignorant statement, there are protestants that dont adhere to sola scriptures [if you weren't aware], that believe the Eucharist is to be literally taken as a sacrament, etc. The statement that you said is often applied to Romans inside of the Orthodox realm also, and it works equally well, so I wouldn't be so quick to insult other's faith and over generalize everyone that quickly, especially when I'm not a Protestant and I dont understand how that applies to this subject [other then to take a stab at somebody]."[/i][/b]

My statement that you respond to does not even mention the heretical belief of “sola scriptura” but that Protestants very often violate the very scriptures. So the first sentence shows a strong baize or inability to understand the theological concepts being proposed. Unless you are Orthodox and you are Baptized but protest Catholic doctrines, you are a Protestant. Now I suppose you can be Pagan, just not Christian all together.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b]Job was not “highly favored” or “full of grace” so the example does not match up with the discussion.[/b]

It does match-up because God's favor was upon job.

[b]If you read that is why Almighty God delivered him into such testing to prove that it was his faith that he willingly accepted and not something imposed on him or something he accepted because he was blessed with much success.[/b]

I'm talking about before the tests, when Satan said that Job was only faithful because God's hedge of protection was around him, God had favor upon him and after the tests, God's favor and grace were upon him that much more [as he was given more afterward, then had been given to him before].

[b]If I remember correctly our Blessed Lord only founded a single Church, so all other supposed “churches” are false. [/b]

It's true that there is one universal church that God founded but when I mention different churches, I'm referencing the different rites. Even St. Paul referred to the congregation in Corinth as "the church in corinth" as if it was a seperate church, thou everyone knows that his reference wasn't to seperate corinth from God's universal church but to distinguish that congregation and it's customs from the rest. What you've been trying to say is that the Roman Rite and the Roman Traditions are right and every other rite has gone wrong, which is ridiculous. Why is it that the other rites [North, East and South] all agree [and have documentation of so since before the great schism] that St. Mary wasn't sinless?

[b]But when you look at the whole of Christianity most are Catholics meaning that the majority of Christianity therefore professes belief in the Immaculate Conception in some form or another.[/b]

Nonsense, the majority are not Romans, that's ridiculous claim. Sure the majority claim "Catholic" just not Roman Catholic and don't heed to the Roman Pope and don't hold that St. Mary was sinless

[b]So this argument of numbers is pointless, moreover because at a time there were very few followers of our Blessed Lord, did that make Him wrong?[/b]

We're not talking about people that opposed Jesus, we're talking about people that have been his followers since the beginning disagreeing with Rome, which is a completely different situation. The numbers aren't ridiculous because of 4 rites, 3 agree and 1 [rome] doesn't agree.

[b]It does not need to be supported by the New Testament Cannon since it came from the Church[/b]

Here's the problem, it didn't come from "the church", it came from a single Rite, the Roman Rite. The other three rites [Northern, Southern and Eastern] disagree with Rome. The Church isn't just the western Rite, it's the Eastern, Northern and Southern Rite also [check church history]. Every rite, except Rome agree that St. Mary wasn't sinless.

[b]the canons themselves admit that not everything is written there and they are very hard to understand.[/b]

I dont disagree with that, and I never proposed sola scripture, what I did propose is that Rome is the only rite [of the 4 different rites] that takes this theology and that if the scriptures pointed towards St. Mary being sinless, they might have some ground [might] but since the scriptures don't agree with that theology [its not mentioned] and the other three rites [the majority of the original church] disagree with Rome, Rome is alone on this doctrinal issue.

[b]Also the Apostles themselves told the people to heed the oral teachings and traditions of the Church also to be constantly reminded who taught them the gospels, whom are the Apostles.[/b]

That's true but also don't forget that the Apostles founded the other three rites, that disagree with Rome, including St. Mark that founded the Coptic Rite and St. Peter that founded the Syriac Orthodox Rite, that highly disagree with Rome based upon the tradition that those Apostles gave to them.

