Posted on 12/11/2010 4:16:03 PM PST by narses
My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden, For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with His arm: He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He has sent empty away. He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy; As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum, et exsultávit spíritus meus in Deo salvatóre meo, quia respéxit humilitátem ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam me dicent omnes generatiónes, quia fecit mihi magna, qui potens est, et sanctum nomen eius, et misericórdia eius in progénies et progénies timéntibus eum. Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo, dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui; depósuit poténtes de sede et exaltávit húmiles. Esuriéntes implévit bonis et dívites dimísit inánes. Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum, recordátus misericórdiæ, sicut locútus est ad patres nostros, Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio et Spirítui Sancto. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Jesus’s divinity is not dependent on Mary’s being sinless. Quite the contrary, the reason for this sinlessness is:
1. in God’s presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.
2. Jesus in the womb was still Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin — for her to be able to bear the Lord
Now her own parents being sinful did not affect this as Mary is just a creature, and sinlessness being in contact with sinfulness does not affect sinlessness (e.g. a newborn baby in contact with a sinful mother), but the blazing power of God that destroys anything that is tainted with sin, if that is kept in a box/womb which has even a slight stain of sin, that box/womb will be destroyed.
~ by Cronos
And the numbe rone problem I have with th e pro choice crowd-
is they must deny the fact that the babe in Elizabeths womb leapt for joy when John heard Mary’s voice. A baby at six months after the egg fertilized knew Jesus had been conceived—the Word had become flesh and was tabernacling among us.
Mary responded to the prophetic blessing by Elizabeth in like
manner providing a second witness that Scripture had been fulfilled.
1. in God’s presence, sin cannot stay, it is destroyed.
2. Jesus in the womb was still Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
3. To protect the bearer of God, she had to be made filled with grace and she had to be made free of sin — for her to be able to bear the Lord
now her own parents being sinful did not affect this as mary is just a creature, and sinlessness being in contact with sinfulness does not affect sinlessness (e.g. a newborn baby in contact with a sinful mother), but the blazing power of God that destroys anything that is tainted with sin, if that is kept in a box/womb which has even a slight tain of sin, that box/womb will be destroyed.
~ by Cronos
The scriptures teach us the Lord Jesus walked among us, yet sin was not destroyed. In the Old Testament our Lord walked among us before the flood. Yet, once again, sin was not destroyed. And, as we find in Peter, Christ descended into hell. Surely if there is one place that sin exist it is in hell.
But the strongest evidence we have that premise 1 is flawed is simply that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.
While I would agree with your 2nd premise, I find no scriptural support for your 3rd premise either.
As we can see by the scripture in premise 1, God has been in fact known to dwell among us even in our sinful nature. Clearly our Lord Jesus is an example of this, dwelling on earth with sin all around. He couldn't possibly have been tempted, now could he?
I would submit the whole reason of killing sin isn't the very presence of God. God appears numerous times to people without people dying. God's Holy Spirit indwelt David for David's anointed life-a period of which he plotted and murdered Uriah. Rather the method of killing sin was on Calvary's cross.
And while I appreciate Cronos' interpretation, there was no need for God to "protect the bearer of God" since God did and does in fact dwell among sinful creatures to reconcile us to Him. He did not need to "protect" a person from His wrath.
Rather He became our sin who knew no sin.
He was in only ONE womb. Just one. That womb and that soul magnified Our Lord and Savior. What other human souls have magnified Our Lord?
If God was magnified by the Soul of just one human being, and the Gospels tells us that was the case, how could a sin disordered soul magnify perfection?
How does Mary being sinless detract one jot or tittle from your conception of the faith? Contrariwise, why must you insist that the Mother of God was sinfilled to sustain your faith? Even the arch-heresiarch himself, Martin Luther, acknowledged Mary as sinless and a perpetual Virgin.
I would suggest that God is not magnified by us. He is magnified through us.
Scripture teaches that we can do nothing good of ourselves. God bring glory to Himself by working through us. We emulate His light. As Mary acknowledges, "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." God was not magnified by Mary. Rather God was magnified through using Mary. God was glorified. Yet Mary was blessed because people can look back on her as an example of God chosing a person to use.
... how could a sin disordered soul magnify perfection
How can a donkey talk? How can an iron ax float? How can the Red Sea part? God works in ways we cannot understand. The virgin birth was necessary in order for Christ to be stainless from the sins of Adam. This does not mean that Christ could not be surrounded by a sinful world. In fact He was.
...why must you insist that the Mother of God was sinfilled to sustain your faith?
I don't need to insist that Mary was sinful and I certainly don't need it to sustain my faith. The scriptures plainly states that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Mary states that "...my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." And we are told that "All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." If Mary is a sheep of God, then she went astray from time to time. It's just what the infallible word of God states. So I can either believe what I read in the unerring word of God or I can believe what sin filled people tell me.
If one will recall the story of Enoch in scripture, here was a person who lived such a wonderful life that the scriptures tells us that God took him. Enoch never saw death. Yet clearly the Church doesn't elevate Enoch to the same level as Mary.
The beauty of Mary is not that God kept her from a sin filled life. Rather the beauty of Mary is that God used her in spite of her fallen nature. He understands our falleness and helps us to understand our fallen nature, so that we might depend on Him to overcome this brokenness.
Even the arch-heresiarch himself, Martin Luther, acknowledged Mary as sinless and a perpetual Virgin.
I'm sure you would acknowledge Martin Luther was wrong on occasions. If he stated this, why would you believe this to be correct?
Indeed, but only ONE was chosen to Magnify the Lord as His Mother. Just one. And all the generations call her Blessed. Just One.
LOL. Mary and her role in God’s plan, her status as the sinless, perpetual Virgin has been accepted from the Apostles through today by the vast majority of Christians. Splinter sects deny these accepted Truths and word warble about details (and squabble amongst themselves over those details), but mainstream Christendom has NEVER accepted anything less than the Truth.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
I would agree. The beauty of Mary's song here is it is one that is sung by every believer.
I see nothing in the infallible word of God that supports this. John, who took care of Mary after our Lord's death on the cross, stated:
and
As far as extraneous writings written hundreds of years after the events, one has to remember that only the scriptures have been declared infallible by the Church. Everything else is prone to error.
Splinter sects deny these accepted Truths and word warble about details (and squabble amongst themselves over those details), but mainstream Christendom has NEVER accepted anything less than the Truth.
My, my. How we have lost our ecumenicalism, haven't we?
“I see nothing in the infallible word of God that supports this.”
No doubt. On the other hand, billions of Christians have and do, the Church has found infallibly that it is so and yet you cannot find anything that supports that point of view. Odd, no?
“...only the scriptures have been declared infallible by the Church.”
Not so. There are fringe sects that argue that point of view, but the Church certainly does not.
Aren't we straying from the ecumenical idea a bit? After all, we should be discussing Mary's Magnificant from everyone's view point if we're going to have an ecumenical discussion. That means we should keep to what precisely is written to satisfy us wacky Protestants. Leaving the pages of scripture to venture into Church's teaching is voyeurism.
Now if you want to discuss the infallibility of the Church, I would suggest that is not an ecumenical discussion.
“Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities.”
You state a belief common to a tiny minority of Christendom. I point that out. That is fact.
You state a belief common to a tiny minority of Christendom. I point that out. That is fact.
Whatever the size of group, it doesn't make that group correct. In fact, our Lord Jesus stated:
So perhaps it may be best to be in a tiny minority if it lead to eternal life. And, that to, is a fact.
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.