Catholic Question

Hi Grant, Hope you have been well!!!!

I think for a lot of us non-Catholics we get stuck at "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". All to me means All. I see no excemptions in this. Adam and Eve were created without sin but did sin and all of us have sinned since. They were not created with sin but still fell to the temptation of Satan, proving to me that only God can NOT fall to temptation. Mary is not God, (you agree to that), so based on my simple argument she is part of the ALL. I am glad God chose Moses to free His people, I am glad God chose Noah to build the Ark. I am glad God chose John the Baptist to be a "voice" and I am glad God chose Mary to phyisically bring Jesus into our world. Each of these was faithful to a calling from God and none are greater then the other, they all are THIS DAY worshipping God in Heaven.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

I know the Marian dogmas are difficult for many protestants to accept but if you look back to Luther you will see he was also devoted to Mary.

First and foremost we do not worship Mary as God, we know Mary as the Mother of God who is Jesus. Jesus was Marys son and he honored his Mother as is written in the 10 commandments. This was also seen at the feast of Cana when Jesus honored his mothers request even when it was not his time. Since Jesus honors his Mother Mary, should we do nothing less than honor her?

Next if you look at the annuciation in which Gabriel address Mary as "Full of Grace" which means completed in grace. This would also mean devoid of sin so she must have been born immaculate without the stain of original sin. Also since the angel Gabriel was the messenger of God the Father, it was God the Father who calls Mary "Full of Grace".

If you look at Marys visit with Elizabeth, you see that the Elizabeth becomes filled with the Holy Spirit and says to Mary..."Blessed are you amoung women" which means most blessed of all women. This two would confirm her immaculate conception since Eve was born without sin, Mary had to be a least as blessed as Eve. It should be noted that Mary was MORE blessed than Eve which would refer to the fact that Eve fell to temptation while Mary did not and remained sinless.

Now in Romans it says that All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. This is understood by most protestants to mean that Mary sinned, but the word all could have been used to denote groups of people instead of individuals. For example all could have meant Jews and Gentiles as groups. Also this refers to commiting a sin so young children below the age of reason that have died would not have sinned. Also Jesus did not sin.

We as Catholics believe that the redeeming grace that Jesus earned for us was applied to Mary before her conception since God transends time and space.

Mary is the Masterpiece of Gods creation, by honoring Gods masterpiece is that wrong.

In regard to the brothers and sisters of Jesus we know that the terms brother and sister are used to also represent cousins and other relatives.

God Bless You

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

So?

I am not sure anyone disagreed with this. I am pretty sure it is the whole "no sin/assumption/pray to her to plead with Jesus for us" ideas.

"Full of Grace" by no means implies "completed in grace". Though, even if it did, that would still not imply that she had to have been born free of original sin to meet this condition. Those are major assumption you presume.

Another faulty assumption combined with mixing of terms. Eve was born without sin because that was how God designed people. Adam/Eve were not 'blessed' to have been born without sin, rather, we are cursed to be born with sin. Or, if you want to take a more existensial approach; Adam and Eve just were, were as we are cursed from birth. Saying Mary was blessed in no way connotes being born sinless.

Without giving an extensive breakdown of the differing groups, it would be more logical to suggest that 'all' indeed means 'all' rather than segregated groups.

Though, even if it did, Mary would have fallen into one of those groups (she was jewish, woman or human).

And the objection that Jesus did not sin only bolsters the non-catholic position as he is exempt solely because of his dual nature. As we understand 'all' to exclude God, Angels and non-humans, Jesus would have fallen under the 'God' group, thereby excluding him.

So, even using your logic, Mary would still be included in the 'ALL', while Jesus would not.

Though, this would also imply that those in heaven already (your saints) would have been saved (had redeeming grace applied) outside of time. This is a Calvinistic view (or Augustine), and I am not sure you support that view.

Also, even if this view turns out to be true, it does not imply sinlessness, as those calvinists so plainly point out.

Wait...what? Mary is THE masterpiece of God's creation? Since when?

Though, it has to be shown that this is the case. Else, we have to be open to either possibility. As a Catholic, you do not becuase you are told what to believe, but the whole 'Infallibility of the Catholic Church dooms the Catholic Church" is another discussion.

In Christ,
jason

 

Though, it has to be shown that this is the case. Else, we have to be open to either possibility. As a Catholic, you do not becuase you are told what to believe, but the whole 'Infallibility of the Catholic Church dooms the Catholic Church" is another discussion.

In Christ,
jason


Catholics told what to believe? I am hoping that you mis-stated what you really meant to say. Catholics choose to accept (we have free will) the teachings of the Catholic Church....just as you choose to accept the teachings of your particular denomination.


LaRae

 

Of course I did not mispeak. The Catholic Church tells Catholics what they are to believe. This is not my opinion, this is fact. Catholics are told they are to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven...I do not see how this could be an issue.

