Why Catholicism

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.

I think what you should b arguing, which you ay be but not very well, isn't that she HAD to be sinless, per se, but that she should (or had not per se) be sinless because Jesus is God. It's about the dignity. Dignity moreso than the mecanical nature of needing mary to be sinless.

If you follow..

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
and not Orthodox? I've been studying about Catholicism for about 2 years now and there are still things that I don't grasp or understand. During the course of the New Year, I've been talking to a real cool Coptic friend of mine and some of his reasons why he didn't choose to be Coptic Catholic and remained Coptic Orthodox.

Of course, they don't view the Pope as infallible, and they don't believe in the IC. They do believe that Mary is the Theotokos, but she was a human and not born sinless. If Mary was born sinless, then she could have been sufficient for our sins (which I do agree about). I do believe that she is special for she bore the Christ, but she was just a human being like the rest of us. Full of grace yes, but born sinless... no. Plus, they have qualms about these revelations coming forth afterwards, that these were not what the apostles preached at first. They all preached about Christ being present in the Eucharist, and that there are seven sacraments and so forth, but the others are seen as addition to tradition that all the apostles taught in the four corners of the earth.
What say ye?
[/quote]

My primary reason for choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy was the Catholic Church's consistent teaching on the fruitfulness of marriage, especially concerning contraception. Those who claim that contraceptive sex is not inherently sinful lose much of their argument against other sexual sins, like homosexual intercourse and masturbation. Maybe they can quote some Scripture, but they're missing the reason why God inspired that Scripture in the first place, and that's because He created sex as the way in which us humans best imitate God's loving and creative power. While one or the other can be isolated, the fullness of what God desires for us to share with our spouses is lost.

Concerning Mary, in no way does the Immaculate Conception take away from her humanity. If so, then Jesus wasn't fully human since he was also sinless. And Mary being without sin does [i]not[/i] mean that she could have been sacrificed for our sins! If that were so, then Jesus didn't have to be the Son of God, both human and divine, to satisfy the sacrifice.

Fact is, Mary needed to be sinless in order to be the spiritual mother for all Christians who, through Baptism and rebirth in Christ, are made sinless. As children of Eve, who rebelled against God and sinned, we inherited original sin; as children of Mary, who submitted to God through his fulfilling grace, we inherit eternal life!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

First, welcome to Phatmass.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177592' date='Jan 27 2007, 06:02 AM']
Thank you for your kind welcome

Here's what I dont understand, you said that St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, but in order for her to be sinless, don't you think that her mother would also have to be sinless in order to birth a sinless child?
[/quote]
I think this is a mistaken argument. I've had the same problem you have. Now, Jesus got His sinless nature from His mother; that is true. However, it is not true that she had to be sinless just so that He could be. God could always make Jesus the first one to be preserved from sin, rather than Mary. The primary reason Mary was sinless is because she had to be sinless in order to bear God (St. Anne, Mary's mother, did not have to bear God and therefore didn't have to be sinless). This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.

[quote]It's like you mentioned that St. Mary was sinless, otherwise Jesus would have had sin inherited by her, but why wouldn't she inherit the sinful nature of her mother, if Jesus would have inherited St. Mary's sinful nature, according to your theological stance, if St. Mary wasn't sinless?[/quote]

My comment above addresses this.

[quote]In regards to "full of grace", that depends on how you define "grace", if you define it to me "perfect/flawless/without sin" then you're right, she wouldn't fit that criteria but if grace means:

Then St. Mary would have easily fit the criteria of being "full of grace" without nessessarily being sinless.

I'd definately agree that sexually [hence her virginity] she was sinless, but in every aspect of her life being sinless, I wouldn't agree because that in itself, is a charectoristic that only God alone holds [IE: Only God is sinless, that's part of what proves his divinity]. Ezekiel 44:2 clearly prophesies her ever-viriginity, [sinless sexual behavior and untouched] but it doesn't prove that she, herself, is sinless to the extent of God.[/quote]

Consider Genesis 3:15. Enmity is what is placed between Mary and the serpent. Enmity is total opposition. Therefore, Mary would have to be radically and totally without sin, in order to have enmity with Satan. Futher, the Greek word in Luke which we translate as "full of grace" is a participle for "one who has been graced." A participle is a type of adjective and, as you know, an adjective describes the state of being in a subject or object. The Archangel Gabriel was saying that Mary was graced in her very being, which means something far deeper than just a sort of surface grace. Finally, the Tradition of the Church clearly has the Blessed Virgin as sinless and immaculate.

