Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]

BlackCordelias ^ | July 13, 2009 | BFHU

[NYer]

Q. Mary, like every other Jew of her time, was born under law. In other words, under the old covenant, she had to obey the 10 Commandments and all the ceremonial laws given by God through Moses. For example, we see her observing the pregnancy and childbirth laws here:

(Luke 2:22-24) When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord She must also bring to the priest a lamb for a burnt offering and a dove for a sin offering. The priest will then offer them to the Lord to make atonement for her.

A. The above quotation of Luke is inaccurate Here is what the NIV actually says:

When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

Q. Now, if Mary was always pure and sinless, why did she go through the purification period? Why did she offer a sacrifice for sin to the priest? Why would the priest need to make atonement for her to cleanse her?

Leviticus 12:1-8 The LORD said to Moses, ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period… . 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering

A. These are very good and very legitimate questions. Of course, being ceremonially unclean is not equivalent to being sinful. The laws here are going to apply to everyone. They would not have written these laws with one immaculate virgin in mind. But scripture does seem to indicate in Luke, that Mary offered a sin offering.

Good point about Mary’s sin offering. But the Catholic reply would be that she offered the sin offering out of humility and to avoid scandal and to fulfill all righteousness, (Mt. 3) just as her Divine Son was baptized in the Jordan by John. John’s baptism was for repentance and yet we both agree Jesus did not need to be baptized b/c He did not need to repent of any sin. And yet He submitted to baptism. And Mary offered the sin offering according to the Law. Both fulfilled all righteousness in humility.

Q. As we have seen, Mary was born under law and she observed the Law of Moses with regard to pregnancy and childbirth. But the Bible says that no one can become righteous in God’s sight by observing the law. In fact, the purpose of the law is to increase sin in man and show man his utter sinfulness, hopelessness and, hence, need for God’s grace.

If Mary was born without sin and never sinned, it would mean that she perfectly obeyed the entire Law of Moses (the 10 Commandments and more than 360 ceremonial laws) in thought, word and deed, all of the time, and thus, achieved righteousness by the law!

A. No, she did not achieve righteousness by the law. She was righteous from her conception by the power of God. And yes, she kept the entire law.

Q. So, Mary did not need “the righteousness from God, apart from the law” that “comes through faith in Jesus Christ”? In other words, she did not need Jesus to die for her sins because she had none — she was not a sinner!

A. She certainly did need Jesus to save her. True, she was not a sinner but she certainly DID have faith in Jesus Christ her Divine Son. She was the first believer. She was saved by Jesus from sin BEFORE she sinned by a unique grace of God Almighty. Surely God could do this if He wanted to do it. Just as Jesus’ death saves all people, even those who lived and died before His incarnation, so His salvation through His death and resurrection was applied to Mary before it actually happened in time.

Q. Matthew 11:11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Even the most “insignificant” Christian is greater than the most prominent Old Testament prophet! To be made righteous by the blood of Christ, to be born again as a child of God, and to know Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is far better than being a mighty Old Testament prophet who is not walking in the New Covenant.

A. And Our Blessed Mother would most definitely fall into this category. So, she too, as a Christian and in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist.

Q. Jesus said that “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist”.

A. This must be referring to OT people. Because Jesus also was born of woman and yet we both agree He is the greatest of all.

Q. So, if anyone is to be put on a pedestal, why have the Catholics chosen Mary instead of the greater John the Baptist?

A. Because she is the mother of Our Lord and unlike Eve, she was perfectly obedient to God.

Q. I mean no disrespect to Mary or John the Baptist. But Christians should merely give them the same honour and respect they give to any Christian. Only Jesus is to be exalted above all!

A. Jesus is exalted above all. We worship Him. We honor Mary for who she is we do not worship her.

Q. Jesus’ response when someone called Mary blessed: Luke 11:27,28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

The woman in the crowd was impressed with Jesus’ teaching, but, she gave the glory to Mary. Jesus’ response did two things. It shifted the focus from one person—Mary—to ANYONE who hears the Word of God and obeys it. This, in turn, puts Mary on equal footing with anyone who hears the Word of God and obeys it.

