Sinless Mary

[MennoSota]

Pure from the first

The Protevangelium also contributed to the belief in Mary’s “immaculate conception”: from the first moment of her conception, she was preserved from the stain of original sin. The Protevangelium draws a parallel between Mary’s conception and that of John the Baptist, sanctified in Elisabeth’s womb (Luke 1:15), seeming to suggest that the conjugal begetting of Mary was somehow devoid of sinful taint.

While some more elaborate justifications for a “sinless Mary” have been offered, especially in the later Middle Ages, this is still essentially the position of the modern Catholic church: “Sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”

This view, though often challenged, has had notable champions. In refuting Pelagius, Augustine is among those who declares that while all those justified by grace have known sin, he cannot, “for the honor of the Lord.” even question whether Mary might have sinned (Nature and Grace, 100.36).

The term “Immaculate Conception,” relating strictly to Mary's own conception, appeared in the formal liturgy first in 1854 (Pius IX), though the feast was adopted for the entire Latin church in 1476 (by Sixtus IV). -- https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/mary-the-sinless/

Tradition with no biblical support.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tradition with no biblical support.

This thread is about Tradition.

 

[Albion]

Isn't that what he said? Tradition (which does not have Biblical support)

It, Tradition, would not be what it is--an alternate way of defining doctrine--if the Bible defined the issue in question.

 

[Josiah]

The Protevangelium also contributed to the belief in Mary’s “immaculate conception”

WRONG.


This rejected letter says NOTHING about Mary being conceived without original sin. Nothing. No one and nothing did until the 5h Century when a FEW had that personal opinion... your denomination didn't until the 12th Century... it's a doctrine only and uniquely in your singular, individual, exclusive denomination (dogma since 1870).


This reject letter says NOTHING about Mary always being a virgin. Some see it as IMPLIED (maybe) but certainly not stated.

The Protevangelium draws a parallel between Mary’s conception and that of John the Baptist, sanctified in Elisabeth’s womb (Luke 1:15), seeming to suggest that the conjugal begetting of Mary was somehow devoid of sinful taint.

So, should we expect the 1870 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be eliminated (and repudiated since Mary was not uniquely so conceived) and look for a new dogma, "The Immaculate Conception of John and Mary, too?"

This rejected letter says NOTHING about John or Mary being uniquely conceived without original sin.


No one denies that this very late dogma exists in the modern RCC. I think the issue is: Is it true? After all, if Mary is loved and respected then it would be horrible to shout (as dogma, no less) falsehoods about Her. I was taught in the RCC that before we say anything about anyone, we need to ask: "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" We were taught that gossip is spreading something we don't know is true and that it's a serious sin. As a kid, I wondered if the RCC practiced what it preached, especially when it comes to Mary.



A blessed Advent to all...



.

 

[MennoSota]

This thread is about Tradition.

It's about the fallacy you express regarding Mary's nature.
The fact is, you lift up mythical traditions from your denomination to a level that supercedes scripture. It is a parallel fallacy that the Jewish leaders did when they lifted their traditions up higher than scripture. Jesus kept pointing them to scripture. They kept pointing to tradition. Your church follows the same fallacy. MC, this tradition of yours is really...heresy.

 

[Arsenios]

WRONG.

Sounds like the Bong of the Gong Show...
In China it is called the Wong Bong...
Death by a thousand cuts if Wong...
Which is neither Here nor There...

... Mary being conceived without original sin. Nothing... until the 5h Century when a FEW had that personal opinion...
.

Who were those few? I thought that doctrine was cut whole cloth just recently...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

One of the problems with the doctrine of the I/C is that it denigrates Mariam, because she alone got the ultimate cheat chit in the form of a special grace from God at her conception that removed the stain of Original Sin from her soul, a grace no one else received... She is thereby deprived of the virtue of overcoming sin, because she is not truly tempted, because it has been overcome for her by this special grace...

