Whether we think one way is to Gods glory or the other, it doesn't matter. What matters is what the word of God teaches. And it does teach that every human other than Jesus is and was a sinner. The teachings about Mary you told me are speculation. Never in the new testement do I hear that Mary was the new eve, perfect.
You said that the Bible teaches that no one except Jesus was sinless. I assume you get that from the "all have sinned" verse in Romans (I believe).
However, what do you make of the verse that says that there is no greater than John the Baptist?
Additionally, you're trying to get everyone to subscribe to an ideal that fits you....Scripture alone; which really translates into "everything God had to say on anything and everything is in this book." I'm gonna flip over to the previously created thread on this topic, and I'd like to take this further, because I don't believe we'll get anywhere until we find out whether the Word of God is limited to the Bible, or whether the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the Spirit has been given to the Church to "lead her into all truth."
Also, you're starting with Mary, as a point of understanding. However, I know of Catholics that don't fully accept things that deal with Mary...and they become hesitant to speak or profess full belief in those things. They are admittedly difficult to understand. In fact, Pope John Paul II, at one point in his life, did not accept Marian devotions...but, after reading some of the old writings about the devotion..especially from St. Louis deMonfort, he changed completely. I don't recommend taking on the most difficult things, but starting with the easier stuff....
Either you're interested in ecumenical dialog which will lead to better understanding and acceptance of Truth, or you're interested in arguing. If you desire ecumenical dialog, lets focus on those things which you consider absolutely necessary for salvation. Further, you're ascribing to a belief that every belief professed by a particular church much be part of the Gospel of Christ Jesus (which is true enough!); however, what if I were to hold you to that same principle? If I found 1 doctrine that couldn't be backed up fully with Scripture...I must conclude that you're not in a "biblical church". As I asked before...care to take me up on that?
God bless, Matt
Rose, why do you think Mary didn't undrstand what Jesus was saying when he said he had to be at his fathers house. When Joseph and Mary were looking for him as a child?
It depeds on the doctrine, some views are debateable and some are not. If you show me where a church teaches that we are saved by works I will say it is unbiblical. If it teaches youcan lose your salvation, that is debateable, but not nessaserily unbiblical. But in regards to Mry being sinnless. You can attribute that to some great thinking on the part of man, but it is not told us in the bible. I do believe we can have different views on that subject, but it is an important one. Don't worry though, I do undrstand why you believe it, it's not that complicated, I just don't agree with it.
Have you ever read Catholic Bible commentaries or theological treatises? They may be some help if you want to understand Catholic teachings better from the perspective of the time-tested Church -- and not just reading our posts. The environment here in which we respond back and forth may cause us to reject the other person's ideas without really thinking about it from that religion's perspective. That may not apply to anybody here but it is good to keep that in mind
And, as Matt mentioned, you should go to the very basics and tackle the central issue of Scripture as authority before going to more secondary-level issues. ...simply because we always end up saying "Where does the Bible say this" or something like that....
"Rose, why do you think Mary didn't undrstand what Jesus was saying when he said he had to be at his fathers house. When Joseph and Mary were looking for him as a child?"
I don't know why "they did not grasp what he said to them." Luke 2:50. If you have information on interpreting this verse or if you know why, will you share it with me?
You mentioned to Matt that you understand why we believe as we do, but you don't agree. So, does that mean you understand why we say Mary is sinless (not perfect or all knowing - only sinless)?
Peace of Jesus to you, Adam,
I see where the reasoning for comes from, but I do believe it is bad reasoning. Romans says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This obviously excludes Jesus because he is God. "there is none righteous, no not one". Do you believe Mary was assumed into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin?
I am really just interested in what people believe, I can find out more about the church, but I would rather hear it from a proffesed follower.
You asked: "Do you believe Mary was assumed into heaven, and that she was perpetually a virgin?"
Yes, Adam, I believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven. Yes, Adam, I believe Mary was always a virgin.
I don't have time to write much today. We are leaving in a few hours to go to St. Louis. Our family has been blessed with the chance to attend a wonderful prayerful event on Wednesday. Pope John Paul II will be in St. Louis and we will be able to attend Mass with him. I will be praying for all my friends while at Mass. I hope you don't mind if I include you in my prayer list. I should be able to correspond with you again on Thursday evening.
Did you have the answer about why Mary did not grasp what Jesus meant when they found him in the temple? I thought you probably had the answer since you asked me. I am interested in your insight.