A. True. And, of course, Mary also heard the word of God and obeyed it. All who do this are blessed just as Jesus said. This is true. I would submit that Jesus’ response did redirect the woman’s focus from honoring His mother to the necessity that this woman attend to her own salvation. But, it in no way indicates that Mary is thus equal in every way to any Christian who hears and obeys Jesus regardless of the perfection of their obedience. But she would be equal to any Christian who believed and obeyed perfectly.
In closing , I would like to say that you have submitted some very good and thoughtful questions. I have also submitted to you a different way to understand the same scriptures. I hope you can see that it is possible to interpret the same scriptures differently. This is the very reason there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations.

The basic difference between Protestant interpretation of scripture and Catholic is that for us the Faith existed before the NT scriptures were written down. So the NT is a product of the Catholic Faith and is not contrary to any of our beliefs and doctrines.

For instance, no one in the Catholic Church sat down and read the Angelic salutation in Luke 1–”Hail Full of Grace..” thought it over and said, “I know, this must mean that Mary was sinless, immaculate from the first instance of her conception!”

If the Catholic Church had done that Protestant derision would be deserved. But no, that is not why we cite this verse. The Catholic Church has always believed in the immaculate conception of Mary. This was never seriously questioned until some time after the Protestant Reformation. (Even Luther believed in her immaculate conception.)We cite this verse in response to Protestant demands for scripture. And because we know that Protestants will only consider scripture Catholics give the scriptural evidence we have for our beliefs. Protestants will then often scoff because they think we derived our doctrine and dogma from what seems to them insubstantial scriptural evidence. But as I said above, our doctrines do not come out of scripture in the same way Protestants derive their doctrine. Our doctrine comes directly from the teaching of Jesus to the apostles to us.

On the other hand, Protestants, 1500 years later, read scriptures and then decide what is to be believed based on their own private interpretation.

By the way this is proscribed in

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

The reason I am Catholic is that for many scriptures there are more than one way to interpret them. I have decided that the oldest Church, the one that can trace her origin back to the apostles, founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, is the one church most likely to KNOW how the scriptures should be interpreted.

Protestant individuals, 1500 – 2000 years removed from the events in the NT, are pretty much on their own. Their hope is that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth but this has not been the case since the differences in Protestant interpretation has spawned thousands of different denominations in direct opposition to Jesus’ desire that we all be ONE.

[Kolokotronis]

“The Catholic Church’s position on Mary’s sin is more complex and nuanced than some are assuming, it seems to me.”

What you have presented is neither complex nor nuanced. It is straightforward and simple and about as nuanced as the Dictatus Papae. For Latins, the Most Holy Theotokos was not created like other human beings. She was, in effect, a goddess and her Son, therefore, not at all True Man. I’d be troubled by that, were I you because that’s heresy. I’d be even more troubled that this heresy is occasioned, more precisely necessitated, by an unnecessary misunderstanding of the Sin of Adam.

“As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary’s soul had she not been miraculously preserved.”

Infected indeed! Here’s your problem, bdeaner. Without that nonsense you wouldn’t need the IC nor would you be in the unenviable position of denying Christ’s humanity by making his mother either a goddess or perhaps a robot by papal fiat.

Tell us, bdeaner, since Panagia was “impeccable” because God made it impossible for her to sin, why should she, who could not sin, be an example of anything to those of us who can and struggle not to, much less be an object of our veneration?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I understand the Catholic teaching on the sinless nature of Mary; my contention is not with the teaching per se, but the foundation to make such a pronouncement in the first place. The section you quoted regarding the Catechism simply states it as such; it does not provide any basis for the claim.

Given this, I am arguing that the doctrinal position itself is unsupported. Most Catholics begin with the supposition that the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church is correct, and thus look to interpret writings and scripture in a way to support the Catholic Church's position. In other words use the Catholic Church's teachings to color the reading of scripture.

ASIDE: We have, in fact, addressed this earlier in this thread. You are free to interpret the scripture how you wish as long as you do so within the existing interpretations and pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Essentially, your conclusions must be the same, and must not contradict or even question other positions of the Catholic Church.

However, I am asking you to consider how the Catholic Church reached its position. To accept a position as correct you either accept it on faith (sola fide) or you see a firm, well supported basis for the position. Knowing the aversion within the Catholic Church for a sola fide position for doctrinal issues, let us look at to scripture and tradition - the pillars of doctrine within the Catholic Church - for formation of the foundation of this doctrine.

