On The Blessed Mother's Sinlessness

[mulls]

THe Church Fathers say Mary was sinless, therefore she was.

are you serious?

Scripture itself tells us everything is not in it.

Scripture itself never claims to be the end all and be all of revelation.

Therefore your theory is untenable.

so the church fathers are more reliable, or equally reliable as, Scripture?

[Jake Huether]

(Jake Huether) So will "ALL" Israelites be saved?

(Me) No. In Romans 9, Paul has in mind the individuals within the spiritual Israel. In Romans 11, Paul has in mind the corporate body of the nation of Israel.

That's my point! In Scripture, "All" doesn't always mean "All". That is why Scripture can be inerrant, yet still NOT be infallible. Because in written text there is NO way of getting into the head of that person who is writing!

Now, show to me, in context, using text only how you know FOR SURE that St. Paul means that ALL (humans past present and future) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

You've shown me how you know for SURE that St. Paul "has in mind the individuals within the spiritual Israel". Show me now what St. Paul "has in mind".

That is what you must understand about Scripture. Yes, the writers were inspired by God. But they were human, with human understanding. St. Paul probably didn't know Mary as much as, say, Peter did. Since St. Paul came after. So, when Paul uses the term All, it isn't an infinite ALL - because when he uses "all" it is exclusive to what he knows alone. The OT writers didn't have in mind generations into the future. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write, yet they still had to use their own intelect to produce what they believed to be the right words in order to convey what their minds were thinking.

Genesis, for example, isn't a scientific manual on how exactly the world was created! The writer was using his human intelect to convey what he was inspired to write. Ispiration doesn't mean, a person off the street all of a suden knows the meaning of e=mc^2. Inspiration isn't a leap in intelectual knowledge. It isn't a leap in worldly truth! It is a desire to do what is on your heart. To head to voice of God in your soul. Inspiration is when one is filled with the Spirit! That is, the Spirit (as I write - I too must search for the right words) causes the one being "inspired" to have the desire to do His Will. So, the writer of Genesis didn't all of a sudden know that it took exactly 6X24 hours to ceate the univers, and that the air contained hidrogen, oxegen and nitrogen. He was inspired to write the Spiritual Truth of the World be created by God!

Same too with Paul. His main point wasn't to count how many people, past present and future, were sinfull! God sent Jesus into the world (he was fully Man - yet sinnless). Pauls main point, in writting to the Romans, was about faith in Jesus Christ!

[Jake Huether]

(Jake Huether) Greatness doesn't imply sinlessness. Being FULL of Grace does.

(Me) Would that include Stephen?

Acts 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

In the original written language of these Scriptural passages, the word used to describe Mary's Fullness of Grace is distinct. I'm no linguistics expert, but I do know that when the Angle said, "Hail, FULL of grace", the FULL used in that sentance was used no where else, and the translation is that she was so full, that there was no room for anything else.

Whereas, when they said that Stephen was "full of grace and power", the word used for full, wasn't the same.

Someone else might be able to give specific words.

[ReformationNow]

What chapter and verse do you find the words 'Full of Grace?'

[ReformationNow]

Oh my!  Why is the burden of proof on the Catholic Church.  It was the Protestants who claimed she was NOT sinless.  Likewise, Scripturally, there is no basis for this.

Therefore, I say, it is the responsibility of the Protestants to prove any claims it makes.

See what I mean!  We've "proven our case" and you've "proven your case", but in the end we are where we started! 

That is EXACTLY why there are a zillion and counting protestant churches!  Because each one has their own meaning, and although they believe the Bible can "prove" their beliefe, it mysteriously has the ability to "prove" to others the exact opposite and all possibilities inbetween!

That is why Christ would not have left us alone with just a book.  Isn't that proof enough. Would Christ want his Church divided?  St. Paul must have not known, when he pleaded that we all be one, with ONE FAITH, and ONE BELIEF.