[quote]Why did Jesus Christ come down to die for our sins? Because he was the only individual that could attone for our sins right? Why was that? Because Jesus Christ was the only sinless individual on the face of this planet [and universe]. Its said that only a sinless man, can die for someone else that has sin [that is guilty of the punishment of death], yet none on this earth have been found to have been sinless, that's why Jesus Christ came down to save everyone from the bondage of such a law, that through him... the cost is paid and we're not bound to such a law [the wages of sin is death].[/quote]

I'm afraid this is only part of the argument. Not just any sinless man (or woman) could redeem all of mankind. Had Mary, being Immaculate, died for humanity, but Jesus had not, then humanity would not be redeemed. The problem is that a sinless person is required, but not just that. Sin is an offense and the gravity of the offense is determined by the status of the person offended (if you insult a parent, it is worse than insulting a stranger, although both are bad). God is infinite and therefore sin against Him is infinitely offensive. As such, an infinitely good and pleasing sacrifice must be made to set things right in justice. Only God Himself is capable of making this sacrifice (which is why it is pure gift). That means that another sinless person could exist without God's being appeased. Furthermore, your quote doesn't grasp how the Blessed Virgin was immaculate. She was preserved free from sin by the sacrifice of Christ, in anticipation of it. Mary, without Christ, could not be sinless.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1177774' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:30 PM']
I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.
[/quote]

It was the divine nature of Christ that required Mary to be without sin. Since Mary lacked the divine nature, her mother did not need to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception affirms that her mother was, in fact, a sinner. Mary would have inherited the curse of original sin from her earthly mother if God did not intervene and redeem her through the timeless sacrifice her son would offer on the cross.

To be fully human is to be everything God created us to be, and that includes being without sin. Adam and Eve were fully human and created without sin, but they fell. Mary, our mother, and Jesus, our Father, are also fully human and it is through them that we look forward to our own humanity being redeemed Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection (since he was both fully human and fully divine).

[angelusdomini]

Praise be Jesus Christ,
With regard to the question to Mary's sinlessness, I think from what I have found so far (which isn't too much) is the quandry brought up by I believe St. Paul's statement basically saying that "All men have sinned" (I can't remember where this is- feel free to correct me). Ontop of this is why in the old testament "No one could See the Face of God and Live". Now we come to Our Lady, when the angel Gabriel appears to her at the annunciation, she beholds God in some fashion,

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. " (Lk. 1:35 DRB)

Yet after this, she did not die but lived. How is this? since all the children of Adam have sinned and she is a daughter of Adam. So, from my understanding it has not been so much for the benefit of Christ for indeed He is God and is in need of nothing from mere creatures. More so it is for her own benefit, for she being a daughter of Adam was in need of redemption as well. The question would be the manner of her salvation. So that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not to say that she was thus free from the need of a redeemer but more like the "proof" of her redemption. God preserved her from all stain of sin from her conception by virtue of the same sacrifice through which all men are saved. This is hinted at in Genesis when God punishes Adam, Eve and the serpent for their sin.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she [he/it] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (cf. Gn. 3:15 DRB)

One of the results of Original sin is that all men have an affinity to sin and so are under the dominion of the serpent. Therefore an enmity between the woman and the serpent would have to imply that she was not under dominion of the serpent which comes from Original Sin.
I believe Fulton Sheen gave this example once saying if a man saves another who has fallen into a sewage hole AFTER he has fallen in and saves another BEFORE he falls in (pre-emptive), which of the two has he saved? Are they saved in the exact same fashion? Is any of the two more saved than the other?
Anyway, I hope that this does not cause any confusion. Don Scotus, a Franciscan I believe is the one who was able to articulate the Immaculate Conception and all this did come from the querry that had lingered on for over a millenium as to how Mary a daughter of Man (adam) was not only able to behold God, but also to have Him dwell in her- and yet she lived?

Pax et Bonum. A.M.D.G

Edited January 27, 2007 by Angelus_Domini

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="red"]I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.[/color]

Well actually the Coptic Church has never been under Roman rule or jurisdiction. We've always had our own patriarch, etc. St. Mark founded our church and wasn't subject to a church that St. Peter founded either. St. Peter didn't just found the Roman Church but also had his hand in the Syriac Orthodox Church that also traces their foundation back to him also, so it doesn't make someone "special".

[color="red"]It was the divine nature of Christ that required Mary to be without sin. Since Mary lacked the divine nature, her mother did not need to be sinless.[/color]

Where in prophesy does it say that St. Mary the Theotokos had to be sinless in order to bear God? I don't recall such a prophesy, please enlighten me.

[color="red"]Yet after this, she did not die but lived. How is this? since all the children of Adam have sinned and she is a daughter of Adam. So, from my understanding it has not been so much for the benefit of Christ for indeed He is God and is in need of nothing from mere creatures. More so it is for her own benefit, for she being a daughter of Adam was in need of redemption as well. The question would be the manner of her salvation. So that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not to say that she was thus free from the need of a redeemer but more like the "proof" of her redemption.[/color]

Enoch didn't die either, but he wasn't perfect by no means. In regards to saying that she still was in need of a redeemer like everyone else, that is almost contradictory.

If she was perfect [having never sinned and violated the law] then she wouldn't be in need of a redeemer, because there would be nothing to redeem because she wouldn't be a slave to it.

