What sin did Mary do?

[Brighten04]

Why is it so important to some that Mary be sinless? She is NOT the savior.

 

[Josiah]

Catholic teaching is not drawn from reasoning about private personal individual interpretations.

The RCC forbids all but it itself - exclusively - from any authoritative interpretation of anything: it's ALL the private, individual interpretation of it itself alone. See what the individual RC Denomination says about such in the current, latest edition Catechism of it itself number 85.

This is what the singular, individual RC Denomination currently insists:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The individual, private RC Denomination thus has the most radical from of individual interpretation on the planet. What a silly, absurd, ironic thing for it to itself it's bad for self to insist that only self can authentically interpret Scripture! Hahahaha! Remember, too, that the "Scripture" that the RCC itself alone insists that ONLY it itself alone can interpret is not found in any book but only in the "heart" of it itself alone! Amazing. THAT denomination then rebukes others who insists only self can authentically interpret Scripture? Beyond laughable.


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's a grace to receive God's revealed truth and another grace to believe it. That is why the Catechism says

The Magisterium of the Church

​

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",(Luke 10:16) The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.​

Faith is a grace and a mystery, not that faith is incomprehensible but rather that it's giving is fully in the hands of God who gives it to whom he pleases. The faithful believe God because he is their Father and he loves them more than they love themselves and he know them better than they know themselves. Because of God's fatherhood, his love, and his wisdom the faithful receive his teaching with docility and this is a good thing. It is the rebellious who contend against God and rebellion is sin. That is why revolutions in politics and in religion are fundamentally wicked. There's no virtue in demanding that everything be bent to suit one's own personal private individual interpretations. That demand is nothing but arrogant pride. It leads to rebellion and destruction.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why is it so important to some that Mary be sinless? She is NOT the savior.

It is important for this reason Then, in the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel was sent by God, to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary. And upon entering, the Angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." Luke 1:26-28, The Blessed Virgin Mary is called virgin by God and such she is and such she remains. Some place their trust in their own intellect and their own ability to interpret what is written in the holy scriptures more than they trust what God says. Jesus was tempted by one who offered his own private interpretation of the words of God in the holy scriptures and Jesus replied to him this way: "It has been written: "Not by bread alone shall man live, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." " Long has it been known that the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes but the faithful are not deceived by the devil's interpretations. In fact it's been known from the beginning that the devil is a liar and the father of lies. It was he who offered his own personal private and individual interpretation of what God had said to Adam in the garden. It is the devil that said "Why has God instructed you, that you should not eat from every tree of Paradise?" and when his first attempt to deceive was repulsed with the truth of what God said the devil went from bad to worse and said "By no means will you die a death. For God knows that, on whatever day you will eat from it, your eyes will be opened; and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So do not be surprised that the faithful in Christ turn away from alluring promises freedom and knowledge offered by the merchants of doubt and deceit even when they speak as if they were God's servants offering the correct interpretation of God's words. The faithful know better than to follow private interpretations - Understand this first: that every prophecy of Scripture does not result from one's own interpretation. For prophecy was not conveyed by human will at any time. Instead, holy men were speaking about God while inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[tango]

Saint John Chrysostom said that Mary was guilty of the sin of vanity at the miracle of Cana.

I don't know if it's meaningful to speculate as to what sins one or other person might have committed.

The Bible says that David was righteous in all his dealings save for the matter of Uriah the Hittite (1Ki 15:5) and in the light of this explicit statement we can reasonably conclude that, aside from that matter, David's life wasn't riddled with sin.

On the other hand we don't see specifically what sins Isaiah had committed but we can see him crying out "Woe is me for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips" (Is 6:5)

The teaching that Mary was sinless does, on first inspection, appear to have some merit. If the very ground that Jesus walked on was holy it isn't a huge leap to figure that the womb that bore him must also be holy and therefore the owner of that womb must be holy. But if we take that to its logical conclusion we have to ask other questions, such as how Mary's mother could have borne a sinless woman unless she herself was sinless? And from there we have to ask how Mary's grandmother could have borne a daughter as holy as Mary's mother unless she was also sinless and chain everything together back to the conclusion that Eve must have been sinless, which we know to be false.

So on that basis I don't think we can support the theory that Mary was sinless, even if we don't have a specific record of what specific sins we might have committed. In that regard it's really much like you and I looking at each other - neither of us knows the sins the other is prone to commit yet we can both accept that neither of us are sinless.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't know if it's meaningful to speculate as to what sins one or other person might have committed.