In a certain way, and especially because she is a pre-incarnate Jew, she by her life incarnating the God of all, is the most virtuous human being ever to walk the planet save Christ... I mean, nobody pulled off what she did... Post-incarnate Christians are given the cheat-chit of being Baptized into Christ... She was not... Christ Himself had the ultimate Cheat-Chit of BEING God... But she was a nobody - "For He hath remembered the low estate of His hand-maiden..." are her very words... In the world she was a no-body... Utterly consecrated to God and "Not knowing any man..." as she is recorded saying... Suffering no consequence for rebuking the Angel Gabriel... For she was right...

The Christian Faith is definitely an Undercover Operation...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's about the fallacy you express regarding Mary's nature.

Lamm started this thread. She defined it's question.

The fact is, you lift up mythical traditions from your denomination to a level that supercedes scripture. It is a parallel fallacy that the Jewish leaders did when they lifted their traditions up higher than scripture. Jesus kept pointing them to scripture. They kept pointing to tradition. Your church follows the same fallacy. MC, this tradition of yours is really...heresy.

 

[MennoSota]

Lamm started this thread. She defined it's question.

Yes she did.

The bible does not declare Mary to be sinless...so what are the earliest church fathers who believed it and wrote about it?

Does this mean you admit there is no biblical merit for the myth of Mary being sinless? Are you merely sharing the date when the myth was created?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes she did.

Does this mean you admit there is no biblical merit for the myth of Mary being sinless? Are you merely sharing the date when the myth was created?

No, it means that Lamm wrote that.

 

[MennoSota]

No, it means that Lamm wrote that.

So you believe the myth your church created?

And the whole cult of Mary worship would be anunspeakable horror to Mary if she ever knew.**She never will.**Now the Catholics try to wiggle around a little*bit out of this by saying there are different kinds of worship.**There is dulia, the worship of saints and angels,*there is latria, that is the worship of God,*and there is hyperdulia,*which is the worship of Mary alone.**This is not just dulia,which is a sort of low-level worship of saints and angels,*this is hyper or upper-level dulia.**Not quite latria.**This is a silly,*artificial kind of distinction that even Roman Catholic people can’t sort out.**They worship saints.**They venerate or worship angels.**Far above saints and angels they worship Mary and they attempt to worship God.**But if you’re worshipping those who are not God, God does not accept your worship.*

It is an artificial distinction, dulia and latria, from Greek words,*are synonyms.* They do not distinguish worship at all.*Mary is believed to hold the sovereign authority of God.**Now I don’t want to assign to the Catholic Church anything that they don’t say,*so I am about, at this point, to let you hear Rome speak.**Now this is going to be a little bit beleaguering,*but it’s very important for you to understand that this is not coming from me.**These are their claims for Mary.*In the celebration of the Marian year,*Pope Pius XII accurately reflected the church’s*view of the Virgin Mary when the Pope stood up*to give this following pontifical prayer – and I quote.

“Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty*and impelled by the anxieties of the world,*we cast ourselves into your arms,*O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother.**Mary, we adore and praise the peerless richness*of the sublime gifts with which God has filledyou above every other mere creature from the moment of conception until the day on which,*after your assumption into Heaven,*He crowned you Queen of the Universe.**O crystal fountain of faith,bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume!*O Conqueress of evil and death,*inspire in us a deep horror of sin,which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!*O well-beloved of God,*hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you.**Then tenderly, O Mary, cover our aching wound. Convert the wicked,dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed,*comfort the poor and humble,*quench hatred, sweeten harshness,*safeguard the flower of purity,protect the holy Church.**In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven,*may they recognize that all are brothers,*and that the nations are members of one family.**Receive, O sweet Mother, our humble supplications,*and above all obtain for us on that day, happy with you,*that we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars.*You are all-beautiful,O Mary! You are glory, O Mary.* You are the joy, you are the honor of our people!”