There is a difference between a catholic and non-catholic. I can freely disagree with my pastor over something. In doing so, I do not forfeit my salvation under the non-catholic system. Simply, we disagree (Lets say my pastor thinks Mary was sinless, I do not).

Now, if a Catholic was to disagree with the catholic church concerning this matter, that would make it a grave sin thereby foreiting his/her salvation until the time when they have "reconciled" themselves with the church. There is no gray area. If the church has infallibly declared a belief, you do not "choose" to believe it, you must. Now, you may already believe what has just been decreed, but if you did not agree you immediatly fall into sin and must reconcile yourself with the church or risk eternal damnation (something is not sin one minute, sin the next).

For instance:

8:05 AM Catholic A does not believe in Belief X
8:07 AM Catholic Church decrees that Belief X is now true, thereby mandating that all professing catholics also believe it is true.
8:09 AM Catholic A learns of this new decree, falls immediatly into sin if A does not believe Belief X.

This, again, is another topic. If you would like to discuss how the Catholic Church's claim of infallibility is the fatal flaw for the Catholic Church's claim to being "the" church, we can start another thread.

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason,

You are incorrect. If I disagree about the immaculate conception, that means I also do not believe my church is infallible. And if that is the case, why would I remain inside it? Right, I wouldn't.

Thus, I CHOOSE to remain in the Catholic Church because I CHOOSE to trust that she holds the fulness of the Gospel.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant,

I think you missed the subtleness of the point. Here, with kid gloves, let me lay this out for you.

8:07AM: Catholic GOOD_CATHOLIC does not believe that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor that the Pope has the power make infallible statements.

8:09AM: The Catholic Church "infallibly" says it is infallible and the Pope has the power to make infallible statements

8:11AM: Catholic GOOD_CATHOLIC, learning of the "infallible" decree immediatly falls into sin (according to the church).

8:12AM: Catholic GOOD_CATHOLIC has a couple of options: 1.) Leave the church 2.) Stay in the church and try to reform from within 3.) Stay in the church and conceed to the Church's views

So, you see, it is possible to disagree with the infallibility of the church and want to stay.

Now, more to your point. I do not believe my church is infallible, and yet I remain. Why is that? Because I realize that there is no perfect church on earth and I feel that I am in a great church inspite of it's faults. Similiarly, there are Catholics who feel this same way. They realize that the Catholic Church is not infallible and has and will make mistakes, yet they remain for various reasons.

And? Joe Catholic CHOOSES to remain in the Catholic church because he wants to reform the catholic church from within? Though, according to the Catholic Church he going to hell.

The point being, you still do not have a choice on what to believe.

Hypothetically, if the Catholic Church declares that all letter X's on the keyboard are evil and no Catholic is to use 'X' or 'x' anymore, you would have to abide by that or willfully go against the Catholic Church, thus, send yourself to hell.

You can choose to be a catholic or not to be a catholic, but you cannot choose what you believe IF you are a catholic. I am not saying there are not merits to this system. From an administrative viewpoint, this is the ideal religion.

How is this different from following Christ? Following Christ means willfully doing what you THINK and KNOW he wants you to do/think/say.

If you tell me you are catholic because you think Jesus wants you to be catholic, I will respect that more than telling me the catholic church is 'the' church. At least you are attempting to follow Jesus instead of a church. All logical attempts to reconcile what the Catholic church attempts to say leads one away from the catholic church. That is plainly and painfully obvious by now.

Similarly, this same approach can be applied to all churchs/religions who claim to be 'the one': Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Various odd sects, etc etc

In Christ,
jason

 

The "Immaculate Conception" is heresy, but not for the reason that you stated. The real reason is that everyone is born without the guilt of Adam's sin - EVERYONE!

(Ezek 18:20) "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

We do NOT inherit the guilt of any of our ancestors, but we die spiritually by our own personal sins.

 

Sola,

A reading of Psalm 51 would do you good.

Also, try Deut. 24:16 for a cross-reference of your Ezekiel verse. The verse in no way contradicts the doctrine of original sin.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Daniel, Thanks for the post. I have never thought of the "Full of Grace" statement before. At first reading what comes to mind is that God bestows grace. We, in fact, as you know are "saved by grace". Grace was a gift to Mary the way it is a gift to us. It was received by Mary the way it should be received by us, with open arms and a eager heart, that is by belief through faith. Mary "believed" God and trusted Him, even though she felt unworthy. The grace given her is "full" because of her wonderful belief and acceptance of God's gift. Daniel, I believe that you and I are completed in grace when we place our trust in the blood of Christ, shed for our sins. God's grace, as I see it, does not come in waves or in part, it comes to each believer as full as it did to Mary. It is hard to imagine any of us being ushered into Heaven someday with being less then "full of grace". Anyway, that is what full or completed in grace seems to mean, when thinking of scripture as a whole. Thanks again for your Christ-like demeanor in your post. I know we can work through this and have it stay edifying for both of us.