[b]Saint John the Apostle writes in his gospel that the light shines in the darkness; this suggests that the darkness and light are separated much like in the story of creation where light and darkness are separated. This is important because this phrase is taken from what Biblical Theologians consider a recreation story of the New Covenant in Christ, so the relationship is strong.[/b]

St. John the Apostle, NEVER makes the claims that youre making and I never said that light and darkness mingle, what I did say is what was told to St. Moses the Black by St. Isadore, ""Only slowly do the rays of the sun drive away the night and usher in a new day, and thus, only slowly does one become a perfect contemplative." Which as we can see, lightness and darkness co-exist here on earth, half the earth is dark and half of it is light at any given time. There is also different shades of darkness/lightness. Therefore your genesis claim has no bearing...

Note: What "Biblical theologians" are you referring to?

[b]The Book of Isaiah is a very strong connection because it does show light and darkness are separated, likewise grace is often thought of as grace and darkness as sin. But your statement from “Saint Moses the Black” strengthens this argument for the Blessed Virgin was “Gratia Plena” (Full of Grace) so there was no room for darkness at all. So the Sun of Justice had already risen into her world from the moment of her conception.[/b]

Isaiah doesn't help your case at all and St. Moses the Black's experience doesn't strengthen your arguement either, because both agreed that an individual can have light and darkness in them, that it takes time for the darkness to disappear and that nobody, except Jesus Christ [who is the light] has nothing but light in them.

[b]The Book of Acts, written by Saint Luke the Apostle, proposes that we must be converted from darkness. Why must be turn away from darkness if it can exist in the same place at the same time? The point is it can’t. So each scripture verse is very relevant to your silly demand to where light and darkness cannot dwell in the same place at the same time.[/b]

Read the full context of Acts, it NEVER EVER says that we'll get to the point of being sinless, as a matter of fact being sinless is impossible for human beings [except Jesus] here on earth. As St. Isadore even told St. Moses the Black that getting more light in you, takes time but never suggested or hinted at the fact that he'll be perfect, until God makes him perfect in heaven.

[b]Just don't write it, show it.[/b]

I dont need to, it's a known fact [as your priest] among even the educated Roman Catholics that Origen didn't believe in the sinlessness of St. Mary [Dave Armstrong has even written commentaries about this before].

[b]Sadly this isnt the case at all, his argument is very clear. You are free to post and link something other than this thou.[/b]

It is the case, but if you've like to post the full quote, not just select statements, please do so...

[b]Tell me another woman in scripture that is free from sin and has a son whom is also free from sin, which makes no mention of a father to her child. This has to be the Blessed Virgin and if this is not fulfilled then the New Testament is simply wrong. That is Biblical Theology and if you propose something different and claim to be right then I could go back to being Atheist and continue to rip apart Protestant theologies. Something I was always fascinated by as an Atheist is that Catholicism was logical, Protestantism was never logical. It was easy prey.[/b]

That's great, except this isn't Protestantism theology. Obviously you're not reading my full posts, because you seem to keep implying that I'm Protestant, despite me repeating that I'm Orthodox

In regards to the scripture, it doesn't say nothing about St. Mary being sinless. It says, "I [YHWH] shall put enmity [a feeling or condition of hostility] between you [Satan] and the woman [St. Mary], and between your offspring and hers [Jesus Christ]; it [greek says he, as hints at a personal savior, Jesus Christ] will bruise your head and you [Satan] will strike it's heel." It says nothing about the mother of Jesus Christ being perfect/sinless/etc. You should get a new translation that's better/easier to understand for you to read, if that's what you're seeing. Every single other translation [weather protestant or otherwise] has stated that Jesus [he] will crush Satans head, not Eve [2nd Eve].

[b]The original translations do say she will crush his head[/b]

No Jesus is the one that crushes Satan's head, not St. Mary. Jesus is our savior, the one that crushed Satan's head and freed us from sin.

[b]The Ark was free from impurity but this had nothing to do with virginity, I would suggest reading the accounts of the Ark again if you really think this argument works.[/b]

You should read more commentaries about Ez 44:2.