Now if that is not worship,*I don’t know what worship is.**There is no other definition for that;*none whatsoever.* Rob Zins writes,*“The snowball of Mary in superiority will roll*down the slope of Catholic fantasy until she becomes,*in their minds, immaculately conceived,sinless, assumed into heaven,*and finally redemptress and co-redeemer with Jesus Christ.”**And that is exactly right.**In fact, Roman Catholics refer to her as Theotokos,*God-bearer.* They say she gave birth to God and thus is to be elevated and adored.**She gave birth to God.**That is a terrible misconception.*She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity.*She did not give birth to God.* God was never born.*

Now someone may think I’m overstating or exaggerating*the blasphemy toward God that comes in Mary worship,*so I have to do this very distasteful exerciseto let you hear from the sources themselves.* 1745, St.*Alphonsus de Liguori wrote a massive book called*The Glories of Mary.**It is 750 pages, all of which I read.**That was a very painful exercise,*believe me.* It has been published many,*many times since 1745.*It is fully authorized by the Roman Catholic Church.**Its latest edition that I have is a smaller,*abridged version of it published by the Catholic*Book Publishing Company of New York and officially*stamped by the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York.**The original was fully sanctioned as well.*One of the sanctioners of this are the Redemptorist Fathers and they sanctioned it,*an edition of it, in 1931 through the cardinal in New York City.

The purpose of de Liguori,*his work, is “to make the impression of wonder*and awe at the realization of Mary’s power.”*She is viewed as powerful.**The book, then, and all its subsequent publishings and in all of its subsequent formats,*calls on all of us to be loyal and faithful toMary for everything we need spiritually,including our salvation.**I went back to the original edition which has*been published again and again and again.*The one I have is a 1931 reprint which was,*as I said, sanctioned by the Redemptorist Fathers and the cardinal in New York City.**Here are some of the prayers.* Listen to this.

“O Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners.*Assist me with thy mercy.**Banish me from the infernal enemies and come thou*to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge.**My Queen, do not abandon me.**I give you my heart and soul.”**What de Liguori did was collect all the great*tributes to Mary going all the way back to the 5th*century,*and amasses them in this huge tome.**Collective tribute from all the ages to Mary.*
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-314/exposing-the-idolatry-of-mary-worship-an-overview

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you believe the myth your church created?

No. I believe what the Church teaches.

 

[Josiah]

Here's what makes me sad....


Christians FIGHTING over Mary.....

Christians spreading things (AS DOGMA!) about Mary that no one can know if it's true....

Christians avoiding Mary, not calling her Blessed, at times almost "dissing" her ... simply because they don't want to be associated with a certain denomination or with some late, unique dogmas of that one denomination....



Mary bore the Son of God.... Mary was "the chosen one," "the favored one" of God.... Mary had PROFOUND faith, humility and obedience.... Mary was loved and honored by Our Savior.... Mary was given the responsibility of bearing, raising and protecting him (which it seems she did very well - with the help of Joseph).... Now, maybe She was 9 feet tall and maybe not. Maybe She ate fish and maybe She was allergic to fish. Maybe She remained a virgin and maybe not. None of that seems to change ANYTHING. None of that makes Her role or faith or obedience ANY different. NONE of that makes her more or less worthy of our esteem, praise and thanks.


I "fault" the RCC a bit for (no doubt unintentionally and with sincerity) inventing a lot of (rather meaningless) "stuff" around Her- and eventually making that uber-divisive DOGMA. But I "fault" Evangelicals for their silliness in telling Catholics what meaning of their words they MUST mean when speaking of Mary and in their silliness of pushing Mary aside simply because She's seen as a Catholic.


Evangelicals and Catholics fight over a lot of stuff. None of it more silly and little of it more sad than this one.

 

[MennoSota]

No. I believe what the Church teaches.

Indeed, but your church teaches a myth.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's what makes me sad....


