Posted on 12/06/2006 4:29:58 PM PST by HAL9000
Excerpt -
ROME (AP) - Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica.The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
LOLOL!!!! Not!!!
Really? The Bible is VERY consistent and clear on that point.
>>Scared? Are you sure you're using the right word? I have never met one Protestant who is "scared" of Mary.
I agree. Protestants think highly of Mary because she was highly favored by God and for her role in God's incarnation. However, we stop far short of saying she was sinless or translated into heaven like Enoch was. Moses (and several other men in Scripture) was called righteous by God and yet we know that he sinned. David was a man after God's own heart and yet we know he sinned. God calling Mary highly favored shouldn't be viewed as saying Mary was sinless.
What might scare Protestants is that some of our brother and sisters in Christ are going down a dangerous path with this excessive veneration of Mary. The focus must be Jesus Christ, not his mother! Terms like co-redemptrix to describe Mary are alarming.
That's a legitimate question, inasmuch as doctrine generally develops (becomes more precise and defined) under the stimulus of new questions, challenges, scientific knowledge, and of course heresies.
I don't know, but I have a hunch: what was happening at around the time that the Immaculate Conception was defined (1854)? Three related things come to mind:
(1) the human ovum was first seen in 1823; and the fertilization of the ovum was first observed, I think, a couple of decades after that.
(2) It therefore became clear, at least to the educated, that fertilization marked the beginning of every individual's life.
(3) I remember, from reading the history of anti-abortion legislation in the 19th century, that doctors who opposed abortion had to educate legislators that common "women's remedies" which "brought on blocked menses" were actually killing new babies at the embryonic stage, and 19th century prolife reformers campaigned to ban these "remedies."
This was all new stuff, and caused quite a bit of intellectual buzz back then.
I wonder whether the Pope was responding to these new scientific discoveries by reiterating that the life of Mary began at her conception, and that God, in preparing a "pure seed" (the "seed of a woman" as in Genesis 3:15) and "spotless mother" for the Incarnation. would have purified Mary (preveniently, through the merits of Christ, who is her Savior as well as ours) at the very beginning of her life, i.e. her conception.
"And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)
(Did you ever wonder about that odd term, "her seed"? The whole concept of a woman having a "seed" --- as in, ovum --- was completely unknown to the ancients, who generally believed that the father was the only true genetic parent, and that the woman's womb was merely a receptive "field." Hmmmm...)
If you think this historic hypothesis is dubious, you're entitled to: it's just a wild guess of mine: my hunch as to why this doctrine wasn't "defined" until 1854.
I'll send this around to some Catholic Freepers and see if any of them have an opinion on this.
Allow me to reiterate that these are just my own wackadoo speculations.
How can you believe in the Immaculate Conception and still believe that Mary was human? This makes no sense.
Humans have free will and humans will always choose sin at some point in their life. Jesus was different. He was true man, but he was also true God.
If God was able to create a true human being that he knew wouldn't sin, then why did he create Adam to sin?
If Mary never sinned in her life, she HAS to be more than or other than human. Either that or the garden of eden was rigged.
Of course Mary was human. Just as human as Adam and Eve were, before their disobedience to God. They, as you say, had "free will," which means that they could choose to sin or not to sin: this is what "free" means. They chose to sin.
Mary, like Adam and Eve, was free from sin at the beginning of her existence. In other words, she had an un-marred human nature, just as Adam and Eve did in Eden. That doesn't make her a goddess. It makes her a normal human being... or the way all humans would have been, were it not for the heritable flaws we got from our First Parents.
If God was able to create a true human being that he knew wouldn't sin, then why did he create Adam to sin?
What are you talking anout? God didn't "create Adam to sin." He created Adam to be obedient and happy and free, and have a wonderful life in Paradise. Adam chose to sin. Cf. free will, above.
Adam and Eve started off with a perfect human nature, but chose disobedience. Mary started off with a perfect human nature, but chose obedience. And that's what made all the difference.
Of course Mary was human. Just as human as Adam and Eve were, before their disobedience to God. They, as you say, had "free will," which means that they could choose to sin or not to sin: this is what "free" means. They chose to sin.
Mary, like Adam and Eve, was free from sin at the beginning of her existence. In other words, she had an un-marred human nature, just as Adam and Eve did in Eden. That doesn't make her a goddess. It makes her a normal human being... or the way all humans would have been, were it not for the heritable flaws we got from our First Parents.
If God was able to create a true human being that he knew wouldn't sin, then why did he create Adam to sin?
What are you talking anout? God didn't "create Adam to sin." He created Adam to be obedient and happy and free, and have a wonderful life in Paradise. Adam chose to sin. Cf. free will, above.
Adam and Eve started off with a perfect human nature, but chose disobedience. Mary started off with a perfect human nature, but chose obedience. And that's what made all the difference.