Grant, I said Hi and you didn't even acknowledge me - You ruined my whole day now, man

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian,

I'm sorry! That was insensitive of me! I hope you've been having a wonderful Lenten season, even though you probably don't celebrate it.

As for your last post, you need to keep in mind that the angel greated Mary, "Hail, full of grace." That was her title. He did not say "Hail Mary," but "Hail, full of grace." Further, he bestowed this title upon her before he told her the reason for his coming, before she said yes to God, etc etc etc. She was "full of grace" before anything else.

I might add...that while you and I are indeed saved by grace...Mary received this title before that very Savior, Jesus Christ, had been conceived in her womb. She was full of grace before grace itself, Jesus Christ, came into the world to bestow it upon us!

God bless you Brian!

Grant

 

Grace was God's plan from the creation of the world. He knew that Adam and Eve were going to sin. He knew that grace was needed for all of mankind. Jesus has been in this world from the beginning(John 1:1). Though Jesus wasn't here in bodily form at the time, His presence here is without doubt.

There are many Scriptures supporting the fact that Mary had children after Jesus was born. These Scriptures can't be explained away as meaning brothers/sisters in Christ or other relatives. What I really don't understand is why is it so important to the RCC that Mary never had sexual relations or other children? In reality, it is not important at all to espouse that belief.

 

So it is your assertion that all can be filled with the grace of God oustide of Jesus' redemptive act? That seems to be your emphasis. I'm well aware that Jesus eternally has existed with the Father. And yet, to give us that grace to restore our broken relationship with the Father, He took upon Himself our sins and DIED to them, then rose from the dead in order to give us life. THAT is how you get grace. That does not explain how, prior to this happening, Mary was already "full of grace."

No, there are many Scriptures stating that Jesus had "brothers" and "sisters" and in a few instances it gives the males' names. It never refers to these as the biological children of Mary. Your fact, thus, becomes your interpretation.

You are right. And our interpretations are not "explanations" to do away with the "facts." Perhaps you should prove that before you assert it.

Instead of telling us we are wrong (which you did) without understanding (and you just asserted that you do NOT understand why), why not read up on it from a Catholic perspective. Couldn't hurt ya.

Considering you don't understand the reasons why we believe it to be so, I don't see how you can logically make that statement.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the reply and sharing your view point. I am always interested in what my brothers opinions are. I would like to try and explain further my view which I feel is the Catholic view point on some of these issues.

As has been mentioned already the title given to Mary was Full of Grace and if you look into the greek translation you will see that full of grace does not just mean one who has alot of grace but one who is completed in grace. As I understand it, when one is completed in grace they will not have any sinful nature to them so this would imply that Mary was born immaculate since after her birth she had not yet been baptised before the Angel appeared to her. She had also not conceived Jesus at that point so she would not have been full of grace due to the presence of Jesus in her womb.

I believe that Adam and Eve where both blessed as God blessed his creation. Here is a verse from Genesis 1:27-28 And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.


I agree that we are cursed due to the sin commited by Adam and Eve. But because of the sin they commited they fell from grace. It is true that they were not perfected in grace since they sinned. Because Mary was perfected in grace she did not fall to sin.

In regards to everyone has sinned, what is your take on the use of the word sinned. It appears to be a verb in which action is implied as it commiting a sin. If this is the case then someone who has not commited a sin through throught, word, or deed would not have sinned.

Besides that we know God can transend time and space, why would it be so unreasonable to say that Mary as a human being would have a sinful nature could have been given special graces to avoid sin as is mentioned when she is called Full of Grace. It also seems to me that since God hates sin, why would he be born of someone stained with sin. Its almost like saying sin is ok.

Well masterpeiece is someones greatest creation, so what other creation did God make that was greater than Mary?

Yes it is true that the Catholic church through its authority gives us guidelines and dogmas which we are to believe as Catholics. We trust the churches teaching. If many protestants believe that they can interpret scripture infallibly with the help of the Holy Spirit then why couldn't the Pope have the same ability.

I know being told what to believe by the teaching Majesterium of the Catholic church seems very burdensome to many Protestants but in many ways it gives Catholics much more freedom for we believe we know what is true and what is not and this allows us to explore deeper the scriptures. I think however that because of our belief in the authority of the Church, we have become lazy in our faith and some Catholics never crack open their Bibles because they feel that all they need is taught by the Church. What they are missing is the deeper understanding of God that we can enjoy through the scriptures.