Christians FIGHTING over Mary.....

Christians spreading things (AS DOGMA!) about Mary that no one can know if it's true....

Christians avoiding Mary, not calling her Blessed, at times almost "dissing" her ... simply because they don't want to be associated with a certain denomination or with some late, unique dogmas of that one denomination....



Mary bore the Son of God.... Mary was "the chosen one," "the favored one" of God.... Mary had PROFOUND faith, humility and obedience.... Mary was loved and honored by Our Savior.... Mary was given the responsibility of bearing, raising and protecting him (which it seems she did very well - with the help of Joseph).... Now, maybe She was 9 feet tall and maybe not. Maybe She ate fish and maybe She was allergic to fish. Maybe She remained a virgin and maybe not. None of that seems to change ANYTHING. None of that makes Her role or faith or obedience ANY different. NONE of that makes her more or less worthy of our esteem, praise and thanks.


I "fault" the RCC a bit for (no doubt unintentionally and with sincerity) inventing a lot of (rather meaningless) "stuff" around Her- and eventually making that uber-divisive DOGMA. But I "fault" Evangelicals for their silliness in telling Catholics what meaning of their words they MUST mean when speaking of Mary and in their silliness of pushing Mary aside simply because She seems "Catholic" for them.


Evangelicals and Catholics fight over a lot of stuff. None of it more silly and little of it more sad than this one.

Mary bore a human baby who is God in flesh.
God blessed her with that privilege. God blessed her with caring for Him in human flesh as He grew. Those are awesome things, which is why Mary harbored all these experiences in her heart.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Christians spreading things (AS DOGMA!) about Mary that no one can know if it's true....

But the faithful can know it is true. They believe it because the Catholic Church teaches it. That is as sure and certain as anything from any source in Christianity. The bible was given to the faithful by the Church. Holy Tradition is given to the faithful by the Church. The Sacraments are given to the faithful by the Church. This is as it should be. There is no source that is more truthful on earth. No better place to go. Not to ancient Jewish fables about the canon of the old testament. Not to the whims and opinions of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingly, John Calvin, nor Menno Simons. Those who chose to leave the Church and to follow some other are reaping what they sow - as the holy scriptures say - Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8

Some will reply that they have the truth in their bibles, or in their bibles plus good sense, or maybe in their bibles plus tradition and good sound reasoning. If that is your view then you chose it and whatever comes of it is the just and proper consequence of the choice you made. A few will say that they reject all myths and fables in Christianity. They too make their choice and will reap the harvest of their choices. It is as it should be. Mercy is given to the merciful, say the holy scriptures, and wisdom to those who ask God for it. Time will tell.

If you want to accuse Blessed Mary of doing various sins that is a choice you have made. I choose not to make any such accusation. I choose to believe that The Blessed Virgin Mary lived a life that is all that the Catholic Church says it was; just, pure, unspotted by sin and all by the grace and mercy of God.

 

[Andrew]

Even if she were sinless what difference does it make? Jesus tells us to worship God alone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even if she were sinless what difference does it make? Jesus tells us to worship God alone.

The difference it makes is in showing respect. I call the Lord's mother Blessed Mary, in keeping with the holy scriptures, but others resist that preferring other names. titles, pronouns or abandoning any signs of respect.

 

[Andrew]

The difference it makes is in showing respect. I call the Lord's mother Blessed Mary, in keeping with the holy scriptures, but others resist that preferring other names. titles, pronouns or abandoning any signs of respect.

I certainly don't find "Blessed Mary" offensive but debating over it is incidental, it's just noise to me.
This thread is over her being sinless right? I guess we will never know and one can only speculate. Scripture does point to her being blessed, as for her sins or lack of -the scripture is not worried about it, the Apostles weren't worried about it, I don't think it's any of our concern either.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This thread is over her being sinless right? I guess we will never know...

You may not know, I do know. You may not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church but I do.