What is the basis for this position? My contention is that it cannot be scriptural, since in the case of the immaculate conception of Mary, the conclusion of the Catholic Church hinges on one, ill-defined and ambiguous verse (Luke 1:28). The scriptural basis is tenable to start - one verse which addresses Mary's CURRENT state, not her ever-existent nature. Furthermore, we find subsequent scriptural passages calling others full of grace and full of the Holy Spirit, and immaculate conception and sinless natures are not attributed to these other individuals. To the contrary, we find multiple scriptures in the Old and New Testament (and the Gospels and word of Christ as well) stating that all since Adam have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

Thus, given the thin nature of the scriptural basis, the Catholic Church must rely on tradition. If it cannot make an irrefutable case scripturally, then the Catholic Church turns to tradition and its own writings. This becomes a sticky morass as well, since early tradition supports both sides of the debate; it is only well into the middle ages at the Council of Trent that the issue is first strongly stated (though not ex cathedra, which would happen 300 years later). Note this is after the scism between the Catholic and Orthodox branches.

I would submit that the fact that the Orthodox Churches do not hold to the same conclusion (Mary's immaculate conception) shows that it is still not settled; in fact, given the parallel timelines and historical claims to primacy of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and the fact that the immaculate conception (Mary's sinless nature) only became irrefutable doctrine in the Catholic Church in 1854, one could argue that the Orthodox position (Mary was conceived with original sin) is actually the one with the stronger reliance on tradition!

Thus we are left with a difficult conclusion: the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception and her inherently sinless (incuding original sin) nature is simply accepted because it is stated; it is self-supporting and is by faith and faith alone.

Personally, as a protestant, I believe that one can hold positions of doctrine by faith and faith alone (for the entire foundation of Christianity is built on faith!). If this is the position, so be it. However, it should be stated as such, and appeals to "prove" this position should be avoided since it would only show a weaker measure of that same faith.

[DungeonMaster]

The vessel in which He chose to enter this world, however, was without sin.

Without scriptural support.

[DungeonMaster]

Nothing in Scripture indicates the teachings of Christ solely appear in Scripture.

The Bereans search the scriptures daily to see if the oral traditions/teachings of the apostles were true. Therefore you are incorrect about what the scriptures say of themselves.

[DungeonMaster]

On the contrary. An implicit reference ca be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

All the wordsmithing in the world will not make "full of grace" mean "Empty of sin". Grace simply does not mean sinlessness. Infact it means the opposite, the more Grace God shows to one, the more sin that one has to be overlooked in or do be blessed. The definition of the word forces the notion of the sin remaining, otherwise there is no need for grace.

[Mr Rogers]

I believe this statement “Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive.” is a misunderstanding of what the perfect tense means. It is a grammar term, and I’ve read that it merely means the act was complete. Hence, in Luke 1:27, her engagement to Joseph used the perfect past participle - it merely means she was fully and completely engaged to be married - not that she had perfectly been engaged, better than anyone had ever been engaged before, or that her engagement would last forever and ever, or that she had been engaged from all eternity.

[bdeaner]

She was, in effect, a goddess and her Son, therefore, not at all True Man.

That's a straw man argument if I ever saw one. The Roman Catholic Church never has and never will teach the doctrine that Mary is a goddess. Her righteousness was not her own; it was a gratuitous gift of grace from the Lord, so that she could become the Holy Ark of the New Convenant that would carry the Word into the world. Nothing in this doctrine even remotely implies Mary was a goddess.

I’d be even more troubled that this heresy is occasioned, more precisely necessitated, by an unnecessary misunderstanding of the Sin of Adam.

First of all, let's be mindful of the important ecumenical relationship that has been established by the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. As you know, in 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Anthenagoras mutually lifted the anathemas, so neither consideres the other to be hereitcal nor schismatic, and both recognize the true sacraments of the other, with Christ at the center. Benedict XVI continues with a very receptive, warm ecumenical relationship with the Patroiarch of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in Istanbul. So, throwing accusations of heresy at Roman Catholic doctine seems to be at ends with the spirit of your Patiarchs. Please do not exaggerate differences more than is necessary, which only serves to foster further antagonism between East and West, when what we need to do is work toward unity.