The Bible says that David was righteous in all his dealings save for the matter of Uriah the Hittite (1Ki 15:5) and in the light of this explicit statement we can reasonably conclude that, aside from that matter, David's life wasn't riddled with sin.

On the other hand we don't see specifically what sins Isaiah had committed but we can see him crying out "Woe is me for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips" (Is 6:5)

The teaching that Mary was sinless does, on first inspection, appear to have some merit. If the very ground that Jesus walked on was holy it isn't a huge leap to figure that the womb that bore him must also be holy and therefore the owner of that womb must be holy. But if we take that to its logical conclusion we have to ask other questions, such as how Mary's mother could have borne a sinless woman unless she herself was sinless? And from there we have to ask how Mary's grandmother could have borne a daughter as holy as Mary's mother unless she was also sinless and chain everything together back to the conclusion that Eve must have been sinless, which we know to be false.

So on that basis I don't think we can support the theory that Mary was sinless, even if we don't have a specific record of what specific sins we might have committed. In that regard it's really much like you and I looking at each other - neither of us knows the sins the other is prone to commit yet we can both accept that neither of us are sinless.

Nobody says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is sinless as Christ was sinless. The contrary is maintained. Namely that Blessed Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin and that she committed no sins in her daily life yet it is acknowledged that Blessed Mary was born of the seed of Adam and hence was affected by original sin albeit that she was preserved from the harm that original sin works in human character and thus free from the stain of original sin. There is too much confusion in the way this topic is approached because people who oppose Mary's immaculate conception do so without knowing either what "immaculate conception" means or what Original sin (also called ancestral sin) means.

 

[Josiah]

The RCC forbids all but it itself - exclusively - from any authoritative interpretation of anything: it's ALL the private, individual interpretation of it itself alone. See what the individual RC Denomination says about such in the current, latest edition Catechism of it itself number 85. "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."


The individual, private RC Denomination thus has the most radical from of individual interpretation on the planet. What a silly, absurd, ironic thing for it to itself it's bad for self to insist that only self can authentically interpret Scripture! Hahahaha! Remember, too, that the "Scripture" that the RCC itself alone insists that ONLY it itself alone can interpret is not found in any book but only in the "heart" of it itself alone! Amazing. THAT denomination then rebukes others who insists only self can authentically interpret Scripture? Beyond laughable.


- Josiah



.

There's no virtue in demanding that everything be bent to suit one's own personal private individual interpretations.

I agree.

Thus your repudiation of your individual denomination, for NO OTHER does what you condemn so radically, so boldly - INSISTING on the very thing you reject. Yup. I agree with you - it's one of the reasons I left your denomination, you are absolutely correct: we should repudiate any individual person, parish or denomination that so boldly insist that ONLY it itself - uniquely, exclusively, solely, only, individually - may authoritatively interpret Scripture. And yes, obviously and undeniably, it itself "bends" it to it's own advantage, often in ways that are truly laughable and incredible, as you yourself have often shown. Yup, it's one of the reasons I left your denomination, because I agree with your condemnation and repudiation.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, your posts are full of self-quotation, why? Do you believe that making your old posts bold and red makes them more important and impressive?

 

[Josiah]

The RCC forbids all but it itself - exclusively - from any authoritative interpretation of anything: it's ALL the private, individual interpretation of it itself alone insists the RCC itself for the RCC itself alone, exclusively, individually.

See what the individual RC Denomination says about such in the current, latest edition Catechism of it itself number 85. "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Roman Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."


The individual, private RC Denomination thus has the most radical from of individual interpretation on the planet. What a silly, absurd, ironic thing for it to itself it's bad for self to insist that only self can authentically interpret Scripture! Hahahaha! Remember, too, that the "Scripture" that the RCC itself alone insists that ONLY it itself alone can interpret is not found in any book but only in the "heart" of it itself alone! Amazing. THAT denomination then rebukes others who insists only self can authentically interpret Scripture? Beyond laughable.


- Josiah



.

There's no virtue in demanding that everything be bent to suit one's own personal private individual interpretations.

I agree.

Thus your repudiation of your individual denomination, for NO OTHER does what you condemn so radically, so boldly - INSISTING on the very thing you reject. Yup. I agree with you - it's one of the reasons I left your denomination, you are absolutely correct: we should repudiate any individual person, parish or denomination that so boldly insist that ONLY it itself - uniquely, exclusively, solely, only, individually - may authoritatively interpret Scripture. And yes, obviously and undeniably, it itself "bends" it to it's own advantage, often in ways that are truly laughable and incredible, as you yourself have often shown. Yup, it's one of the reasons I left your denomination, because I agree with your condemnation and repudiation.