Thanks for praying for me, I do appreciate it. The reason Mary didn't understand what Jesus meant was because she was imperfect, a sinner, only fallen man wouldn't understand why Jesus said he had to be at his fathers house. If Mary was perfect, she would have known.
Mary was not a virgin perpertually.Matthew 1:25But he(Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. The bible tells us Jesus had brothers.
If you don't have sin, you are perfect.
Wher does it say Jesus was the "ark"? I agree he brought the new covenant.
There's two things at issue here with regard to your last post....
Matthew 1:25 But he(Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son.
I presume that you are focusing on the word "until"; but, "until" does not have to mean that such acts in the preceding clause occured after the latter clause; in the sense that the fact that Joseph had no relations with her until she gave birth to a son, does not necessarily imply that he had relations after she gave birth to a son. In this sense, it is proclaiming the Virgin Birth..that Jesus was not a result of natural relations between Mary and Joseph.
Further, I would like to expand on the issue of "until." Certainly there are examples in the English language where the use of "until" did not infer that such actions happened after a certain event.
Take this case: "Stay here until I return." There is no indication of whether the person is to go elsewhere after "I return". It is possible that the person will stay even after "I return." So, in this case, we find it possible for "until" to refer merely to the first clause, and not imply that such action happened afterwards.
Let us take a Biblical example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23) Are we to infer that she had children after her death? Certainly if one thought that, it would be absurd. So, you should see that "until" does not mean that such occurred afterwards.
Now, for the second issue....the "brethren of the Lord." The term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a very wide meaning in the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean only a "blood brother" or "half-brother", but can mean cousin, or other relative; but it's not even restricted to that..because it can mean someone similar to how it is used in the sentence "I hear ya, brother", when speaking to someone you don't have any physical relation too.
Catholic apologist, and President of Catholic Answers (North America's largest apologetics organization), Karl Keating, in a tract titled "Brethren of the Lord", states the following: Lot, for example, is called Abraham's "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Aran, Abraham's brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chron. 23:21-22).
So, it's not easy to distinguish these things merely from reading a with a current understanding of a particular word. And, even today, asI pointed to above, "brother" or "sister" isn't limited to descriptions of blood relatives; Christians commonly refer to each other in such a way. That's not necessarily that different from the way the Bible uses this term.
God bless, Matt
It sounds like you have already heard it all. And already decided in your own mind what you will believe.
I just know that I'm no language scholar, and I can't necessarily take things just at "face value", I have to dig deeper.
I didn't start out being thoroughly convinced that the Catholic Church, which I professed faith *through* all my life, was really correct in all her doctrines. Not until recently have I come to the conclusion of that fact....and I trust God in providing the Church as a means of learning His Will.
In "looking deeper", I continue to find more and more basis, going back further and further in Christian history, until I reach the time of the Apostles (and beyond).
If I speak with a sense of surety (and I hope not authority), it is only because I have become convinced by a few years of consistent and rigorous self-study. And, I have dialogued with many non-Catholic Christians; whether they be pastors, churchmen, or just regular old "joes".... Usually, when I hear something that I haven't heard before....it sends me scurrying off for the Bible and Church writings. So far, I have not found arguments for the Catholic teachings to be lacking.
God bless, Matt
This is my conclusion from what I've read, and of my understanding about Mary. The way I see it. I hope it supports the Church, but it probably doesn't.
#1. Mary is full of grace.
You say we are saved by grace.. well Mary must be sinless because she is full of it according to the bible.
#2. Why is she full of grace?
She is full of grace, sinless because (according to Lost Books of the Bible) The Holy Spirit was with her inside the womb.
#3. When Gabriel came to her, she accepted Jesus Christ into her body. If you accept the Lord, are not your sins washed away?
Now I've thought about this a great deal. If you think about this. All things are possible with God. Now why would God who is without sin, put himself into a sinful vessel to be nutured for 9 months (actually 10 luner months)..
My answer is he wouldn't.
Mary was the vessel to hold Our Lord She was purified and made holy while in the womb of Anna and then brought up in temple and Angels ministered to her night and day to keep her pure.(Lost books of the Bible)
Now She is entrusted with the care of Our Lord and he is missing. She is frantic because she is afterall human. She has just been through the ordeal of Herold killing every first born child. Knows he has been seeking Jesus, our Savoir. Now he is missing. So why does Jesus say to her, "Why did you not know I would be in my Fathers house?" First off that is to clearly state that He is the Savoir Son of God, it was also to set her mind at ease. She is human after all. She is also very innocent.