The Catholic Church made the claim that Mary was sinless. According to scripture, we are all born in sin, and all have sinned. The burden of proof lies upon those who teach something which scripture does not support.

[cmotherofpirl]

are you serious?

so the church fathers are more reliable, or equally reliable as, Scripture?

Mulls

THe Early Church Fathers were the ones who chose what books were in the NT Scriptures. Their writings ( and they were prolific authors) are what we call Tradition (notice the big T). Their authority is equal to the Sciptures (since they picked them).

THe Church is made of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

[Jake Huether]

What chapter and verse do you find the words 'Full of Grace?'

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/4Advent-b.html

Actually, the more acurate translation is "full of grace". Interesting article.

The Catholic Church made the claim that Mary was sinless. According to scripture, we are all born in sin, and all have sinned. The burden of proof lies upon those who teach something which scripture does not support.

So now the Burnden of proof lies on those who teach something which scripture does not support. I thought the burdern of proof was on those who claim something. But again, Scripture doesn't support Mary being a sinner either! If you can find where the Bible specifically sais Mary was a sinner, than I will sit on my hands. But the Church existed before the Bible - and knows the Bible fully (she wrote the new testament). It wasn't until LATER that the Protestants claimed the Bible said she was a sinner. Truth is, the Bible doesn't say one way or another! It hints one way, and it hints the other. But history proves that this is what the Church believed! It is their "claim" that according to Scripture, we all are born in sin, and all have sinned. But Jesus was born a human, without sin. Therefore, there are exceptions, no matter what. Therfore the burden of proof is on Protestants!

[Jake Huether]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/rosary_...y_scripture.htm

http://www.john654.org/mary.html

Edited again: Sheesh - there's so much cools stuff on Mary!

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/MARY1.HTM

http://asia.geocities.com/albinocat_sc/cat...conception.html

I'm thankfull for this discussion, because it has caused me to learn to Love Mary ever so much more (and remember - her soul Magnifies the Lord, and thus it Magnifies my Love For God)!

[mulls]

Mulls

THe Early Church Fathers were the ones who chose what books were in the NT Scriptures. Their writings ( and they were prolific authors) are what we call Tradition (notice the big T). Their authority is equal to the Sciptures (since they picked them).

THe Church is made of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

OK, i want this to be settled once and for all....

as Cmom has just explained to me, the writings of the early church fathers have equal authority as the Scriptures.

Right?

Now, I should be able to bring this up to any knowledgeable Catholic layperson or priest and they will affirm this, correct? If so, this will be a BIG step in my understanding of Catholocism.

BIG.

[cmotherofpirl]

The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture.

This relation is the same as that between the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. Christ made use of the Bible, He appealed to it as to an irrefragable authority, He explained and interpreted it and furnished the key to it, with it he shed light on His own doctrine and mission. The Apostles did in like manner when they spoke to the Jews. Both sides had access to the Scriptures in a text admitted by all, both recognized in them a Divine authority, as in the very word of God. This was also the way of the faithful in their studies and discussions; but with pagans and unbelievers it was necessary to begin with presenting the Bible and guaranteeing its authority -- the Christian doctrine concerning the Bible had to be explained to the faithful themselves, and the guarantee of this doctrine demonstrated. The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. It was the Church's part to guard the Bible, to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what she knew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moral doctrine with a view to our supernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, the Old Testament being a preparation and annunciation of the Messias and the new dispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies. It was for the Church in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case of doubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even when necessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity, chronology, exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or the veracity of its doctrine or to maintain a given body of revealed truth contained in a given text. It was above all for the Church to circulate the Divine Book by minting its doctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourish souls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium.