[b]The schismatic Orthodox (whom is a small minority who left for political reasons) are planning on returning to the Church and it really depends on who you talk to. Because some of their Bishops agree and some don’t, but that unity as I said before doesn’t prove anything.[/b]

This is a very uneducated claim, the true church that adhere to the Orthodox [right and proper teachings] have never planned or even hinted at the idea of adhering to the Roman schismatic doctrines. Pope John Paul II even asked Pope Shenouda III to join the Roman Church and his response was, "We love you" but without allowing negative words to be said, wouldn't accept his offer but rather pray that the Roman Church would return to the original [orthodox] teachings.

[b]But if you want to see the Blessed Virgin held in esteem look to the Orthodox and if you really get into their theology they do teach the Immaculate Conception it is just worded differently.[/b]

I am orthodox, and have been studying them for a very very long time and our theology doesn't agree or teach the sinlessness of St. Mary. As I'd mentioned, St. Mary appeared in Egypt more times, during the era of Pope St. Kyrillos's reign as Patriarch of the Egyptian Church, then ever before in history and never ever hinted at that idea, even while being present amoung Muslims.

[b]But the oddballs are the Protestants whom have no Apostolic Succession and claim the Church of God fell for nearly a thousand and six hundred years then being reformed again and again. No Protestant community of belief agrees with each other, it’s shocking that you even use this argument. [/b]

Not on this issue they dont disagree. Every single protestant and Orthodox agree that St. Mary isn't and wasn't sinless, EVER!

[b]Catholicism is on the rise. I live in the Bible Belt, I see it all around me. Protestantism is self-destructing because no one agrees on the same verse none the less the whole of scriptures. Moreover they don’t even agree with all the doctrines that Christ taught. But I will assure you the Schismatic Orthodox are not big in numbers, in fact I think in membership they are one-fifth the size of the Latin Rite Church. So even if you could add all the Protestants together it still wouldn’t be enough on a global level but to this logic we could add together all the non-Christians to disprove Christianity. I am glad that thought process.[/b]

Your statistics are quite flawed, as a matter of fact, flawed is an understatement, they're more distorted then ever could be... you can't dictate statistics because of one geographical area. Go to California, particularly LA and you'll see that Copts outnumber Romans majorly but even that area doesn't dictate statistics as a whole, your "world statistics" are very flawed, thats all I'm going to say.

[b]Unless you are Orthodox and you are Baptized but protest Catholic doctrines, you are a Protestant.[/b]

No Protestants adhere to the teachings of Martin Luther and his traditions. You really need to check your definitions because you seriously over generalize everything into a single stereotype. Not to mention you've been referring to those who believe in sola scriptures as "Protestant" throughout your posts, in which alot of Protestants would disagree with...

Protestant:
1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

Reza

Edited March 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]III. The issue of IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, does it concern our Lord Jesus or St. Mary?




The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the three Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).


This dogma definitely concerns our Lord Jesus Christ and not Saint Mary.


In her song at Elizabeth's house Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:46,47).


My Saviour is a personal saviour, meaning that she needs salvation. If she was immaculately conceived of, then she would not need a Saviour, but since she needed the Saviour of the world, her own Son, to save her from sin, then she was conceieved of with the original sin of our fathers Adam and Eve.


The Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her (Luke 1:35), purified her, sanctified her and made her ready and prepared her for that unique act of uniting the Divinity of God with the humanity, by taking flesh from Mary's womb, which is likened to the "Divine laboratory."


If the immaculated conception referred to St. Mary, then this means that the human race can produce a sinless being every several centuries, meaning no need fro God's salvation thus being perfect as God, while the Bible tells us that; "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12


What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? (Job 15:14).


"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5.


But the scripture has confined all under sin. Galatians 3:22


When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin) 1 Kings 8:46.


"For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin" Ecclesiastes 7:20


Only Christ is sinless, thus immaculately conceived of by the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) and from the Virgin Mary, He became man. (The Creed)


For He (God) made Him (Jesus) Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become righteousness of GOd in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21)


For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with one weakness, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sins. (Hebrew 4:15)


For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens. (Hebrew 7:26).


And you know that He (Jesus) was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin." (1 John 3:5).[/quote]