Why Mary Was Sinless

[Farsight one]

[quote]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.[/quote]That argument presupposes that a sinless person would automatically be saved, which is an assumption you cannot make.


[quote]If the immaculated conception referred to St. Mary, then this means that the human race can produce a sinless being every several centuries...[/quote]Umm...what? How does one come to that conclusion?


As to the rest of your quotes, half of them really have nothing to do with Mary at all. As to the other half - I think we've already covered the concept of a "generalization".

Edited March 9, 2007 by Farsight one

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]That argument presupposes that a sinless person would automatically go to heaven, which is an assumption you cannot make.[/quote] It is an assumption that can be made [thou its not an assumption at all] based upon the truth of Adam and Eve. The wages of sin are death, those that havn't sinned, don't have to suffer the consequence of death and therefore don't need Jesus to atone for them, in order to bring life back into them. The whole point of the eucharist is to put life back into us, to cause our sins to go into remission. St. Mary wouldn't need atonement, the remission of sins, etc if she was sinless because she would have life in her, abundantly as Adam and Eve before the fall of man.

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

[i][b]"It does match-up because God's favor was upon job."[/b][/i]

[url="http://www.drbo.org/book/20.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/book/20.htm[/url] - you are invited to show the verse and the reasoning... otherwise it is just poor theology concerning Job...

[i][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][/i]

The same as above...

[i][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 separate church, thou everyone knows that his reference wasn't to separate Corinth from God's universal church but to distinguish that congregation and its 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][/i]

I demand this proof in addition to that theses verses refer to other Rites, since this is not where other Rites come from. Moreover they never disagreed on matters of theology, all of them professed the same Christian faith which was the Holy Catholic Faith.

[i][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][/i]

Catholics are Catholics, regardless of Rite. Study on Rites since you don’t seem to understand the concept. But most Christians will fall under the Catholic Church.

[i][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][/i]

Ten Jews disagree with Christ; I suppose that makes Him wrong? The argument of numbers is always a poor argument unless there is more proof, of which you have not produced.

[i][b]"Here's the problem, it didn't come from "the church", and 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 agrees that St. Mary wasn't sinless."[/b][/i]

Again you write with no proof what so ever, moreover to keep having this misunderstanding of what the Rites are. All the Rites of the Catholic Church agree on matters of theology.

[i][b]"I don’t disagree with that, and I never proposed solar 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][/i]

Same responses as above so the whole argument so far is that there are those who disagree with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so what? I have sufficiently shown why this is a poor argument and that it is an argument without any proof. But if you look at the History all the Rites went to Rome to settle theological disputes, which I can show if you so request.

[i][b]"St. John the Apostle, NEVER makes the claims that you’re 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][/i]

Then I suppose that darkness can dwell with God? Then I suppose that if someone is completely full of grace that sin can still exist in them? A Powerful God we have? But any biblical theologian will admit to this theology but those who oppose the Immaculate Conception simply note that they do not agree that "full of grace" means eternally. They propose it is just for that moment of the conception. You should really read your argument more.

But to quote you from this conversation:[quote]"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 (gratia plena) it means that it is impossible that she be with sin at any moment in time.

Please provide scripture that states this as such"[/quote][i][b]"Isaiah doesn't help your case at all and St. Moses the Black's experience doesn't strengthen your argument 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][/i]

But none of them are totally filled with graces as the Blessed Virgin is as the Scriptures describe. If you don’t want to follow the argument of "gratia plena" the fact the angel says "ave" or "hail" is a pretty big issue too.

[i][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][/i]

As the Scriptures foretold and showed us the Blessed Virgin was full of grace thus she could not have the spot of sin upon her. You have refused to show the Greek translation, while I have, and you have refused to give any real argument other than that you disagree.

[i][b]"I don’t 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][/i]

Again and again... no proof... just bark...

[i][b]"It is the case, but if you've like to post the full quote, not just select statements, please do so..."[/b][/i]

So I ask for proof over and over again, but I get none. When I ask you for just a single slice of proof that may support your argument I get nothing. I think it is starting to become very clear of who has done their homework in this matter.