[color="red"]Now, Jesus got His sinless nature from His mother; that is true.[/color]

I'm not sure if that's true or not, it's not found in scriptures or at the councils that affirmed and compiled the Bible.

[color="red"]This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.[/color]

I guess that's but a single way of viewing it, but I didn't find her to be a Saint because of this, but rather because of her actions while on this earth. She chose to remain a virgin, to be dedicated to God, not nessessarily out of fear but love. I believe that Mary's decision of saying "let it be so" (luke 1) was what made her a saint. Therefore she gave herself to God, rather then God forcing his prophesies upon her.

[color="red"]Therefore, Mary would have to be radically and totally without sin, in order to have enmity with Satan[/color]

She doesn't have to be sinless in order for this prophesy to work thou...

[color="blue"]Emnity:a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.[/color]

[color="red"]Futher, the Greek word in Luke which we translate as "full of grace" is a participle for "one who has been graced." A participle is a type of adjective and, as you know, an adjective describes the state of being in a subject or object. The Archangel Gabriel was saying that Mary was graced in her very being, which means something far deeper than just a sort of surface grace. Finally, the Tradition of the Church clearly has the Blessed Virgin as sinless and immaculate.[/color]

That could be but a single interpretation but I wouldnt say that it's universal.

[color="red"]I'm afraid this is only part of the argument. Not just any sinless man (or woman) could redeem all of mankind.[/color]

Oh I agree that she couldn't die for all of humanity but she could have died for someone, because she would have been an acceptable sacrifice to die for someone, if she was sinless but the point is that nobody was sinless, so there wasn't people that were sinless that were able to die for those that had sin because everyone was sinless and screwed basically.

[color="red"]My primary reason for choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy was the Catholic Church's consistent teaching on the fruitfulness of marriage, especially concerning contraception. Those who claim that contraceptive sex is not inherently sinful lose much of their argument against other sexual sins, like homosexual intercourse and masturbation. Maybe they can quote some Scripture, but they're missing the reason why God inspired that Scripture in the first place, and that's because He created sex as the way in which us humans best imitate God's loving and creative power. While one or the other can be isolated, the fullness of what God desires for us to share with our spouses is lost.[/color]

This right here could be explored very indepth. I'm going to say that God didn't just create sex [and sex's only purpose] isn't just to make babies, but it's also to show love and affection. There are those that feel [thou I'm against contraceptives also] that they're not ready to have a child, to care and support that child and chose to have contraceptive sex, of course they're denying some of the great blessings with their worldly mind but that isn't sexs only purpose. It's also to join and bond two souls together in love. If it was a sin to have sexual relations but not have a child, then barren women would be sinning for having sexual relations with their husband, though it was out of love.

[color="red"]I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.[/color]

No doubt

[color="red"]Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.[/color]

Yeah I wish that the original rites could be established again and that the churches could be in communion with each other too...

[color="red"]The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to share in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.[/color]

I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.

[color="red"]In some places the orthodox laity VOTE on how traditional the parish should be.[/color]

I'd be interested in learning on what places these are

[color="red"]Just for clarification, are you Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox? I'm not completely familiar with the Oriental Orthodox, but I know that communion was ruptured between some of the Eastern Churches themselves because of Chalcedon.[/color]

I'm Oriental Orthodox, you're right and definately reject the council of Chalcedon

[color="red"]I would agree with this; I've felt it. There's a giant Coptic Orthodox centre/parish in my hometown that I've entered a few times, because they have a great bookstore. Whenever I go there, I get a lot of strange looks and vibes, like because I'm Causasian I'm not supposed to be there or something.[/color]

I'm sorry that you got that experience, I'm Coptic but not geneolocically Egyptian and have never got that, but it would be for a variety of reasons but His Holiness Pope Shenouda isn't like that and I know that he wouldn't agree with that attitude either. Sadly I'd found Roman Churches that also give me similar looks for knowing that I'm Coptic also and similiar situations with race. I believe that you're going to find good and bad churches in every church and that it doesn't reflect the church as a whole, just as there is good and bad Roman Priests.

Reza

Edited January 27, 2007 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Reza, you can only use a certain number of quote boxes in a single post. Try using color coding instead.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
Where in prophesy does it say that St. Mary the Theotokos had to be sinless in order to bear God? I don't recall such a prophesy, please enlighten me.[/quote]

As I've pointed out, it doesn't say so in prophecy, but it does say so in typology (Ark of the Covenant).

[quote]If she was perfect [having never sinned and violated the law] then she wouldn't be in need of a redeemer, because there would be nothing to redeem because she wouldn't be a slave to it.[/quote]

This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.

[quote]I'm not sure if that's true or not, it's not found in scriptures or at the councils that affirmed and compiled the Bible.[/quote]

Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate. It's in Scripture, as I've shown, and it's also in the Tradition:

Mary was compared to the pre-fallen Eve, called "all holy," "all pure," "purer than angels," "miracle of grace," and "altogether without sin."