Now The assumption of Mary. I can only say this. If God would take Elija why wouldn't he take the vessel he made pure? She remained innocent and a virgin, for her to do otherwise would be blasphemy. Her entire life she was made to serve the Lord and she remained His servant.
What bothers me is many Protestants believing Mary as having children after Jesus.. Not really being a virgin. To me that is blasphemy. While not even meaning to, they are undermining the whole miracle of Christ's Birth. Mary followed Jesus, her savoir. Can you honestly say, if you think about it, that Mary would purposefully go out and sin, after she dedicated her life to the Lord? After she recieve the Holy Spirit and had Our savoir within her womb. She is so Blessed by The Father. Her entire being was to serve the Lord and it still is. To say it all ended after Jesus was born is a travesty. For her to lie with a man after she dedicated her life to be a virgin which is what she did upon entering the temple. To say she was sinful after the miracle Our God performed.. Blasphemy.. is all I can say.
The only stand I will take is that on which scripture takes. Romans says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All meaning all humans. Jesus was of course God therefore was not under the curse of sin. We are all under the curse of sin. John took care of Mary the rest of life and never do you find in his gospel anything about her being without sin, or having been assumed into heaven. Niether do his epistles, nor does revelation. Don't you think he would have mentioned that stupendous event?
It is obvious that you have a great love of Sacred Scripture. This is very good.
Let me tell you a little story. Our elder brothers, the Jews, also had a great love of Scripture. Yet they were waiting for a king that would conquer the world for them. A warrior to defeat the enemy. Our elder brothers read the same words that you and I now read. But God's plan was far beyond their expectations. God the Son came into this world without the riches of kings, to save mankind from sin, so that they might have eternal life.
Saint Paul, at first, did not recognize God's Church. He, in good conscience, persecuted the Church, of which Christ is the Head. He did not understand Sacred Scripture.
So we come to today. Mary, not Jesus, is the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary was chosen by God to bring forth His Son to save the world from sin. Mary, like the Ark of the Covenant, is pure and holy, made worthy by a singular act of God, but not a tabernacle to be carried around, but rather a holy mother to nurture and care for God's only Son until His time came. If you think about this marvelous mystery just a little bit. Who else held the Son of God in their hand every day for years? Who else kissed the forehead of the Son of God each night at bedtime? Because no one else in human history had this closeness to God, God blessed this Holy Woman beyond measure. It is so easy for Catholics to see this.
In a certain way, my dear friend, you are like our elder brothers, and, before his conversion, Saint Paul. There is richness in God's Church, spiritual richness, because She (the Church, the Bride of Christ) is guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.
Our Lord promises that if you seek, you will find, and if you knock, it shall be opened for you. I believe that you have found the Church Christ established 2000 years ago. The many friends I have in this forum are members of this Church, and proclaim the Good News to all that find their way here, as you have. The door is now open for you, but God does not make you enter, He leaves it to you.
When you hear the little voice telling you to "Come", harden not you heart because you don't fully understand Catholic Teaching, but rather embrace it in love and trust. Only in the Catholic Church will you find the full Truth.
The door to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is always open.
May the Peace of Christ be with you always, and may the Holy Spirit guide you in knowledge and wisdom,
Let us admit in all humility, at the same time that we affirm our Catholic faith, that devotion to Mary has led to excesses in practice that rightly scandalize our brethren of other Christian churches. I think that, taking nothing away from the essence of what you have written, we also need to be careful that what we affirm about Mary never lead us from closely following Christ. On the contary, it should lead us closer--by their fruits, you can judge the worthiness of their message, you will know them. And we also need to keep in mind that we are all engaged in a search for the truth, a search that puts us onto common ground with other Christians, with whom we are intimately related by virtue of Baptism. Our affirmations about Mary, for instance, are not the highest on the scale of truths proclaimed by the Catholic Church. They came relatively late in our history. They need not be taken as essential for Christian faith.
I love what you wrote. That is a beautiful perspective on Our Lady, Our Mother. Thank you for sharing it.
This morning my children and I were discussing today's mysteries and we were talking about Mary being Queen of Heaven. Children have such insight because they don't get caught up in all the "adult" perspectives.