With that said, I simply do not accept the Eastern Orthodox view of original sin, and therefore believe the Immaculate Conception doctrine is absolutely necessary and without error.

As Taylor Marshall pointed out in a blog, the Eastern Orthodox are stalwart defenders of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. However, two of these Ecumeical Councils (Ephesus in 430 and Nicea II in 787) received the explicitly Augustinian conciliar canons of the Council of Carthage in AD 418.

This Council of Carthage canonized nine beliefs to be received the Church. These nine statments were put forth to deny the errors of Pelagius. They are as follows:

1. Death came from sin, not man's physical nature.
2. Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
3. Justifying grace covers past sins and helps avoid future sins.
4. The grace of Christ imparts strength and will to act out God's commandments.
5. No good works can come without God's grace.
6. We confess we are sinners because it is true, not from humility.
7. The saints ask for forgiveness for their own sins.
8. The saints also confess to be sinners because they are.
9. Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.


Every canon was accepted as a universal belief of the Church and banished all Pelagians from Italy. These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. There were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787.

This occurred when the Seventh Council ratified the Canons of Trullo (also called the Quinsext Council), which had received the Canons of the African Code which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of AD 418.

Sooooo...it looks to me that Eastern Orthodox are bound to accept the nine beliefs put forward by the Council of Carthage of 418, which states that infants must be baptized and "cleansed from original sin."

So it seems that the Augustinian tradition is not something peculiar to the West, but something canonized by the Conciliar tradition.

How do you answer to that one, Kolokotronis?

[bdeaner]

Grace simply does not mean sinlessness. Infact it means the opposite, the more Grace God shows to one, the more sin that one has to be overlooked in or do be blessed.

Grace actually means a gift that is unearned, or gratuitous (notice the etymological link between the words grace and gratuity). In theology, grace is the gift of righteousness or justification that is given to persons by God without our having earned or merited it. This is a basic theological point on which Catholics and Protestants are in complete agreement (but not Orthodox Catholics, as you will see above in another discussion).

So when Mary is said to be 'full of grace,' this means she is full of righteousness that is not merited nor earned, endowed by God, specifically for the purpose of her becoming the unsoiled Ark within which the Word made flesh may be carried into the world.

[annalex]

It is by letting the scripture speak for itself that we find out that both sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary make scriptural sense, and the fantasies about her being “quick to shed blood” and having given birth to God proceeding to make more little’uns like nothing happened make no scriptural sense.

Ditto for Purgatory, by the way. What do you think 1 Cor. 3:9-15 describes, AWANA class?

[thefrankbaum]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Nothing I'm saying disagrees with that. Notice what the passage doesn't say. It doesn't say "Only Scripture is given...etc. etc." Nowhere in Scripture does it say written texts constitute the entire corpus of the teachings of God. In fact, the last verse of John explicitly refutes that position.

[thefrankbaum]

The Bereans search the scriptures daily to see if the oral traditions/teachings of the apostles were true. Therefore you are incorrect about what the scriptures say of themselves.

And what Scriptures were they searching? The Revelation of John? The four Gospels? Of course not - they were searching the Jewish texts. They were seeing whether the oral teachings of the Apostles were consistent with the Old Testament. They found that the oral teachings were consistent, and thus believed. See my post above addressed to Iscool, and how Scripture, at the end of the Gospel of John, specifically indicates it does not contain the whole of Christ's teachings.

[Iscool]

Exemption from original sin must have been an extraordinary grace because other human beings, except Christ, are conceived with sin on their souls. However, this does not mean that Mary was necessarily exempt from the universal necessity or need of being subject to sin, i.e., "the debt of original sin," where two kinds of debt are to be distinguished. The remote debt (necessity) simply means membership in the human race, derived by ordinary propagation from sexual intercourse. Christ, other than Mary, did not incur this necessity. Mary did, and therefore had to be redeemed. The proximate debt involves inclusion in the willful act by which Adam, as representative of mankind, sinned and thereby implicated human nature in his fall. As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary's soul had she not been miraculously preserved.

Nice story...It reads like a novel but it's no more than a fairy tale...

It's like the Three Musketeers, or Conan the Barbarian, or the Never Ending Story...

And we know that because that's what God said when He said ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God...