"Mary was created utterly equal with pre-fallen Eve." -St. Ephraem

"Mary was free from all stain of sin." -St. Ambrose

"Mary was Immaculate." -St. Severus

"Mary was pre-purified." -St. Sophronius

"She was the entirely immaculate Virgin." -St. Andrew of Crete

"Mary was conceived by a sanctifying action." -Theognostes

[quote] I guess that's but a single way of viewing it, but I didn't find her to be a Saint because of this, but rather because of her actions while on this earth. She chose to remain a virgin, to be dedicated to God, not nessessarily out of fear but love. I believe that Mary's decision of saying "let it be so" (luke 1) was what made her a saint. Therefore she gave herself to God, rather then God forcing his prophesies upon her.[/quote]

She didn't choose to be a virgin out of fear, but out of love. I wouldn't say anything different. However, Mary's fiat was made with her whole life, not just with the one occasion she had the chance to say it. She was entirely dedicated to God's will.

Further, God wanted Mary to have a completely free choice...as you said, free from fear. We fear God (in the bad sense of fear) because of the fall. For Mary to make a fully loving act, she had to be free from sin and all stain of sin, so that the effects of the fall would not contribute, thus allowing her fiat to be completely free.

[quote]Oh I agree that she couldn't die for all of humanity but she could have died for someone, because she would have been an acceptable sacrifice to die for someone, if she was sinless but the point is that nobody was sinless, so there wasn't people that were sinless that were able to die for those that had sin because everyone was sinless and screwed basically.[/quote]

Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.

[quote]This right here could be explored very indepth. I'm going to say that God didn't just create sex [and sex's only purpose] isn't just to make babies, but it's also to show love and affection. There are those that feel [thou I'm against contraceptives also] that they're not ready to have a child, to care and support that child and chose to have contraceptive sex, of course they're denying some of the great blessings with their worldly mind but that isn't sexs only purpose. It's also to join and bond two souls together in love. If it was a sin to have sexual relations but not have a child, then barren women would be sinning for having sexual relations with their husband, though it was out of love.[/quote]

Union in love is always meant to be open to life. Union and procreation cannot be separated. The Church teaches that both are necessary. We don't favor one over the other, nor do we teach that one can be sought, but not the other. Marital love should image the love of the Trinity. The Father gives Himself completely to the Son and the Son completely to the Father. That is love. However, if they decided to keep the Holy Spirit out of it, it would not be love. The love the Father and Son share is so great that it is a third Person. To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.

[quote] I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.[/quote]

No one has the power to change doctrine. We only have the power to further define and explain what is true...not to change truth.

I recommend reading the following. It's written by my Mariology professor, who is one of the world's leading scholars on the Blessed Virgin:

[url="http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=83"]http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?op...4&Itemid=83[/url]

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 02:50 PM']I'm Oriental Orthodox, you're right and definately reject the council of Chalcedon [/quote]
Is it just the Council of Chalcedon that you don't accept, or all subsequent Councils as well?

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.[/color]

Well actually the Coptic Church has never been under Roman rule or jurisdiction. We've always had our own patriarch, etc. St. Mark founded our church and wasn't subject to a church that St. Peter founded either. St. Peter didn't just found the Roman Church but also had his hand in the Syriac Orthodox Church that also traces their foundation back to him also, so it doesn't make someone "special".
[/quote]

What do you make of these Coptic witnesses to Petrine primacy?

From the Saints in Alexandria:
[b] St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311 A.D.): [/b]
"Peter, set above the Apostles." (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)

[b]St. Athanasius (362 A.D.): [/b]
"Rome is called the Apostolic throne." (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)

[b]St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):[/b]
"Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood." (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

[b]St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):[/b]
"He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church." (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

"He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd." (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

"They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter." (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736)

[b]Eulogius of Alexandria (581 A.D.):[/b]
"Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter." (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

From Antioch:
[b]Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):[/b]
"I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

From:
[url="http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm#Alexandria"]http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl....htm#Alexandria[/url]

These quotes are all over the net. I suggest also looking into this site:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/[/url]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.[/color]

Yeah I wish that the original rites could be established again and that the churches could be in communion with each other too...
[/quote]

That will require those in schism humbly accepting our Lord's wishes and abandoning any heresy. It does not mean Christians in other parts of the world will have to adopt a "Romish" appearance.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to share in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.[/color]

I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.
[/quote]

What's important is recognizing that the power to loosen and bind stems from communion with St Peter and his Successors. It is not a right that exists within itself. So what of those who break from the "Apostolic Throne?"

"Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter." (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

Edited January 27, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1177901' date='Jan 27 2007, 12:56 PM']
Reza, you can only use a certain number of quote boxes in a single post. Try using color coding instead.
[/quote]

Thanks for the suggestion, I wasn't aware of that.

[color="#FF0000"]Is it just the Council of Chalcedon that you don't accept, or all subsequent Councils as well?[/color] All subsequent councils as well [thou not all of them added, changed or subtracted theology so if it doesn't contradict the theology of the church, I wouldn't have nothing against it on a personal level

[color="#FF0000"]As I've pointed out, it doesn't say so in prophecy, but it does say so in typology (Ark of the Covenant). [/color] That's the problem that I got, wit believing something as such.