.

Do you believe that making your old posts bold and red makes them more important and impressive?

I agreed with your condemnation of what the RC Denomination does most of all.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

:smirk:

 

[tango]

It's important to note that "all have sinned ..." is in the past tense at the time that saint Paul wrote it. He is referring to original sin and that is a sin in which all natural descendants of Adam & Eve are implicated. Yet Blessed Mary was given redeeming grace from the instant of her conception so the "stain of original sin" was not applied to her.

You mentioned scriptures supporting this, can you provide references?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You mentioned scriptures supporting this, can you provide references?

And he came to her and said, "Hail full of Grace, the Lord is with you!"[SUP] Luke 1:28[/SUP]

 

[Lamb]

What does full of grace mean to you, MC?

 

[Josiah]

This comes from Matt Slick at CARM...

The Bible and "full of grace"


The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.


1."And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).

2."And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).


The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?



The Latin Vulgate

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate and inaccurate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.


So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let's find out.

1.The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - "having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."
2.The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
3.American Standard Version - "And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
4.English Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
5.Today's English Version - '"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
6.King James Version- "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
7.New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
8.New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.
9.New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!
10.Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'
11.New Revised Standard Version - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
12.The New Century Version - The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”
13.New Living Translation - Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!'”
14.The Cambridge Paragraph Bible - And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, 'thou that art 'highly favoured, 'the Lord is with thee: 'blessed art thou among women.
15.The Holman Christian Standard Bible - "And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you."
16.International Standard Version - '"The angel'' came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

•5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
•5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.2


Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary."


.

.

 

[Lamb]

I was hoping to hear MC's version But thanks!

 

[Josiah]

thanks!

Welcome! I hope it was helpful to see what Scripture says. As Rev. Slick correctly points out, much of the Catholic spin here depends on the wrong, false translation of the Greek that Jerome made in the Latin Vulgate Bible. Since such is actually never made of Mary but IS made of Stephen, their apologetic (if valid) would apply to Stephen, not Mary.


I'm not arguing anything there.... just trying to keep things honest. I honor the RC Denomination for being one of the few that acknowledges the faith, piety, example and role of Mary ( I wish many more Protestants would pay attention). On the other hand, if one is going to invent an idea.... then officially/formally declare it as matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE and GREATEST CERTAINTY POSSIBLE and divide Christiandom over this - they should have something pretty solid in which to support it as TRUE. Apologetics is not the presentation of arguments that mean such COULD be true (nearly every silly idea invented COULD be true!) but rather to support it AS TRUE - AND to the level claimed. In the case of the very new and very unique RCC Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that's as a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible (de fide Dogma). COULD it be? Sure. Is it TRUE? Is it DE FIDE DOGMA? Ah inissues Catholics often run away from as fast as they can.... or worse, present things that actually are false (as Rev. Slick notes in th above quote). Sad. And IMO, very disrespectful to Our Lady.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does full of grace mean to you, MC?

"Full of Grace" is, in Greek, κεχαριτωμένη· which means "having been greatly graced" the idea expressed in it is that Blessed Mary possessed a grace from God that was superlative in character having been graced by God in abundance hence "full of grace". It's implication in Catholic teaching is that Mary was perfected in and by grace given by God - a grace given so that she could be the mother of the Lord. The tense of the word indicates a grace given in the past while the word is used as if it were the name of Mary. These things are not "what it means to me" but rather the meaning of the word as a word. What it signifies to me at a personal level - its subjective meaning - is that God's goodness can be relied upon even before I am aware of it so that God's grace depends on God wholly and completely. Paul notes that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." [SUP]Romans 11:29[/SUP] in Blessed Mary's case and in mine. But for Blessed Mary God's grace is itself superlative while for me the grace given is of a kind common to all the faithful nevertheless it is from the same source and has the same certainty as the greatest grace given to any creature and that is a great comfort.

 

[Lamb]

Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.

That's what some biblical translations say. How does highly favored equate to being sinless?

 

[Josiah]

deleted by poster; double post

 

[Josiah]

Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.

That's what some biblical translations say. How does highly favored equate to being sinless?

Good question.

Actually "full of grace" is said in Scripture of only two: Jesus and Stephen.

The Greek itself shows that NOTHING of merit is being revealed about Mary - nothing whatsoever. The whole point is that GOD is bestowing favor; God is blessing her. NOT that she is - anything. NOT that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty possible that she was conceived without original sin.