The scriptures did not give any religion or any person the authority to add to, subtract from or change the scripture...It's anathema to God...

[Kolokotronis]

“Nothing in this doctrine even remotely implies Mary was a goddess.”

The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human. Whether she is a goddess (or the “Co-Redemptrix”) or not really is neither here nor there though many Latins seem headed in that direction.. If she wasn’t human, then Christ is no True Man.

“As you know, in 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Anthenagoras mutually lifted the anathemas, so neither consideres the other to be hereitcal nor schismatic, and both recognize the true sacraments of the other, with Christ at the center.”

That’s simply untrue. The anathemas which were lifted related to the anathemas of 1054, not to anything else. That event certainly did not end the schism. And we are not having a discussion of sacraments here.

“So, throwing accusations of heresy at Roman Catholic doctine seems to be at ends with the spirit of your Patiarchs.”

There is not a single Orthodox Patriarch who would disagree with what have written.

“These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431.”

They were? Pelagius was condemned but my quick look doesn’t indicate any adoption of the Augustinian notion of original sin. As for some of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 418, they were adopted by the Council of Trullo solely as disciplinary canons, not canons establishing The Faith. So far as I know, even Rome doesn’t accept all of them as viable today (for example, #9). As matters of discipline they accepted as binding on all The Church. They are NOT dogmatic matters of faith. They weren’t back then, even in the West, and they aren’t now. You should try to get a handle on some of these distinctions, bdeaner. They are important.

Tell us, why should we venerate someone whose sinlessness was a foregone conclusion? Why should her fiat be in any way at all spiritually inspiring?

[Mr Rogers]

Try READING 1 Corinthians 3, and then tell me again how it is about Purgatory - because it is painfully obvious that it is not.

[bdeaner]

Nice story...It reads like a novel but it's no more than a fairy tale...

Another fallacious argument lacking logical validity. This time, you argument fails because it falls prey to the fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) -- that is, the proposition to be proved is assumed in your premises. Nice try, but you're shooting blanks.

[Iscool]

According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

What you say is true...But there's one fatal flaw in you story...Your religion is not the Body of Jesus Christ...

Just like Mary being sinless, this is another fairy tale...

There is nothing in your religion that resembles the New Testament Church...

Your's is a mixture of Old Testament Synagogue worship, New Age Religion, Old Testament Priesthood, etc...

The veil to the Holiest of Holies is still intact in your relgion...You are indebted to do works to pay for your salvation...

If your religion ever at one time did follow the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, it immediately turned left as can be seen by the writings of some of your church fathers and the statements of the apostle Paul...

[bdeaner]

The IC posits that she is not human like the rest of us. That’s plain. Humans are born suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. The IC says Panagia was not “infected” with Original Sin. If Rome is right and we are “infected” with Original Sin or if the Fathers were right and we suffer the consequences of ancestral sin, if Pnagai was preserved from that then she isn’t human.

Another straw man argument. The Roman Catholic Church holds absolutely and without doubt that Mary was and is human, not divine.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception simply does not have the implications that you want it to have. If being without sin implied divinity, then by implication Adam and Eve would have been gods, not human beings. Clearly, Adam and Eve were human AND without sin, prior to the Fall. If they can be without sin and remain human, so can Mary. It's not brain surgery -- a pretty simple deduction.

Tell us, why should we venerate someone whose sinlessness was a foregone conclusion?

Based on your logic, we should not worship Christ because he had it easy, being without sin. I completely reject the premise of your argument. Mary suffered as a result of her obedience -- she had to watch her Son humiliated and die an agonizing death -- a choice she freely accepted by consenting to the Lord's request to bear His Son.

As for some of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 418, they were adopted by the Council of Trullo solely as disciplinary canons, not canons establishing The Faith. So far as I know, even Rome doesn’t accept all of them as viable today (for example, #9). As matters of discipline they accepted as binding on all The Church. They are NOT dogmatic matters of faith.

The issue is not whether they were dogmatic matters of faith, but the fact that no one of the Eastern Church condemned these doctrines at the time. Silence implies approval.

The anathemas which were lifted related to the anathemas of 1054, not to anything else. That event certainly did not end the schism. And we are not having a discussion of sacraments here.