[color="#FF0000"]This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.

[color="#FF0000"]We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] So by "pre-emptive way" you're suggesting that you was going to sin and therefore in the future needed a savior?

[color="#FF0000"]Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate.[/color] If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.

St. Clement of Alexandria: The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin

Tertullian: God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

The theology of St. Mary being sinless is a relatively new doctrine, to be honest.

[color="#FF0000"]She didn't choose to be a virgin out of fear, but out of love. I wouldn't say anything different. However, Mary's fiat was made with her whole life, not just with the one occasion she had the chance to say it. She was entirely dedicated to God's will.[/color]

Well if you're saying that if someone were to touch her, that they would fall to the ground and die, that's fear. St. Mary thou chose [see Luke, let it be so...] to remain a virgin, to adhere to God's Will, through it doesn't mean that she wasn't sinless. It's also very possible to be entirely dedicated to God's Will but sin from time to time. St. Antony the Great, St. Mina the Miraculous, were both men that dedicated everything to Jesus Christ but were still sinful human beings that made mistakes.

[color="#FF0000"]Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.[/color] I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?

[color="#FF0000"]To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.[/color] So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?

[color="#FF0000"]No one has the power to change doctrine. We only have the power to further define and explain what is true...not to change truth. [/color] Well let me address something then, the Roman Church is kinda the "sore thumb" on alot of issues. Originally there were 4 Sees and Rome was one of them [as you know]. The other churches strongly agree on most of the issues at hand and Rome is greatly the sore thumb on a great number of them, therefore what makes you believe that Rome was the only one that genuinely preserved these traditions and everyone of the others happen to change and change in unison together? St. Mary's immaculate conception, for example, the other churches disagree strongly on and have facts that date back to the beginning of their churches, yet Rome is the sore thumb on this issue.

Rome has gone as far as attempting to define the mystery of "at what point does the bread actually become Christ's body" but I don't see their basis for their ruling on this issue, claiming an exact point that it becomes Christ's body, from ordinarly bread. Maybe there is scientific evidence of this, I just havn't seen the evidence for it yet and again Rome stands alone on this claim.

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The primary reason Mary was sinless is because she had to be sinless in order to bear God (St. Anne, Mary's mother, did not have to bear God and therefore didn't have to be sinless). This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.[/quote]

That's an interesting theory. Do you have any historical basis for it just out of curiosity? I ask as anyone can just make up a theory, like I said it's about dignity,not necessity per se. I'm sure I could find an old testament idea to back it up.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1177952' date='Jan 27 2007, 05:28 PM']
That's an interesting theory. Do you have any historical basis for it just out of curiosity? I ask as anyone can just make up a theory, like I said it's about dignity,not necessity per se. I'm sure I could find an old testament idea to back it up.
[/quote]
Well, of course, this matter is one for the theologians, but, as demonstrated, it simply makes no sense to say that Mary had to be Immaculate so that Christ could be. I think it goes without saying that the Tradition of the Church holds the Blessed Virgin as the Ark of the New Covenant. As we know, the Ark of the Covenant was covered in pure gold. It was seen as a pure thing. The Ark was only ever to be held by the poles of acacia wood attached to it, but never by direct contact. As we also know, when David was leading the Ark in procession, it almost fell. One of the Hebrews, presumably out of good intention, held out his hands and pushed it a bit to help sturdy it. He died immediately. Any exegete would have to say that this all seems to be due to the very pure nature of the Ark.

Why did the Ark have to be pure, though? Afterall, it held Aaron's staff, the Law, and the Manna, not God? Yet we know that a part of the Ark was the Mercy Seat, which was upon the angels. It is there that God would "sit" (or have His presence) with Israel. The Ark had to be pure because it represented God's heavenly dwelling and the seat of God's authority. For a man to touch it would be a sort of repeat of the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel...man grasping after the divine.

Now, since the Ark of the Old Covenant bore God in a spiritual way and the BVM bore God in a spiritual-corporeal way, then it follows that she would have to be pure as well. Notice that the gold was the nature of the Ark, and "pure" was the state of that nature. So it is with Mary: her nature is human, but she is purely human. We are all fallen and lacking something...Mary is more perfectly human than we are. To be purely or perfectly human is to exist as if before the fall, to be immaculate. However, all this proves is that anyone who touched Mary would be smited (I would argue that the womb is the actual vessel corresponding to the Ark, since it's clear people could touch Mary's hands or face, etc.; perhaps Mary's other parts correspond to the acacia wood poles of the Ark, i.e. that by which you may carry or lead the Ark; this makes it understandable how St. Joseph could touch and take care of Mary, but emphasizes even more how he needed to respect her virginity).