God Bless You

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

So it is your assertion that all can be filled with the grace of God oustide of Jesus' redemptive act? That seems to be your emphasis. I'm well aware that Jesus eternally has existed with the Father. And yet, to give us that grace to restore our broken relationship with the Father, He took upon Himself our sins and DIED to them, then rose from the dead in order to give us life. THAT is how you get grace. That does not explain how, prior to this happening, Mary was already "full of grace."
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, you seem to shoot yourself in the foot. In earlier threads, you assert that Mary is still in need of a savior even though she is sinless. You then assert that she is saved through Christ before she is born and kept sinless similiarly.

Now, you state that we 'get grace' because Jesus 'took upon Himself our sins and DIED to them, then rose from the dead in order to give us life'. So, which is it? Does Mary need Jesus or doesn't she? Does Mary need a savior or not?

In Christ,
jason

 

*Checks* Nope, my foot is doing alright.
Mary is indeed in need of a savior. That savior is Jesus Christ. My favorite analogy is the pit of spikes. You're walking along, and you don't see this huge pit of spikes, that if you fell into, would kill you. I see that you are about to fall in, and I run up and grab you right before you fall. You say, "Thank you! You saved me!"

Mary was saved by a special and singular act by God based on the redemptive act that would take place BECAUSE of her explicit action in bringing forth the savior. She was saved; Jesus is her Savior. God simply did the work early because of her special and unique role.

I think I have answsered that above. Please let me know if I missed a point that needs addressing. Off to class now!

God bless you,

Grant

 

And I am always interested in hearing different viewpoints.

Why would you assume that Mary must be baptized before she could be completed in grace? Your entire line of reasoning is predicated upon this one assumption, so you must provide at least some reasoning for this.

You are correct, she was not 'with child' at that moment, but you must be willing to accept that it is possible to be called 'full of grace' because of Jesus' presence if you are going to even broach the subject of God being outside of time (as you do below). For, if you attempt to use the 'God outside of time' argument, one could argue that when angel speaks to Mary, God views her as being pregenant with Jesus.

That was not the argument. The argument was that they were blessed because they were born without sin. Notice how both Adam and Eve were already alive when God blessed them. This supports my assertion that they were blessed just because God is good, not because they were born without sin.

So, yes, I agree; Adam and Eve were blessed. Now, why were they blessed and then try to relate that back to the original argument. You will see it falls painfully short of your original assertion.

This is an interesting argument. You should follow this more. Try to expound upon this.

Though, under that definition, being born would not be a sin because it is not the childs action, word or thought; rather it is the parents action (birth) involving no child thought or word. So, original sin would not be a sin.

Sin, I believe, is much more complicated that just action/thought/word. Sin is a completely other topic.

Why would we assume that she was given special grace?

Also, logical extension. If Jesus, having to have been born of a sinless vessel, needed Mary to be sinless all her life (including original sin), by extension, Mary's mother, Mary's grandmother (...) would also have to have the same sinless lineage. Why would it only apply to Mary?

Why would God take on the sin of the world? Why would God create the world?

Quite simply, you are attributing too much to Mary. What right do we have to call her God's masterpiece? God's createst creation is creation itself. The fact that there is 'something' is greater than a small portion of that something.

What is more impressive, the circuit or the computer? the computer or the internet? The navigation system or the entire aircraft? (Rhetorical questions, no need to answer the obvious)

So, because some people us incorrect logic, you feel it is ok for the catholic church to do so as well? No, that is not the case.

Though, even your logical arguments do not fit as you, as an individual believer, would have that abiblity as well. So, just going on the Pope's interpretation would not be good enough as you would have to trust the holy spirit to individually lead you.

You fail to see exactly why this 'deeper understanding' is not possible with the catholic church. If you are mandated to believe what the catholic church has dogmatically declared, you cannot use private interpretation of the scriptures for further exploration. At that point, reading the scriptures is useless. What would be the point of reading the scriptures?

In Christ,
jason

 

Rudamentally this example seems sufficient, but as with most simple examples, it fails against a more complex model. See below.

 

Hi Grant!!! and Daniel too,

Here is what Gabriel the angel first said to Mary.

KJV Luke 1:
[26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[29] And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


In this I see an angel coming to a girl, one who had faith in God, a "believer" as it were. Gabriel says don't be afraid Mary you have been chosen by God to do something wonderful. Gabriel says, Mary consider this thing you will do a great honor if fact it is an ultimate blessing. We are always "blessed" when God chooses us to do His work. I see your interpretation of this conversation as reading a lot into what is said. Of all the faithful women of that day Mary was chosen to bring Jesus into the world and thus she is "blessed" among all women. More on this later.
Hope you both are well and yes I enjoy this time of year, always great to celebrate the greatest event of all time.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian,

In the same respect, I think you are downplaying a much more significant word choice. Apples and oranges, ya know?

Basically, if you understand our position, I am satisified, though.

God bless you as we anticipate the celebration of our Blessed Lord's Resurrection!

Grant