Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
Which is reading way more into the passage than the context justifies.
But delude yourself. It's your eternity.
Chapter and verse?
Or is this just another church fable tradition?
And why? Why is this necessary?
Why is it so important to Catholics that Mary be considered sinless and perpetually virgin?
How does that affect the work of Christ on the cross?
What relevance does it have to said work?
Why you say Paul, “uses “all” in the sense of “many” because in v 18 he says “all” and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says “many”....”
WHEREAS the Catholic Catechism says just the opposite!
“402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”290”
In the first sentence: “many (that is, all men)” not “all” in the sense of “many”! Do you see that difference?
“The Church teaches that grace displaces sin.”
But not for Mary. The Catholic Church teaches she is exempt from sin and therefore had no sins to remit or displace.
“Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”
But Paul's “all” is inclusive without exemption for Mary since she, like all sinners, would grow old and die.
The woman of Rev. 12 is un-named and she gives birth in heaven
“But she gives birth to Christ, and toward the end of the chapter is described as the mother of all who keep His testimony and obey God. So, however poeticized the account in Rev 12 is, it is sufficient ground by itself to call Mary the Mother of the Holy Church”
Nay, not so, as Paul in Galatians names that woman, “the Jerusalem above” (4:26) and in 4:31 says, ‘We are children of the free woman’. Therefore the “woman” at the end of the Rev. 12 is not Mary.
Was my previous explanation too difficult for you?
“It did not explain anything and you referred to a different verse. Please explain why do you think verses 12 and 19 refer to different things. I understand that the language is different. Please explain what the difference signifies.”
You had previously said, “He uses “all” in the sense of “many” because in v 18 he says “all” and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says “many”:
Uhhh...No. In vs. 19 Paul speaks of two groups, one that was constituted sinners by Adams disobedience and 2, those, who by the obedience of Christ, were constituted just.
One group to the exclusion of the other, the rest of mankind as Thayer’s lexicon comments on “the many” in these vss.
In vss. 18, 19 Paul is not just repeating himself but expresses a slightly different aspect of his argument.
In vs. 18 Paul says a decision, a judgment is made for acquittal from condemnation,
While in vs. 19 Paul uses the word kathistemi (made or constituted) instead of eis (result or intent) as in vs. 18.
Thus in vs. 19 those many are considered righteous.
and this was my conclusion: Thus Paul doesn't equate “all” with “many” nor was he a Talmudist. He had a grasp of the Greek language that is missed in your quotes and comments.
That would mean Mary is part of that “all”, a sinner, contrary to Catholic teaching.
I referred only to vss. 18, 19 since those were the ones under discussion in the above.
“You, I, St. Peter ans St. Paul will receive our bodies at the second coming of Christ. Mary however received her glorified body following her death. There is a difference; but the difference does not amount to a contradiction with what St. Paul wrote.”
Then since Peter and Paul's corporeal bodies (or what remains of them) are still in their graves then they were raised to heaven with what? Are they still awaiting their heavenly bodies? If so, what kind of bodies were they resurrected with, neither corporeal nor glorified heavenly ones?
“You, I, St. Peter ans St. Paul will receive our bodies at the second coming of Christ.”
Start pulling bricks from the tower of Babel and the whole thing might come crashing down.
Again, the context is words of dying Christ so the mutual adoption of the disciple and Mary has to have a greater significance than a mere economic arrangement. It is your side that ignores the context and the peculiarities of the wording. On this score, we just read what is written.
Chapter and verse? [for the assumption of Mary]
There is none; the Assumption of Mary is the teaching of the Church that is not in the scripture. For the obvious reason: the lives of saints are not the focus of it.
Why is it so important to Catholics that Mary be considered sinless and perpetually virgin?
It is important because it is true. It is a part of the saving faith. Is it logically important for some other dogma? I don't think so. But I am happy with the knowledge that Mary was singled out by God in this way.
The Catechism also teaches that Mary was free from all sin, so in the end both my analysis and the Catechism agree that the passages in Romans 5 do not implicate Mary in any sin.
But not for Mary
It is true that in her case grace had filled her since conception, whereas ordinarily graced diplaces sin already in place. That is called the doctrine of Immaculate Conception.
We are children of the free woman’ [Gal 4:31]
That woman is Sara, Abraham's wife, of whom both we descend spiritually. The passage has nothing to do with Mary.
In vs. 18 Paul says a decision, a judgment is made for acquittal from condemnation, While in vs. 19 Paul uses the word kathistemi (made or constituted) instead of eis (result or intent) as in vs. 18. Thus in vs. 19 those many are considered righteous
I still see not difference in substance between either verses 18 and 19 or verses 12 and 15. Also, we are not talking of the many that are justified, but of those -- either all or many -- who sinned.
| "ALL" used | "MANY" used |
|---|---|
| [12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. | [15] ...by the offence of one, many died |
| [18]...by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation | [19]...by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners |
they were raised to heaven with what? Are they still awaiting their heavenly bodies?
Sts. Paul and Peter, and all the elect are raised as souls, and they are awaiting the glorified bodies today. Mary is the exception in that she preceded us in heaven in the glorified body.
That Catechism that you refer to also contradicts what you say about “the many and all”, doesn't it?
“That woman is Sara, Abraham's wife, of whom both we descend spiritually. The passage has nothing to do with Mary.”