Now, as is apparent from the Scriptures, anyone who touches the chosen vessel of God is smited. How much more would one be smited if one unworthy touched God Himself? Mary, had she not been immaculate, would have been destroyed. She needed to be kept free from all stain of sin and indeed she was. Being immaculate, she was a vessel worthy of God. This works in two ways: 1) God was able to find suitable accomodations in Mary, and 2) Mary was able to bear God without being destroyed. The dignity aspect and the necessity aspect go hand in hand.

[-I---Love]

[b]I don't know if it is against unstated rules to jump in b/t two ppls responses...if so let me know and I apologize...[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.[/color] That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.

[b]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a difference between sinlessness and perfection. Perfection is higher than sinlessness. Mary still needed a Savior b/c although she was graced to be w/out sin, she was still not perfect. For example she could have had an imperfection, like being too critical of herself. If I am too critical of myself it is not a sin that I need forgiven of, but a flaw, or imperfection that I need to improve on.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate.[/color] If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.

[b]Again, I differentiated b/t perfection and sinlessness above. Also, we see from JC that human nature can be separated from original sin. JC was 100% human but by the grace of God freed from original sin. Again, the same goes for Mary. I understand what you are suggesting by a hence necessary never-ending lineage of ancestors being sinless. However, thought about in more detail this isn't the case. Perhaps Jesus [i]could[/i] have been born from Mary even if she had original sin. But, it was [i]more fitting[/i] we must agree, for the Son of God, to be honored in such a way, that he was housed in sinlessness for 9 months! If one is not convinced w/ the [i]necessity[/i] of Mary being born w/out sin in anticipation for JC, I think one can easily agree how much more fitting and honorable it was. The [i]analogy[/i] w/ the Arc of the Covenant seems to work (read Hail Mary by Dr. Hahn)[/b]

St. Clement of Alexandria: The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin

Tertullian: God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

The theology of St. Mary being sinless is a relatively new doctrine, to be honest.

[b]He showed quotes, you showed quotes. How are you proving that the doctrine is "relatively new." Where are dates? Where are any of both of your quotes [i]in context[/i]?[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.[/color] I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?

[b]Again, a difference b/t sinlessness and perfection. Were it possible for [i]us[/i] to make the choice if we want to be sinless, there could be no original sin. Also, one does not only need to be w/out sin to be a Savior for others, but one needs to be God. There is more to being God than sinlessness [i]and[/i] even imperfection too.[/b]

[color="#FF0000"]To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.[/color] So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?

[b]That's not the intended meaning. Naturally barren women are still [i]open[/i] to the possibility of having children. Couples that use contraceptives are closing themselves off to the possibility of having children. By using NFP, etc., couples are not closing off the possibility, but are following the biological cycle of a woman to determine when she is naturally able to conceive. There are no artificial means preventing pregnancy should her time of ovulation or something else shift.[/b]

[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1178012' date='Jan 27 2007, 06:32 PM']
That's my problem with the Roman doctrines thou, if she was perfect she wouldn't have needed a savior, for a savior was for those that sinned, not those that were perfect, as Jesus came because of the sins of the world, if the world [those in the world] were perfect, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be crucified because there would be nothing to attone for.
[/quote]

It was Christ who made her sinless and perfect in the first place; thus, He is her Savior. Had He not done so, she would have inherited original sin. That makes Him her Savior. Essentially, the teaching is that His merits on the Cross, which exist outside of time, were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception, to preserve her, free from all stain of sin, in anticipation of the Redemptive work of Christ on the Cross. There is no contradiction in it; the Church doesn't say that she was perfect on her own, but still needed a Savior; the Church teaches that she was saved by the Savior, but that this happened at her conception.

[quote]If Jesus got his human nature from his mother and therefore St. Mary would have to be perfect [sinless], then St. Mary's mother [St. Anne] would also have had to be perfect [sinless] in order for St. Mary to be sinless, being that St. Mary got her human nature from her mother too.[/quote]

Ah, but I was arguing against that. You have to recognize that in theology, there are two types of situations: necessity and fittingness. Now, of necessity, Mary was immaculate because she had to bear God, which St. Anne did not have to do. Therefore, Mary had to be immaculate and St. Anne did not. Mary was immaculate.

However, Mary being sinless, one of two things could happen:

1. [i]Mary could pass on fallen human nature to Christ and God could purify it at Christ's conception.[/i] However, this is not possible for two reasons. First, because Mary didn't have a fallen nature to pass on to Christ. Second, because to say that Christ's nature had to be purified or preserved from sin is an injustice to Christ...it would make Christ one of the redeemed, rather than the redeemer. Therefore, it only makes sense that Christ's nature was purified already and that He received it in that form as it was transmitted from a pure creature. Mary, therefore, had to be immaculate at least before she conceived Jesus in her womb. Because of the nature of fallen nature, it is not the case that one can be conceived with a fallen nature, but later lose all concupiscience. Even Baptism does not repair the fallen nature completely: we are still inclined to sin. So this possibility makes no theological sense.