They understand in their innocence the beauty of Mary brining people to her son. This is what My nine yr old said... Mary loves Jesus and Jesus loves Mary more than any child can love their mother because He is perfect (not like me he said ;)). She is Queen because she loves Jesus more than any other person because moms and dads love their children more than other people love them. So, because she loves Jesus so much, she wants everyone to love Jesus and wants to take us to Him, she is just like a mom holding our hand so we don't get lost. Jesus loves His mom, and Jesus is the perfect son, so He listens to her in a special way when we die and she talks to Him.
Now his thoughts are all wrapped up in the childish perspective of parent/child relationships.....but it can be as simple as that. Honoring Mary does not detract from our love of Jesus, she takes us straight to Him, not her!
On the contrary, the de fide teachings of the Church on our Holy Mother are necessary to hold as a matter of Faith. Simply because these teachings were defined relatively late, does not mean that they were not believed from the beginning. The Ten Commandments are not de fide. Tell me that there is a good catholic who does not hold them to be part of the Faith.
Your brother in Christ,
Mac, I have had a hard heart and sometimes I still do. But, it is not for the truth. To
say that I am like Paul before his conversion is a cruel assumption. He was a murderer and persecuted christians. I believe Mary was a wonderful person and very blessed by God. To say she never sinned is another assumption. I know the jews hearts were hardened to the truth and that they were expecting the messiah to come and set up a new kingdom and defeat their enemies. I think they didnt read isaiah 53. Or many other prophecies concerning him, where they tell what he would be like.
Their hearts were hard and they ignored what the scripture actually said concerning the messiah. I am not ignoring what scripture says about Jesus or Mary, I just refuse to accept teaching that contradicts scripture. I have never read that we have to go through a priest for forgiveness, only Jesus.I have also never read where it says that Mary was without sin. Nor, that she was assumed into heaven. Nor, that their are such things as mortal or venial sins, only sin which has the penalty of death that Jesus took for us on the cross. Do you expect me to believe these things just because someone says that God told them that? Or because it makes sense to some peole? Why shouldnt I believe Joseph Smith when he says God told him Jesus was satans spirit brother, or that we can all be gods some day? I can only put my trust in what Gods word says. I don't believe he left anything out.
I just want to mention something here, regarding Mary's sinfulness....
When the angel greets her, he calls her "Full of Grace"....the word in Greek is ketcharitomene, which is literally translated as "full of grace." In the sense of grace, being, as we've said, a gift from God which helps us practice works of righteousness that perfects us; thus grace perfects us.
Well, the Angel proclaimed Mary, "full of grace", therefore she had the fullest amount of grace possible. It is from this declaration of the angel, which comes from God, that we gather that Mary received the fullest grace of God from her very conception. This fullness of grace is what allowed her to avoid sin.
We state that it was from her conception because this has been seen to be the only possible way that sin could have been avoided; and she couldn't have been "full of grace", because grace was "ushered in" with the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, at some after-point.
Now, Mary's reception of grace was wholly reliant upon the death of our Savior, but in a prefigured way. Hence, the reason why she calls God "my Savior."....because He truly was; though it was applied to her in the womb of her mother, at her very conception.
This is certainly not the easiest of concepts....but explains the strangeness of the greeting of Mary by the Angel.
God bless, Matt
In order to be saved we must first believe, Mary had to first believe.
Do you believe all aborted babies are sent to Hell by God?
I did not mean to offend you by comparing you to Saint Paul, but rather to show you something and to challange you to look more deeply into what you have discovered here in this forum.
Saint Paul was a good Jew. He viewed the Christian movement as an attack on God's Chosen People. He was doing all he could to protect and defend the Chosen People.
He misunderstood. Jesus then calls him, closes his eyes to the things of the world, so that he can begin to see those things spiritual, those of God. Paul accepts the calling of the Redeemer, and his growth in holiness begins.
So the question you have is - how do you know?
What other Christian Church can trace it's beginning to Christ? Did not Jesus promise to be with us, even to the end of time? Who was this promise made to? His Church.
What came first, the Church or the Bible?
Is it possible that all of the answers to your question here COULD be true?
This is something that you must ponder in your heart, the heart that Jesus knows. You must ask God for guidence, and for understanding, and above all you must trust in Him. Before you do this, you should ask God for forgiveness for those things that you have done, and for those things that you should have done, but did not. Then Trust Him, and follow Him.