[i][b]"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 its 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."[/b][/i]

If you were Orthodox the only translation you would really accept in the English is the Latin Vulgate translation, thus you would still get “full of grace.” I remember this because on another message board we asked an Orthodox Priest of which version of the Bible would they accept in discussion or dialog. So if you are Orthodox you are certainly not following their doctrines and have a horrific understanding of the theology.

[i][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][/i]

Then our Blessed Lord is a woman... I am sorry to hear the Orthodox have strayed so far off...

[i][b]"You should read more commentaries about Ez 44:2."[/b][/i]

These verses are not even in question nor does it have anything to do with this discussion; you haven’t even quoted the verse yet. Maybe you should so other readers can see exactly what you are trying to say. But I do read quite a bit about this verse because I find it very, uplifting. It reminds me of the purity of her being the Gate.

[b][i]"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."[/i][/b]

That is simply not true since the Orthodox have stated themselves that the differences between the Catholic Church and them is now social, the theological differences have been settled. Now the question of what reunification would mean. But the Orthodox do not accuse the catholic Church of schismatic doctrines but rather that they propose the Pope has fallen into error thus they will not honor his primacy among the Bishops even though they deny the supremacy. Regardless to say if you are an Orthodox, you are one of the most uneducated I have ever met. I normally thought the Orthodox to be brain children since their Priests and faithful normally have some pretty good comments... I am very confused at this point if you are a Schismatic Orthodox.

[i][b]"I am orthodox, and have been studying them for a very long time and our theology doesn't agree or teach the sinlessness (not a word) 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 among Muslims."[/b][/i]

She also never mentioned the errors of the Latin Rite Church. This is a very weak argument for apparitions ought not to take the center stage of our faith. But I believe the Orthodox writing would refer to it as the Immaculate Conception of Saint Ann, referring to the fact that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in her womb.

[b][i]"Not on this issue they don’t disagree. Every single protestant and Orthodox agree that St. Mary isn't and wasn't sinless, EVER!"[/i][/b]

That isn’t true; you should read about the supposed reformers and the Blessed Virgin. In fact most theologians outside of the Church do propose that she was freed from sin when the angel vested her but that it was only a temporary passing.

[b][i]"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."[/i][/b]

Would you like me to quote the CIA World Fact Book put out by the United States Government? This is where it is coming from...

[b][i]"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."[/i][/b]

Protestant simply means "protesting one" and clearly so far you do not adhear to mainstream orthodox belief. But to remind you again I only mentioned the heretical doctrine of "sola scriptura" I think once or twice until you started to make this a center stage argument. But if you want to diverge from the Latin in which the word came, I suppose that’s okay... Why not we change the meanings of all the other words...

Look up Newspeak... Big Brother is watching you...

[Mr.Cat]

[size=4][b]A lot of bark and little bite: Until evidence is presented from the Orthodox/Protestant case that proposes that the Blessed Virgin is with sin then I refuse to carry on for the time being in this nonsensical conversation. In addition, I demand in those places mentioned where I have requested some kind of proof or evidence that it be given for I have given much evidence in good faith, now the good faith of our fellow debaters must be shown.[/b][/size]

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1210912' date='Mar 9 2007, 12:57 PM']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.[/quote]

I wasn't even arguing over the Immaculate Conception. I believe in the Dogma of the Immaculate Concpetion of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I was posting proof from the New Testament for why we don's sacrifice animals anymore and how the Mosaic law is fufilled and consummated.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210998' date='Mar 9 2007, 03:25 PM'][size=4][b]A lot of bark and little bite: Until evidence is presented from the Orthodox/Protestant case that proposes that the Blessed Virgin is with sin then I refuse to carry on for the time being in this nonsensical conversation. In addition, I demand in those places mentioned where I have requested some kind of proof or evidence that it be given for I have given much evidence in good faith, now the good faith of our fellow debaters must be shown.[/b][/size][/quote]

[u][b]I'm also going to refuse to discuss the scriptures with you, until you get a proper translation of the scriptures and stop proclaiming that St. Mary crushed Satans head, when it was Jesus Christ that Crushed Satans head, freed mankind from the bondage of sin through being crucified for the entire world!!![/b][/u]

You keep proclaiming that St. Mary crushed Satans head, despite the fact that every single translation proclaims that Jesus crushed Satan's head.

Reza