Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[presently no screen name]

There is no need for you antagonism about this.

What I see is antagonism against God's Word. Do you think he can do a better job than Jesus already did? He must.

Heb 4:12 "For the Word of God is LIVING and ACTIVE. SHARPER than any double-edged sword, it PENETRATES even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart".

[1000 silverlings]

Luke 24:44

At the Transfiguration, Moses represented the Law and Elijah represented the Prophets.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, He was the Messiah

[Judith Anne]

Even a “thick skinned” poster can be disgusted by some of the behavior on the open threads.

[Grizzled Bear]

Your post reads like George Orwell’s 1984.

That’s not a compliment.

[presently no screen name]

Maybe Enoch was describing not so much a vision but was actually there

That would make someone (me) not want to come back. God, can I change my mind. ;)

[Running On Empty]

You know, this is just ridiculous. You don’t even accept that Pope Benedict’s book is a Biblical Commentary.

How you can construe that as him “thinking he can
do a better job than Jesus already did”-—well, I just can’t comprehend what your gripe is. It seems very unreasonable.

I won’t be responding to any further comments from you.

[lastchance]

You really should not post a small portion of an entire encyclical as a means of supporting your lies. I understand the whole encyclical is too difficult for you to understand as it covers the subject of human development in great detail. It lacks the simplicity of thought which you are fond of and does not allow for a pop up version of its content.

You claim it shows the Pope is communistic, anti free market and anti capitalism. I won’t explain Catholic teaching on economics except to say that it teaches that man must be the central concern of any economic system. Neither communism or unbridled free market capitalism can claim to do so. A capitalist economy with regulations to protect the dignity of personhood and to protect the fruits of one’s labor from exploitation is the best way to accomplish economic and social justice. We as Christians are not allowed to run roughshod over others in the name of making a profit. Profit is a laudable and necessary goal but it does not have to be a bloodthirsty one.

Your claim that Benedict’s writing is communistic shows you did not bother to understand the whole of his writing. You fail to even grasp that central to the encyclical is the Church teaching on charity in truth. It also implies that Benedict’s writing denies the centrality of faith for true economic development. Communism is linked to Atheism and you do not find one without the other. Your error is clear when we read:

“34. Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension. Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself, and it is a consequence — to express it in faith terms — of original sin. The Church’s wisdom has always pointed to the presence of original sin in social conditions and in the structure of society: “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals”[85]. In the list of areas where the pernicious effects of sin are evident, the economy has been included for some time now. We have a clear proof of this at the present time. The conviction that man is self-sufficient and can successfully eliminate the evil present in history by his own action alone has led him to confuse happiness and salvation with immanent forms of material prosperity and social action. Then, the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise.”

His conclusion refutes your attempts to spin the document to suit your prejudices.
“Development needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer, Christians moved by the knowledge that truth-filled love, caritas in veritate, from which authentic development proceeds, is not produced by us, but given to us. For this reason, even in the most difficult and complex times, besides recognizing what is happening, we must above all else turn to God’s love. Development requires attention to the spiritual life, a serious consideration of the experiences of trust in God, spiritual fellowship in Christ, reliance upon God’s providence and mercy, love and forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of others, justice and peace. All this is essential if “hearts of stone” are to be transformed into “hearts of flesh” (Ezek 36:26), rendering life on earth “divine” and thus more worthy of humanity. All this is of man, because man is the subject of his own existence; and at the same time it is of God, because God is at the beginning and end of all that is good, all that leads to salvation: “the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:22-23). Christians long for the entire human family to call upon God as “Our Father!” In union with the only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray to the Father and to ask him, in the words that Jesus himself taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living according to his will, to receive the daily bread that we need, to be understanding and generous towards our debtors, not to be tempted beyond our limits, and to be delivered from evil (cf. Mt 6:9-13).”

[presently no screen name]

Psst! Psst! Hey Laz, can you hear me? Listen Mary and Martha are a bit shook up. Sorry I was late. I can help you, if you want. Blink once for yes.

Is that more appropriate? LOL!!

Of course it was a command! Jesus took control over the situation.

[Running On Empty]

I am very indebted to you for this post.

Thank you, thank you. I have been hoping that someone would come along to respond to the erroneous charge being made.