So did God choose Mary because He knew she would be the only human ever to exist to choose not to sin, or did God create Mary special so that she wouldn't sin? Or is it just a coincidence that Mary happened to birth Jesus and choose never to sin? Talk about the stars aligning.
That's hard explain: you'd have to work out how God's omniscience and sovereignty interact with human freedom, and that's out of my league. (I'm not preternaturally bright!)
What we do know is that the people we see around us today, ourselves included, are "subnormal": we all have heritable defects. These defects are many, but the most important ones are that we have darkened intellects, weakened wills, and distorted drives and appetites; and thus we lack an "automatic" harmonious relationship with God.
It was not so from the beginning. God did not create Adam and Eve with these defects. He created them good (as Genesis says) and He created them "normal" --- with what is called "Original Integrity" or "Original Justice."
This is the perfect human nature everybody would have enjoyed, as descendants of Adam and Eve, if they had not sinned. As it is, they did choose disobedience --- sin --- and all of its consequences. Since Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all mankind, we their descendants inherit their fallen nature. We became (Eph 2:3) “children of wrath.”
But God somehow preserved Mary from inheriting this abnormal nature. The early Fathers of the Church-- here I'm thinking particularly of Irenaeus, and Ephraem the Syrian --- reflected a lot on how Mary was the new Eve. That link is really worth clicking on, if you want to understand their line of thinking. Or is it just a coincidence that Mary happened to birth Jesus and choose never to sin?
Coincidence? No, she just made the right choice (humility and obedience), unlike Eve, who made the wrong choice (pride and mutiny.) And because Mary was unblemished by any of the foulness of sin, she was fitting to be the person who would transmit a human nature tot he Word made flesh, God's all-perfect Son our Lord.
Talk about the stars aligning.
Not sure what you mean by that, but yeah, everything did line up just right. Scripture calls it "the fullness of time." And there was even, as I recall, a star!
P.S. to the others I've invited to listen in: have y'all got anything to add, here?
First, Mary is not the only human ever to exist to choose not to sin. Jesus also is a human who chose never to sin. And millions of babies have died that never chose to sin.
Second, we shouldn't think that Mary's perfect obedience is something that Eve could not have done, as if Mary was either unable to sin or less able to sin than was Eve. The only sense in which God "created Mary special" was, as Mrs. Don-o explained, creating her without original sin, like Eve before the Fall. But creating Mary without original sin did not necessitate that Mary never sin. In other words, creating Mary without original sin did not take away Mary's freedom. Mary, unlike Eve, chose to obey God. Yes, God 'foresaw' Mary's obedience, and chose Mary to be the mother of His Son knowing that she would freely choose to obey. But yet Mary too rightly could have said, "What do I have that I did not receive?" So the two truths must be held together and not seen as detracting from the other: Mary was free, and all of Mary's goodness came from God.
-A8
Until we ourselves sin however, we are without guilt and without sin. A newborn baby is unstained from sin, they have done no wrong and are not even capable of sinning at that point since they have no capacity to choose between good and evil.
Oh I agree that the consequences of the fall come upon us. We will die, and our nature will lead us to commiting sin sooner or later, but we are not stained the sins of other people.
The notion that we are not stained by the sin of our first parents is Pelagianism, the heresy condemned by the Council of Carthage in 420, and by the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.
-A8
The Council was wrong.
How do you know that the Council was wrong?
-A8
If you believe Jesus is God, you really shouldn't disrespect His mother, Mary.
Neither should we pray to her, or worship her. She was blessed above all women no doubt, but she was just a vessel used by God. A mere mortal, dust of the earth, flesh that died and decayed.
Me and my family happily and reverently, pray the Rosary every chance we get!
Where is that exactly in the bible, that we are to pray to Mary or for that matter to those who died and are in heaven? I pray eveyrday as well on all occasions as the Paul said too, I do not pray too anyone except God the Father in Jesus name. I do ask for help from the Holy Spirit and Angels though.
I'm Catholic and the Catholic Church has a long tradition of devotion to Mary and the Saints, as I'm sure you know. If you're interested in learning more about the Catholic faith, there are lots of resources available. Catholics believe, just as Protestants do, that the only way to the Father is through the Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Let me just say that perhaps we should look at the bigger picture and concentrate on our commonalities as Christians who love and serve the Lord. You may find the following thread interesting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753534/posts
"How do you know that the Council was wrong?"
Because God is just and there is no justice in what they concluded. A just God would not hold me stained with sins I did not commit.
What makes you think they were right? Because they were able to suppress all opposition to it long enough to make it a tradition that is still around today? That would be very poor reasoning. The age and popularity of a belief don't prove it's right.
What if you were really were stained by the sin of the first man, would you expect God to pretend that there was no such stain?
-A8
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.