Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NYer
“I’ve never encountered “sinlessness” mentioned as a Divine attribute “
I think it is a very major attribute. Were it not so, there would be no need that I can think of for heaven and hell. Heaven is a place of no sin; we can’t go there because we are sinners; Christ died to atone for our sins so that we could be declared righteous and so get into heaven. That’s a very central Christian doctrine.
Do you propose that God is a sinner? I can’t imagine how. We’d have no need of a Savior, then. Or God would need one.
Can you help me with a citation for psalm(s) you are referencing?
This is the fundamental leap of faith ex scriptura that most have a problem with (including the Orthodox churches, according to Kolokotronis) - being filled with grace does make one blameless and washes away your sins, but it does not imply that you were in that state since birth.
So, you are setting up a straw man. You presume that we teach that St. Stephen was not in fact without sin as he was martyred.
I did no such thing, and if it was implied, then accept my apologies! Rather, I wanted to use the example of Stephen being filled with grace as a case where a clearly NOT-sinless man was also filled with grace, as Mary. Meaning that being filled with grace does NOT confer with it a state of being without sin since conception. In effect, Stephen is a key example that shows the opposite of the conclusion made about Mary.
Our Lady is proclaimed by Archangel Gabriel already filled with grace. This is why the grammatical prefect tense is important: here is a young girl and she is said to be filled with grace already. This the scriptural basis not merely of her sinlessness but also of her immaculate conception: since she had been filled with grace prior to Archangel Gabriel talking to her, it is reasonable to think that she had been that way since the beginning of the life, since Sts Joachim and Anna concieved her.
Except that the root caritow means favored, NOT sinless. In fact, there is no foundational claim for caritow to mean sinless - either canonically or implicitly. Mary was favored, and found favor in the eyes of God, but she was NOT sinless. Perhaps you could try to interpet the Bible in that way, but it is far from obvious or unequivocal.
Furthermore, one needs to look no further than Romans 3:23 - ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Not all but Mary, but ALL. Man's sinful nature is complete and inherent since Adam and Eve.
Christ could not be fully man if his mother were not.
That is simply not true. The Pope is bound by Scripture same as any Christian. The difference comes in the interpretation of Scripture - Catholics understand that God's teachings come in both oral and written form. Protestants tend to believe in only the latter.
If you want to cherry-pick Scripture quotes, let's look at this:
"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9)
Tell me, what do you call the gentleman who provided half of your DNA?
How does the IC deny Christ's humanity, K?
“How does the IC deny Christ’s humanity, K?”
The argument is that the IC denies the humanity of Panagia, making her a demi goddess of sorts. If Christ’s mother was not fully human, then He has no fully human nature. It is also argued that if Panagia was indeed preserved from conception from any sin, then she is not worthy of emulation as she was a sort of holy automaton. As I said, it really all stems from the problem posed by Christ being born of a woman if that woman was “stained” with Original Sin. Because The Church in the East never accepted Blessed Augustine’s understanding of ancestral sin, the problem of a less than perfect, ab initio, mother for God never arises.
Interesting, and not something I’ve been exposed to before. However, both Adam and Eve were created without original sin - were they not fully human? And the BVM, although preserved from the sin of Adam, made the affirmative choice to refrain from sin throughout her life, succeeding where Eve (also without original sin) failed. Hmm, something to ponder, anyway...
I called him Dad - in the flesh. But God is my father, for we read, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..." and "but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God..."
I haven't cherry-picked any Scriptures. I would appreciate it if you would cite an example otherwise.
Since the Pope alone can interpret scripture, he is free to twist it into a pretzel to get the results he wants. Consider Purgatory and Indulgences...or the ridiculous idea that Mary was born sinless and lived sinless...or the even more ridiculous idea that Peter was made Vicar of Christ by Jesus!
His mother was most definitely not a man.
not to hijack this lively thread or anything, but have you a link to anything on that provocative new encyclical?
“And the BVM, although preserved from the sin of Adam, made the affirmative choice to refrain from sin throughout her life...”
Contradicts Scripture. If true, then Jesus had no need to die. “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”
**or the Bible is lying - multiple times **
The Bible isn’t lying. Aunts and uncles and cousins often lived in a compound together. They were consider “brothers and sisters.”
Saint Paul speaks to the recipiemts of his many letters in these same words, “brothers and sisters.”