2. [i]Mary could pass on a pure human nature to Christ.[/i] Humans do pass on their nature exactly as it is, unless God intervenes. Now, just because Christ did get His nature from Mary does not mean that Mary got her immaculate nature from her mother, St. Anne. As I said, God can intervene. This is what the Immaculate Conception is: St. Anne and St. Joachim conceived Mary, whom, at the very moment of her conception, God preserved free from all stain of original sin. This does not mean that St. Anne or St. Joachim were free from original sin. It means that God intervened. As stated above, it doesn't make sense to say that God would intervene at Christ's conception, nor does it make sense to say that God, if He was going to have Mary be sinless for Christ's conception, would purify Mary later in life.

Saying that Christ got His pure nature from Mary is not the same as saying that Mary had to be pure so that He could get His pure nature from Mary. God could have purified Mary later in life, before Christ's conception, it just isn't as fitting. God also could have purified the human nature at Christ's conception (although this would mean that Mary was passing on fallen nature, which would mean that she would be fallen and unable to bear Christ).

The reason, as stated above, for Mary's Immaculate Conception is that it is worthy of God and it is durable enough to withstand God's glory.

[quote]I'm talking about a totally pure individuals first because a woman that just is pure sexually isn't enough to die for the sins of another individual. Moreover that St. Mary, if she were sinless, could be an acceptable sacrifice of but a single human being and if she was sinless [as you're suggesting] then what makes you think that there wasn't others that were sinless out of choice?[/quote]

First, as I said, what is needed to repay for sin is an infinitely good sacrifice, which can only come from an infinite good. Only God is infinite, so only God can repay for sin. No human person, no matter how pure, could do it.

As for others being sinless, there may be others who were as sinless as possible, but they still had original sin. Mary didn't even have that.

[quote]So you think that only sins that are done intentionally are truely sins?[/quote]

You can't accidentally sin.

[Theoketos]

I would like to point out that some Coptics are outside union with Rome.

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48284"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48284[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="#FF0000"]I would like to point out that some Coptics are outside union with Rome.[/color] You're right [thou we're not arguing this] that the original Copts are not in communion with the Roman Church, and we were never part of it to be honest.

[color="#FF0000"]It was Christ who made her sinless and perfect in the first place; thus, He is her Savior. [/color] How do you come to this conclusion? I dont see it in scripture and I dont see it in any other credible doctrines either, but definately enlighten me.

[color="#FF0000"]Had He not done so, she would have inherited original sin.[/color] Why did Jesus need St. Mary then to not inherit the original sin, as St. Mary you're saying didn't get it from St. Anne.

[color="#FF0000"]There is no contradiction in it; the Church doesn't say that she was perfect on her own, but still needed a Savior; the Church teaches that she was saved by the Savior, but that this happened at her conception.[/color] How is it possible to say that she was perfect [sinless] but didn't need a savior? The whole point of a savior, since the fall of Adam and Eve was to redeem those that have sinned. Adam and Eve were sinless and therefore didn't need a Savior, Jesus [and the prediction of him comming to redeem] was made after Adam and Eve had sinned, not before because there was no need for a Savior or Redeemer. Now I understand what the Roman Church teaches, I'm not debating that they teach that she was sinless, what I'm debating is that theology as a whole, in which I believe is faulty [but am willing to be enlightened].

[color="#FF0000"]Now, of necessity, Mary was immaculate because she had to bear God, which St. Anne did not have to do.[/color] However, where in prophesy did it say that the Mother of Jesus Christ [St. Mary] had to be sinless? I dont recall such a prophesy, predicted in a single place in the Bible or Jewish Oral Tradition.

[color="#FF0000"]Mary didn't have a fallen nature to pass on to Christ.[/color] Again thou, how is it that you say that Jesus Christ would have gotten her fallen nature passed onto him and St. Anne's fallen nature didn't come upon St. Mary during childbirth from her mother?

[color="#FF0000"]Humans do pass on their nature exactly as it is, unless God intervenes. Now, just because Christ did get His nature from Mary does not mean that Mary got her immaculate nature from her mother, St. Anne. As I said, God can intervene. [/color] Then why can't God intervene to keep Jesus from getting his mother's sinful nature, as you're claiming happened with St. Anne and St. Mary?

[color="#33FF33"]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a difference between sinlessness and perfection. Perfection is higher than sinlessness. Mary still needed a Savior b/c although she was graced to be w/out sin, she was still not perfect. For example she could have had an imperfection, like being too critical of herself. If I am too critical of myself it is not a sin that I need forgiven of, but a flaw, or imperfection that I need to improve on. [/color]

You very much could have a point with this, I'd like to see you expand on this more and see others comments on this theological doctrine.

[color="#33FF33"]He showed quotes, you showed quotes. How are you proving that the doctrine is "relatively new." Where are dates? Where are any of both of your quotes in context?[/color] I decided to quote other church leaders because of his quoting of them and I wanted to assure that there's another side. In regards to datess, the individuals that I'd quoted were from the 3rd century [Tertullian for sure, St. Clement I'm pretty sure, it could have been before thou, if I remember correctly] and therefore came before those that he'd quoted. In regards to context, I believe it's pretty self-explanatory but you're welcome to research further into it. Another important figure to quote is St. Cyril the Great. His writings proclaim that St. Mary did have sin and that Jesus was the only individual that ever has been that walked the earth without sin.