Also, the quote from Ezek 36:26 is especially a propos, for the essence of our Christian lives and witness is not solely that we have been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, but that in that salvific grace we are also to be transformed by Him. It’s that transformation in Christ that completes our adoption as children of the Father.

[presently no screen name]

I just can’t comprehend what your gripe is

And it's been confirmed.

[Cronos]

Why exactly does your cult, the OPC believe that Jesus was just a man possessed by God and then abandoned on the Cross? That is a completely unChristian belief

[Cronos]

Actually, I posted the same name of the book, James, in multiple languages -- it's called Jakuba in Polish for example (and in quite a few other Germanic languages while it is Jacques or variants in Romance languages). We all err if we think that English is the only defining term. Another case raised is calling priests Fr. when for example in Poland they are called Ksiądz as a title, so we take what we read in English to mean the entire world (and I made the same mistake years earlier before I learnt a few other languages)

[Cronos]

" The Ark was the manifestation of God's physical presence on earth " -- sensible discussion, so let me respond. Why would you say it was the manifestation of God's presence rather than a manifestation of His Covenant? If it was a manifestation of God, then this would have been rejected as idol worship, correct? Since it was something fashioned by human hands.

The Ark was venerated for what it held, namely the Covenant with Moses. This was filled with the power and the glory of God. It did not represent God. Yes, it did indicate that God was amongst them, but it did not indicate the manifestation (i.e. the direct physical presence) of God amongst the Israelites.

This is quite in contrast to Jesus who WAS God amongst them -- Jesus was not a representation of God or even a manifestation of God.

Now on to the comparisons of MAry and the Ark of the first covenant -- the Ark did not hold God, you are correct, however it held what was the Covenant, what was within it was an indicator of the power of God. Mary contained much more, yes, she was the container, created by God, to temporarily contain Christ.

Christ was God, Christ was also the second Covenant. Mary was the container, the ark of the second covenant.

To say that Jesus was the Ark is to somehow say that Jesus was a container -- containing the second Covenant or containing God, both concepts of which are wrong and lead down to the path of denying His divinity

[RobbyS]

Well, does her virginity affect our salvation? Some progressive Christians think not. To them Matthew and Luke are just fables.

[RobbyS]

The Law being the Holy Covenant between the Father and Israel. Our Lord was not much on keeping the details of the Law. We honor Mary for being the perfect keeper of the New Covenant.

[Cronos]

The entire starting point or definition of Mary is not of herself, but of how God created this creature and how it can give us the tiniest glimpse of the entire majesty that is God. For instance — the term God-bearer, Theotokos, reinforces the knowledge that Jesus was God. Yet, we need to emphasise at the same time that He was Man and at the same time that He was both at the same time! The only way to do this is to emphasise that He was actually born of a woman, a woman, a creature, was His mother, yet not in any way His creator.

[Cronos]

Well, to be a Catholic, you must accept the entire kaboodle -- anything else makes you a cafetaria Catholic at best, a Nancy Pelosi/Teddy Kennedy at worst. I believe in the IC, but yes, I have my doubts. The thing about being Catholic is that we can question and ask, but we don't leave to form our own sub-division (EPC, OPC, BPC, CPC, ARPC etc) -- that's not meant to attack you, apologies

The Orthodox don't have the doctrines of Original Sin or the IC, because they tend to not be as legalistic as we in the Western Church are (and they have a strong point!). But, on the IC, Orthodox Christians say that Mary was without sin for her entire life. Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin (Kolokotronis, please correct me if this is wrong).

The thing about Orthodox concepts of this confuses me as they say

" But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God." Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church

yet they also reject the idea of Original Sin, so the net effect, to my understanding is "Mary did not have any individual sin and there is no Original Sin so she must have been sinless"

On their rejection of the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, I must say I like their approach, which as I understand it is that the act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free

[Cronos]

Well, it does not explicitly say that, you are correct — it says clearly “which are the prayers of saints”

[Cronos]

Actually, followers of British-Israelism who seem to believe that the Anglo-Saxons are the lost tribes and mix this with hyper-Calvinism do not know God and his loving kindness.

So they repeat their mantra Sham bash'em, trash'em and hash'em

[Cronos]

Please cite scripture which says everything should be in (as opposed to “should not contradict”) scripture.