And I don’t think in either instance there was lying going on in the Bible. It’s just that some people have chosen to believe that Mary and Joseph had other children. Not so.
BTW, I sent you a brief FReepmail.
**? If Stephen was filled with grace and was not sinless, **
Even I am “full of grace” after having said my penance after the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But that doesn’t mean that I am sinless.
You have FReepmail to answer your question.
Really? You never said "in the living room" when your mother asked "where is your father?" Further, you must believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantion, because Jesus did say "I am the bread of life." Or was that saying merely hyperbole, whereas his quote on calling men "father" literal?
I haven't cherry-picked any Scriptures. I would appreciate it if you would cite an example otherwise.
Your original post pulled one quote out of a book of Scripture.
Since the Pope alone can interpret scripture,
That is simply untrue. Any well-informed Catholic can interpret Scripture. Of course, that interpretation cannot come in a vacuum, but must be enlightened by the statements of Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc.
but he is free to twist it into a pretzel to get the results he wants.
Again, simply untrue. Show me one doctrine or dogma, in toto, that twists Scripture.
Consider Purgatory and Indulgences
Purgatory: nothing unclean may enter into Heaven. Are you completely free of sin upon death? Indulgences: Whatever is bound on earth...
or the ridiculous idea that Mary was born sinless and lived sinless
So the New Ark of the Covenant, the new Eve, was just ordinary? Despite the fact that the old Ark was commanded to be adorned with jewels, gold, etc.?
or the even more ridiculous idea that Peter was made Vicar of Christ by Jesus!
"You are Rock, and upon this Rock..."
You are merely disagreeing with our interpretation of Scripture.
Psalm 103 and 148 both command Angels to worship God.
Exactly. And from what? What is it she needed to be saved from?
If you’re walking along a road, don’t see a pit, and nearly fall in but are grabbed at the last second by a friend, were you saved from that pit by your friend? Were you saved by your friend any less than people who had already fallen into the pit and then were then pulled from that pit by your friend?
“I admit to that, pretty much. It’s not so much that only Scripture MATTERS, as much as it is the supreme authority on doctrinal issues, for me.”
Scripture cannot be the supreme authority for the simple reason that the Gospels were not written for many years after Christ died. Until they were written, the supreme authority on doctrinal issues was Peter and his successors. Christ set it up that way. The Scriptures didn’t exist and Christ selected oral Church teaching as His method of evangelization.
In addition, Christ set up His Church knowing full well that He was using foolish and sometimes sinful men. Peter’s weaknesses were well known to Christ. Still, he selected Peter, warts and all. He wanted frail humans, guided by the Holy Spirit, spreading the faith. He knew the Church would not always be perfect and He never promised it would be. What He promised was that His Church would last forever and that the apostolic leadership would be guided by the Spirit. He said He would not leave us orphans.
If you believe Scripture, you know that the Holy Spirit enlightened the minds of the Apostles and Mary on Pentecost. From the very first days, those enlightened minds set up the Mass and a hierarchy of Church leadership. If you believe Scripture, do a real study of what the early Church actually did. You will find it remarkably similar to the practices of the Catholic Church of today.
Finally, the Scriptures that we both hold so dear are the ones the Catholic Church’s leaders deemed divinely inspired. The formal Catholic Church selected which writings were to be included in the New Testament and which weren’t divinely inspired. How did they decide that? Well, they relied on Church tradition, oral teaching, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the Scripture you are relying on as a final authority was compiled and protected through the ages by the Catholic Church. How could they get that right and nothing else? Did the Holy Spirit guide them on just this issue? In the 16th century, men began altering the translations and leaving passages out as it suited them and their own agendas.
It would seem to me that if you want to use Scripture as the supreme authority on doctrinal issues, you would at least want to use the text as it was originally written, not after men have tinkered with it. Go back to the first ancient versions of Scripture and you will find something closer to the Truth. You will also find that Catholic teaching, tradition, and dogma are completely scriptural.
If you really want to know what the Church teaches, without the bias or self-preservation a minister might include in his explanations and teachings to you, I invite you to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every concept is spelled out clearly with references to the Scriptural passage that relates to it. Then cross-reference with a good Catholic Bible which will contain books and passages you may never have seen...passages that have existed in the Bible since it was written.
I will pray for you, Marie, and I hope that God blesses you always.
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.