On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture. There it finds the word of God, new-blown so to speak, as it was expressed under Divine agency by the inspired author; while oral tradition, although faithfully transmitting revealed truth with the Divine assistance, nevertheless transmits it only in human formulas. Scripture gives us beyond doubt to a certain extent a human expression of the truth which it presents, since this truth is developed in and by a human brain acting in a human manner, but also to a certain extent Divine, since this human development takes place wholly under the action of God. So also with due proportion it may be said of the inspired word what Christ said of His: It is spirit and life. In a sense differing from the Protestant sense which sometimes goes so far as to deify the Bible, but, in a true sense, we admit that God speaks to us in the Bible more directly than in oral teaching. The latter, moreover, ever faithful to the recommendations which St. Paul made to his disciple Timothy, does not fail to have recourse to Biblical sources for its instruction and to draw thence the heavenly doctrine, to take thence with the doctrine a sure, ever-young, and ever-living expression of this doctrine, one more adequate than any other despite the inevitable inadaptability of human formulas to divine realities In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon against error and heresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it.

Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are not infallible as individuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable to error or heresy. As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question. It claims this power of infallible interpretation only in matters of faith and morals, that is where religious or moral truth is in danger, directly, if the text or passage belongs to the moral and religious order; indirectly, if in assigning a meaning to a text or book the veracity of the Bible, its moral value, or the dogma of its inspiration or inerrancy is imperilled. Without going further into the manifold services which the Bible renders to the living magisterium mention must nevertheless be made as particularly important of its services in the apologetic order. In fact Scripture by its historic value, which is indisputable and undisputed on many points, furnishes the apologist with irrefragable arguments in support of supernatural religion. It contains for example miracles whose reality is impressed on the historian with the same certainty as the most acknowledged facts. This is true and perhaps more strikingly so of the argument from the prophecies, for the Scriptures, the Old as well as the New Testament, contain manifest prophecies, the fulfilment of which we behold either in Christ and His Apostles or in the later development of the Christian religion.

In view of all this it will be readily understood that since the time of St. Paul the Church has urgently recommended to her ministers the study of Holy Scripture, that she has watched with a jealous authority over its integral transmission, its exact translation, and its faithful interpretation If occasionally she has seemed to restrict its use or its diffusion this too was through an easily comprehensible love and a particular esteem for the Bible, that the sacred Book might not like a profane book be made a ground for curiosity, endless discussions, and abuses of every kind. In short, since the Church at last proves to be the best safeguard for human reason against the excesses of an unbridled reason, so by the very avowal of sincere Protestants does she show herself at the present day the best defender of the Bible against an unrestrained Biblicism or an unchecked criticism.

[cmotherofpirl]

Go to our catechism and read sections 74-100.

[goldenchild17]

I'm new on here but I just wanted to say that I am currently in what is called a "personal debate" with a protestant on this very issue. We haven't discussed all the issues involved yet but I would like you all to read this debate in it's current state. If you would like to continue this discussion with me here I would be more than happy.

http://www.boredonline.net/~bol/phpbb/view...opic.php?t=4648

And please read the whole thing.

[cmotherofpirl]

WElcome to phatmass!

You are doing very well in your debate.

Look up the words used in full of grace. It means overflowing abundance. I don't think its the same word used to describe Stephen.

THere is a check in board on the open mic board: stop in and introduce yourself.

[ironmonk]

I thought that "All have sinned."

If "ALL" have sinned then one would have to say Jesus sinned, but we know He didn't.

Jesus was an exception.

Likewise: Mary was an exception.

To be "Full of Grace" is to be free from sin.

Only two people in the Bible are called "Full of Grace": Jesus & Mary.

Think of the Old Covenant: 10 Commandments - the Ark of the Covenant was pure.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant - Jesus got all of His flesh from her, she was made sinless without the blemish of original sin.

Even Luther believed this.... it was only brought up in question in the last few hundred years...

A few of his writings:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[she is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).

Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

God says . . . : "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

You can find many great verse references at http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[Guest Shavahn]

Another thing about Mary being sinless: she was assumed body, soul and divinity up into heaven. Only the completely sinless would be taken into heaven in that way (Jesus as well). Though there are many other great and wonderful people in the Bible, that does not make them 'sinless'...They would spend some time in purgatory before they are cleansed and pure enough for the treasures of heaven.