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

Gen. 3:15
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm[/url]

The phrase “her seed” is “spermatos” is a very special phrased used, it is not used anywhere else in Scripture or in this context, which the idea of enmities being placed are not noted anywhere else in the whole of Scriptures. This simply put is the first prophecy of the redemption of mankind, the coming of the new Eve and the new Adam.

Enmities mean a solemn hatred and separation. It would be impossible for a person under Original Sin or any sin to solemnly hate the serpent (evil one) or to have separation unless one was free from his reign, thus being free of sin. So this is referring to two persons whom are free from sin. It then speaks of a woman and her seed, likewise we find in the New Testament a woman and her seed; the Blessed Mother and our Blessed Lord. But notice that there is no reference to a husband, one has to ask why since the authorship of the Old Testament is most of the time more interested in the male side, why now is only the female side represented?

The only interpretation that makes any sense at all is this is foreshadowing the Blessed Virgin whom is immaculate that would bring forth by the Holy Spirit her pure and spotless Son into the world and redeem it. Therefore, if one rejects that the Blessed Virgin is sinless and immaculate then you also reject that our Blessed Lord is the savior of the world. For if He is free from sin but she isn’t this verse of scripture doesn’t make sense at all and the importance of it already shown and its meanings. Simply put, one could not get around this verse if one wanted to argue the Blessed Virgin sinned, the only possible argument you can propose is that the scriptures error.

If one proposes the scriptures error then one can question the entirety of scriptures, thus we can turn to sacred tradition that teaches that she is without sin.

The Blessed Virgin’s savior is our Blessed Lord. To understand the connection we turn to the Old Testament where God takes the rib of man to form the woman. Likewise upon the Cross the lance that pushed through the side of our savior is a parallel. This merit and grace redeemed our Blessed Mother before she was even created therefore she was chosen before the ages by God to be the “Mother of God.”

If a child is walking by a big hole falling in, if a man comes pulling the child out the man is the savior of the child. Likewise, if a woman walks by the same hole but before she falls in the man saves her, the man is still the woman’s savior but in a different light. In this little story the man is our Blessed Lord and the woman the Blessed Virgin. Because she could not out of her own power be immaculate, it was ordained by God.

[mortify]

Reza, you seem sincerely interested in the sinlessness of Mary, and that is a wonderful thing because many a time Grace is disguised this way. I'm just curious, since the majority of us are laymen, have you looked into any real theological writing on this?

Let me first say that Mary herself wanted to be called by the Immaculate Conception when she appeared to St Bernadette. There have been incredible miracles recorded at Lourdes and the Church regards the appearance of our Lady as genuine. The special love Catholics have for her has inundated us with countless graces. She certainly holds us dear to her and does what she can to get us closer to her Son.

With that said, I hope no one refuses communion with the Church built on Kephas because they can't comprehend the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps the problem is, one may feel giving such a title to Mary would dissuade worship from Christ. But the point that has been emphasized over and over is that this grace was bestowed on Mary not because of herself, but precisely because of her role in bringing the Savior into the world. The higher we esteem our Lady the higher we esteem our Lord, who made her as she is.

She is the New Eve, to even call her a saint is an understatement. We can't begin to imagine what kind of person God would make to bear Him. Just think, His beauty, His eyes, His hair... all comes from our Lady. It just seems so natural to think she was anything but ordinary. I just can't see our Lord creating an impure woman for himself. She would have been created to match His perfection as far as Grace can make a human perfect.

A worthy read:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm[/url]

God bless,
Mort

[angelusdomini]

[quote]In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."...
...The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death...
...The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor. [/quote]

I would recommend that anyone who is interested to read more here at [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm"]New Advent- Immaculate Conception[/url].
---------

BTW Reza, just wondering what you think about original sin, in the immediate context of the relationship b/w Adam and Eve on the one hand and God on the other; and thenin the context of its effects on mankind? Also, what as far as you know are the effects of original sin i.e. do we have concupiscence? Is this also removed by/at baptism?
I only ask because I think that the understanding on the nature of original sin could help shed more light on the subject at hand. In general I believe that the Catholic position would be that Adam and Eve were created in Original Justice and Grace. After the Fall, there was a privation of the Grace of God and an ATTATCHMENT to SIN. Thus the whole dominion of Satan thing. If man through his fallen nature finds sin- that which off from the grace of God, then he is under the dominion of the serpent. The woman spoken of in Genesis 3, upon whom enmity has been placed between her and the serpent, cannot at the same time be also under dominion of the Serpent. This is all clarified by what the consequences of Original Sin are.

Pax et Bonum. A.M.D.G

Edited January 28, 2007 by Angelus_Domini