Posted on 08/12/2004 5:57:08 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA
So, original sin doesnt apply to Mary? - Can you point me to the Scriptural basis for that please
Therefore, Our Lady was endowed with a superior intellect and a superior will. She had a delicate balance between her higher rational faculties and the lower passions. She, the New Eve and Ark of the New Covenant, was the singular vessel of honor in which she would enflesh the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity with a human body and a human nature by the power of the Holy Ghost. Although full of grace from the moment of her Immaculate Conception, Our Lady grew in holiness through the years as she, the Mediatrix of all graces and the co-Redemptrix of the world, surrendered herself to the will of the Father at every moment of her life.
hmmmmm - all news to me - again - the Scriptural basis for this assertion is what?
Yet Jesus walked on the ground, ate food, drank water, wore clothes, all like human men. That didn't detract from His Godliness.
The holy mystery of God lies in the Trinity, not in the peripherals, however blessed they may be.
Largely true, but I think some of the "peripherals," as you put it, matter though. Your point is well-taken, but aren't you detracting from the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying the means He used to come into ther world?
But can you provide the scriptural reference Rev asked for?
well, I still dont see a Scriptural basis for the position
She was pure from the standpoint of virginity - however, if she was a child of Adam and Eve - she was part and parcel of original sin.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
The immaculate conception argument is seen to be necessary by those who think a totally holy vessel is necessary to bear Jesus to avoid His having any spot of sin.
That always seemed to beg the question for me. Why then doesn't Mary's mother also have to be immaculately conceived, and her mother, and her mother, etc.
And if God can overcome that problem with Mary's mother, then why cannot it simply be applied to Jesus in the womb, since it was possible to apply that working to Mary in the womb?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just the way I see it; the way my mind works.
The whole Marian thing is the single biggest error of the Catholic church.
You got that backwards. The denial of Mary's merits is the greatest error of the "Reformists."
I assume that you mean the denial of the many things that the RCC has concocted about her that are not at all in the bible. I don't have a lot of concern about believing things that are not in the bible.
I think to stake the position of Mary's immaculate conception is to add dangerously what Scripture so plainly teaches. Christ came of a virgin - someone who was physically without sinful carnality - and someone so completely obedient to God that her relationship with her husband was placed aside while she bore the child.
To claim she was immaculate herself is to diminish Christs own conception, and call into question the uniqueness of His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. -
Its not a quadrilateral (with apologies to wesley) - rather a Trinity
This is from the ending of the Gospel of John. Because of this, it would seem that the Gospel is "incomplete." If some of these things were deemed important by the early Church, but wasn't found in the written Scripture (remember the Church came first), who passed them on?
It doesn't diminish Christ at all! This is how man thinks. Through God, "all things are possible." Remember, Jesus is true God, and true man. Mary is a creature, but she was spared the stain of sin, through the mercy of the Holy Trinity, of which the Son desired to come to earth to save us.
That's pretty flimsy. First it says the bible is not complete. That verse doesn't say that so it is an anti biblical take on the verse. Second, it suggests that the church can be trusted above the scriptures when the bible itself warns again and again about the corruption that will come into the church.
by who's supposition ? - I still dont see a Scriptural basis for this....and am starting to conclude one does not exist
"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you" (1 Corin. 11:2).
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1: 20-21)
See my post #18.
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.