Precisely, so Mary is not called ‘the mother of those obey the commandments of God’ while Sarah figuratively is in Scripture.
“Sts. Paul and Peter, and all the elect are raised as souls, and they are awaiting the glorified bodies today.”
Not according to 1 Cor. 15:42-44 where Paul says that those resurrected are “raised a spiritual body”, That is the resurrection from the dead for them, not going to heaven and waiting to receive a body later. By Paul's words they have been given that “spiritual body” upon resurrection.
“1017 “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).”
It's a fleshly body, it's a spiritual body. The “flesh we now possess”, ignores Paul's word revelation that “flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom”. (1 Cor. 15:50)
“Mary is the exception in that she preceded us in heaven in the glorified body.”
Nothing in Scripture so indicates but as the Catholic Encyclopedia writes of the Catholic Churce’s teaching on Mary:
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.”
In short , “”Mary is the exception in that she preceded us in heaven in the glorified body.” is a teaching based upon fraud and myth.
The essential point in our argument is that "all" in Romans 5 does not refer to Mary. Neither did I mean that "many" in Romans 5 means people commonly are born and live without sin.
so Mary is not called ‘the mother of those obey the commandments of God’ while Sarah figuratively is in Scripture
Mary (the mother of Christ) is called that in Rev 12, and one thing does not exclude the other.
By Paul's words they have been given that “spiritual body” upon resurrection.
Indeed, but the resurrection of the dead in their bodies is generally going to happen as the Second Coming of Christ and not right after death. The soul is taken up to heaven right after death, and then it remains separated from the body till the consummation of this world.
is a teaching based upon fraud and myth
It is a teaching not reflected in the scripture. It is however belief of the Early Church which has been recognized dogmatically at Vatican I because, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Catohlic faithful kep the belief. The "De Obitu S. Dominae" is a witness to the ancient nature of that belief. The fact that is in not canonical that is to say, is apocryphal, -- nothing of 4c. is canonical -- is irrelevant. All patristic writings serve a similar purpose: unless we see heresy in them, they testify to a belief of the Early Curch and therefore teach us what to believe. This is a fundamental difference we Catholic have compared to the Protestants: out beliefs did not come from 15c charlatans, but rather form the Holy Apostles and their immediate pupils.
“It is a teaching not reflected in the scripture......”
Precisely! Jesus warned that the fine wheat planted would be oversown with the poisonous pseudo wheat or weeds and Paul said that,
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29, 30)
“All patristic writings serve a similar purpose: unless we see heresy in them, they testify to a belief of the Early Curch and therefore teach us what to believe.”
Who do you think Paul was talking to and about?
He was talking to the “older men, the elders” of the Ephesians, men who had been taught by an apostle, from those leaders of the flock would arise men who spoke perverse and twisted things, things not taught in God's word.
“The essential point in our argument is that “all” in Romans 5 does not refer to Mary. Neither did I mean that “many” in Romans 5 means people commonly are born and live without sin.”
The essential point is that what you have been taught and have argued is unscriptural and based upon a false teaching of men, a teaching based upon fraud and myth, by the Catholic Church’s own statement.
A 4th. century charlatan is in no way superior to a 15th. century one. But as Jesus further said in his illustration, when the weeds and wheat were fully developed in this harvest time then it would clear one from the other.
“The fact that is in not canonical that is to say, is apocryphal, — nothing of 4c. is canonical — is irrelevant.”
Not if we take Jesus’ own words at John 4:24 seriously about worshiping God “in truth”, That “truth” being God's word. (John 17:17)
Regardign Romans 5, you started by saying that St. Paul somehow was contradicted by the teachings of the Church regarding Mary. You now have seen that it is your interpretation of Romans 5 that is contradicted, but not the text itself.
Regarding the authority of the Church, — it is in the Scripture. See for example the authroty to “bind and loose” that Christ gave the Church, and the promise of continuing divine councel in John 14. The idea that unless we find something in the scripture it should not be taught, however, is not itself in the scripture. It is also absurd, because, naturally, lives of saints, including the Virgin Mary, exceed the scope of the Scripture.
The criterion for orthodoxy is not what is and what is not in the scrupture, but rather:
1. Is the teaching compatible with other infallible doctrines?
2. Is the teaching compatible with the Scripture (this is nto really a separate requirement but I list it separately for clarity)
3. Is the teaching of apostolic origin in some form?
On the assumption of Mary, all three are satisfied.
On the fallacies of Luther all three fail. Most notably, the doctrine of “sola fide” is directly contradicted by the scripture, and “sola scriptura” is at best not supported by it, and clearly contradicts the scripture when it is used to deny the authority of the Church.
There are many warning in the scripture about false doctrines of men. They all apply to Mohamedanism and Protestantism amply and prophetically.
If you have questions, please ask. Many people don’t know what the Church teaches, or why, and as a result do not understand the scripture.
That's actually false. The industrial revolution took off in the triangle between Paris, London and Amsterdam with most inventions being in England (Anglican), France (Catholic) and the Netherlands (Calvinist and Catholic -- the Catholic part, Belgium broke away in 1830)
If you look at Germany, the most heaviest concentration of industry was and IS in the Catholic provinces in the South -- Bavaria and the Ruhr areas.
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.