To place a human being at a level anywhere close to the Christ and God is heresy notwithstanding it be "decided" by some counsel of mere men whether they be elders in any church or not. 
Posted on 09/20/2004 3:43:25 AM PDT by Stubborn
"If the Son is a King, then the Mother who bore Him should be looked upon as a queen and sovereign."
"Since the flesh of Mary was no different from that of Jesus, how can we deny to the Mother the same royal dignity we find in the Son? . . . So I would consider the glory of the Son not as something shared with His Mother, but as her glory too."
If Jesus is the King of the universe, then Mary is its Queen. And as Queen, she possesses by right the whole Kingdom of her Son.
Yes, I would agree with this. I believe the author is right in line with what I said. Mary was blessed not because she carried our Lord Jesus. She was blessed because she was obedient.
And since the Jewish law said that a woman in her condition should be stoned, you could say she was willing to suffer deep humiliation and death for her faith than to be disobedient.
Saint Damasus comissioned Saint Jerome to translate the whole Bible into Latin. Saint Jerome's version of the Holy Scriptures in Latin is the one that has been recited by all Catholic priests from his day (420) to ours. It took Saint Jerome fourteen years to make his first version in Latin of the Holy Scripture in what is known as the Vulgate.
He is the Doctor of the Church who beautifully let us know that Saint Cleophas was the brother of Saint Joseph. This explains why Saint James, Saint Simon and Saint Jude, the sons of Saint Cleophas, and Saint James the Greater and Saint John, his grandsons, are referred to as "the bretheren of Our Lord."
If Jesus had a mother? Are you actually denying that Mary was the Mother of God?
If you do not have Mary for your mother, you cannot hope to have God for your father.
All of God's chosen will be present with our Lord Jesus in His heavenly reign. Would you subscribe anything less to Joseph just because he was not present for all those events?
Do the masses know that Luther, Calvin (and one other person) firmly kept their beliefs about the Virgin Mary??
Id they don't believe me -- they can put in the names Luther, Calvin, perpetual virginity Blessed Virgin Mary into Google and it will bring up the article.
And all this is in the green apologetics book, too!
Well, if you feel Calvin was right about that then you must believe he was right on a number of issues that were far more important. Can I welcome you to the GRPL? We're looking for members.
Further points on the Immaculate Conception are here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1222429/posts
But to answer your point:
"How can you hold that Mary never sinned in light of Paul's statement...
....
Specifically, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"."
This statement must be capable of admitting exceptions, because we see his disciple/secretary St. Luke asserting the following:
Lk 1,5 "In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6. Both were RIGHTEOUS IN THE EYES OF GOD, OBSERVING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESSLY."
If you want a precedent of a Saint who was sanctified from the womb, then St. Luke also provides us with this when St. Gabriel announces the birth of the Baptist:
Lk 1,15 "for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God."
False. Babies have committed no personal sins, but they still need a Savior. (Pelagians believe otherwise, but they are wrong.)
If you do not have Mary for your mother, you cannot hope to have God for your father.
Well ... if Mary is your mother ... and Mary is God's mother ... wouldn't that make God ... your brother ?
To suggest a married couple never had sex is just silly.
It's not so much the case that it's silly.
It's much more the case that it is a clear violation of Scripture ...1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband.
***This statement must be capable of admitting exceptions, because we see his disciple/secretary St. Luke asserting the following: Both were RIGHTEOUS IN THE EYES OF GOD, OBSERVING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESSLY." ***
But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless" and therefore exempt from the passage in Romans because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief...
"And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
Luke 1:18-20
Zechariah was clearly punished because he "did not believe". He did something wrong and got rebuked for it by the angel. Lack of faith is a sin as Paul says here...
Romans 14:22
... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
***If you want a precedent of a Saint who was sanctified from the womb...HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB,***
Truly he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and Jesus calls him the greatest of all those born of woman, but this didn't render him "sinless". If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?""
Matt - 3:13-15
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus.
Well, I can't say that I blame you. We do have a reputation for being banned. :O)
To place a human being at a level anywhere close to the Christ and God is heresy notwithstanding it be "decided" by some counsel of mere men whether they be elders in any church or not.
False.
Babies have a sin nature, and they need a Savior.
Mary had a Savior: Jesus.
I realize you are probably well aware of this, so I'm not sure why you are even arguing this point, but I will post the following for those readers who aren't aware that the Old Testament was translated into Greek before Christ.
In the Old Testament which was used by the Greek speaking Jews (translated and approved by 250 B.C., making it the oldest text available, even older than the Hebrew texts which are around that only date to the 6th century A.D.), the word is the same- heos. That means that even if you reject the Septuagint (not sure why, but let's just say you do), you have to concede that those who translated the text sometime prior to 250 years before Christ thought the word "heos" fit perfectly well in that sentence.
There are more cases, though, than just that reference. I found this short list on a fairly reliable website, so since I don't have time to go in and check each instance I will just list this below and come back to it later:
Genesis 26:13, Deuteronomy 2:15, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Tobit 2:5, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, Isaiah 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.