You are splitting hairs. The point is that we should approach ecumenical dialogue in the same spirit as your Patriarchs this century, which has been generous, and for that many Roman Catholics are greatful and hopeful of resolving the schism that damages the Church and contradicts the wishes of Our Lord, who envisioned for us to be truly ONE holy catholic and apostolic Church. That is not a reason to abstain from the defense the Truth, of course, but there is a way to go about it with a spirit of generosity and a search for common ground rather than exaggerating doctrinal differences with straw man arguments and similar fallacious reasoning.

God bless.

[Mr Rogers]

“Ditto for Purgatory, by the way. What do you think 1 Cor. 3:9-15 describes, AWANA class?”

Lest anyone reading think there is some validity here, let’s review 1 Cor 3.5-15:

“What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

The ‘you’ is obviously the church at Corinth. Paul laid the foundation, which is Jesus Christ. Others are building on that foundation. But how they build is important.

If they build with metal and stone, so to speak, then their WORK will be judged by God as well done, when “the fire will test what sort of work each one has done”. Those who have been sloppy and built poorly - with wood or straw - will see their work burned up. “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

He will still be saved, but he will not receive the reward a good worker who has built soundly will receive.

No Purgatory. It is painfully clear that WE will not be burned, but that our works will be tested - “the fire will test what sort of work each one has done”. Our ministry. Not us.

When Erasmus wrote that scripture was hard to interpret, Luther laughed at him. Why? Because it is NOT that hard to interpret. If someone wants to debate the exact nature of Jesus, it becomes complex. Why? Because God didn’t reveal it to us, and we are not capable of figuring it out for ourselves. But that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, and that God is One? We may not understand it, but we can accept it.

Any moderately important doctrine is plainly revealed. It may not be easy to understand from a philosophical viewpoint, but it can be understood and accepted by anyone who wants to obey God.

Purgatory? No where to be found.

Mariology? No where to be found.

Indulgences? No where to be found.

Peter uber alles? No where to be found.

Saved by grace through faith? All over.

Eternal life by believing? All over.

All are sinners needing a saviour? All over.

Simple, unless one chooses to make it hard by refusing to accept the teaching of the Apostles and Scripture.

[Kolokotronis]

“The Roman Catholic Church holds absolutely and without doubt that Mary was and is human, not divine.”

Does Rome say she is a type of single member sub species of humanity? How is she human?

“If being without sin implied divinity, then by implication Adam and Eve would have been gods, not human beings. Clearly, Adam and Eve were human AND without sin, prior to the Fall.”

Adam and Eve were created in both the image and likeness of God. That’s what humans were before the Fall. Not after...except for Mary, apparently, who was created as something different from human beings. Where does it stop, bdeaner? Can you see why the Protestants wonder that you think she needed a Redeemer like all the rest of us?

“Based on your logic, we should not worship Christ because he had it easy, being without sin.”

Christ is God, bdeaner.

“Mary suffered as a result of her obedience — she had to watch her Son humiliated and die an agonizing death — a choice she freely accepted by consenting to the Lord’s request to bear His Son.”

bdeaner, I sincerely dout you venerate women who have held their sons as they die agonizing deaths. Surely you venerate Panagia for some reason other than her agony at the foot of the Cross.

“The issue is not whether they were dogmatic matters of faith, but the fact that no one of the Eastern Church condemned these doctrines at the time.”

bdeaner, whether or not the canons of the local council of Carthage are dogmatic canons relating to faith is precisely the issue.

“Silence implies approval.”

Oh, please!

“there is a way to go about it with a spirit of generosity and a search for common ground rather than exaggerating doctrinal differences with straw man arguments and similar fallacious reasoning.”

bdeaner, the IC is one of the matters which will need to be resolved at an ecumenical council. It is nearly as much a stumbling block as the claim of papal infallibility. There is no exaggerating the extent of the disagreement.

[Mr Rogers]

In response to, “Tell us, why should we venerate someone whose sinlessness was a foregone conclusion?”, you write, “Based on your logic, we should not worship Christ because he had it easy, being without sin.”

But Scripture says, “17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” - Hebrews 2, and

“15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” - Hebrews 4

Hmmm...Jesus “...in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

If Jesus was incapable of feeling any allure to sin, then He was NOT tempted as I have been, yet without sin.