God Bless you my friend,
All Catholics do hold these dogmas to be true, or at least struggle to believe them. But if other Christians do not believe that Mary was conceived immaculately--that is, that she is, in essence, free of Original Sin as a consequence of the Resurrection--are they then outside the community of faith? It is not the same thing to say, "Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven," and "Jesus is the Savior of all humanity." In this sense, there are some truths proclaimed by the Church that have a more direct relationship to reality than others, without denying for a moment that they are true. Denying Jesus' divinity would place one outside the Church. Proclaiming Mary as a model of holiness without going so far as to state that she was never in need of Redemption would not necessarily break our bonds forged in Baptism.
In fact, now that I think of it, not even heresy can break those bonds.
God has opened my eyes to his reality, and to spiritual things. You told me just to pray about it and he will give me guidance in regards to what the catholic church teaches in regards to Mary. Do you know, that is how Mormons find out if the book of mormon is true? They believe God tells them it is. As far as your questions, the church was not around before the new testament, but it did have the old testament. That is how the Berians tested what the apostles were telling them concering the Christ. And I hear Jehovahs witnesses tell me the same thing in regards to being the first church. In fact I believe I am part of the first church, the body of Christ. Mac, my heart is not hard toward the things of God like you assume it is. I just won't accept doctrine that contradicts scripture. Like, having to go to a priest to get forgiveness. Jesus is our high priest, he is the only mediator between God and men. Please respond to my comments about the Mormons knowing what they believe by praying about it. I do trust God Mac. The God that has revealed himself in scripture.
Let me quote your earlier post: "In order to be saved we must first believe, Mary had to first believe."
The you go on to say that aborted babies are indeed saved without faith.
How is this possible since babies don't have faith? You condemn Catholics on one hand saying that Mary couldn't have been saved from the time of her conception .... but then you say that aborted babies are saved. You can't have it both ways . Either it is possible that Mary was saved from the time of her conception .... or the babies without faith are in Hell, since "all have sinned". Are you also carving out an exception from the word "all" to exclude babies as Catholics do with Mary?
Adam:>> In order to be saved we must first believe, Mary had to first believe.
Martin to Adam:>> Do you believe all aborted babies are sent to Hell by God?
Adam, I concur with Martin's questioning...and wish to take it a step further...
If we presume your statement to be correct, will we not have to take the position that not only aborted babies, but all unborn and miscarried babies would not have the possibility of being saved? And, going further, would that not also mean that any child below the age of reason, who are deemed not yet capable of belief, would also not be able to be saved?
Also, I'd like to back up and apply your statement to what we've discussed so far in other threads, and also my above post. I'd like to ask, then, what can we make of Mary being called "Full of Grace?" (Keep in mind that the Greek means much more than most non-Catholic translations state, which is typically "Highly Favored One".)
Now, since Mary was called "Full of grace" at the Annunciation, we *must* assume, then, at some point the grace won by Christ's death was applied to her in a prefigurative way. Here we are tapping the very foundations of the Scriptural basis for Mary's sinlessness - though we still have more work to do. I will leave you with this much though...so that we are going through it step by step.
God bless, Matt
Mary did not die as an infant. She reached the "age of accountability".
Was Mary "full of grace" in the same way that Jesus is full of grace? Meaning, does it come from her?
I am not condemning catholics.
Mary did not die as an infant, therfore she needed to make a choice. Maybe babies don't go to heaven when they die.
I believe they do, but that doesn't mean I'm right. The point is, if I believe that babies go to heaven, I'm not teaching it as a fact, as you are teaching Mary was saved before she was born as a fact. Besides, infants and adults aren't going to be judged the same. Basically, I am trusting God in regards to infants.
You avoided the question ..... how are babies without faith able to be saved .... since "all have sinned"?
You can't have it both ways. Either it is possible Mary was saved early or not.
Oh, also ... please show me in the bible where it mentions "age of accountability" and the necessity from that point on for faith to be a requirement for salvation.
Was Mary "full of grace" in the same way that Jesus is full of grace? Meaning, does it come from her?
No, the grace the was resident in Mary's soul was from God. The merits of Jesus' death were applied to her in a prefigurative way, from her conception. That is the doctrine of it.
Do you believe that the merits of Jesus' death - the grace of God - were applied to her in a different way from the rest of us? If not, then, could you explain the meaning of calling Mary "full of grace". I'm just trying to get a better handle on how you view this, as well as show you were these beliefs stem from and flow through.
God bless, Matt
Go back to the Mary Page.