On The Blessed Mother's Sinlessness

[ReformationNow]

Not while they were on earth.  But - if you remember, they did not enter heaven untill Jesus was raised from the dead!  So, they spent quite some time BECOMING sinless and pure.

I think it all boils down to the Authority of the Church.  If the Church has held the Tradition (sacred Tradition - not man made) that the Mother of God was sinless, then it isn't an issue of whether or not the Bible says she was or wasn't, it's an issue of whether or not the Church can say she was. 

Can it? 

Isn't the Church, "the piller and foundation of Truth!"

Wasn't Peter given the keys to the kindom.  Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven!

If you accept that Christ gave Authority to His Church, then all other things just fall into place.

Look, the most you can do is show that Mary "might" have had sin.  You cannot prove she sinned.  We may not be able to prove that she didn't.  But since the Church says she didn't, then we know for sure that she didn't.

You see, it's issues like this that make it sooooo clear to me that sola scriptura isn't legit.  Would Christ leave us a Bible to try and "interpret".  Or would He leave us a Church to interpret it for us?

A burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim. The Catholic Church claims that Mary was sinless. Scripturally, there is no basis for this. It is the responsibility of the Catholic Church to prove any claims she makes.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe Church Fathers say Mary was sinless, therefore she was.

[ReformationNow]

THe gates of heaven were not open until Jesus opened them. They would have been in th bosum of Abraham along with all the OT people waiting for the resurrection.

2 Kings 2:11 "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

[cmotherofpirl]

Please contact webmaster@newadvent.org if an ad appears here that contradicts Catholic teachings.

Heaven

This subject will be treated under seven headings:

I. Name and Place of Heaven;

II. Existence of Heaven;

III. Supernatural Character of Heaven and the Beatific Vision;

IV. Eternity of Heaven and Impeccability of the Blessed;

V. Essential Beatitude;

VI. Accidental Beatitude;

VII. Attributes of Beatitude.

I. NAME AND PLACE OF HEAVEN

The Name of Heaven

Heaven (Anglo-Saxon heofon, O.S. hevan and himil, originally himin) corresponds to the Gothic himin-s. Both heaven and himil are formed from himin by a regular change of consonants: heaven, by changing m before n into v; and himil, by changing n of the unaccented ending into l. Some derive heaven from the root ham, "to cover" (cf. the Gothic ham-ôn and the German Hem-d). According to this derivation heaven would be conceived as the roof of the world. Others trace a connection between himin (heaven) and home; according to this view, which seems to be the more probable, heaven would be the abode of the Godhead. The Latin coelum (koilon, a vault) is derived by many from the root of celare "to cover, to conceal" (coelum, "ceiling" "roof of the world"). Others, however think it is connected with the Germanic himin. The Greek ouranos is probably derived from the root var, which also connotes the idea of covering. The Hebrew name for heaven is thought to be derived from a word meaning "on high"; accordingly, heaven would designate the upper region of the world.

In the Holy Bible the term heaven denotes, in the first place, the blue firmament, or the region of the clouds that pass along the sky. Gen., i, 20, speaks of the birds "under the firmament of heaven". In other passages it denotes the region of the stars that shine in the sky. Furthermore heaven is spoken of as the dwelling of God; for, although God is omnipresent, He manifests Himself in a special manner in the light and grandeur of the firmament. Heaven also is the abode of the angels; for they are constantly with God and see His face. With God in heaven are likewise the souls of the just (II Cor. 5:1; Matt., v, 3, 12). In Eph., iv, 8 sq., we are told that Christ conducted to heaven the patriarchs who had been in limbo (limbus patrum). Thus the term heaven has come to designate both the happiness and the abode of just in the next life. The present article treats as heaven in this sense only. In Holy Scripture it is called:

the kingdom of heaven (Matt., v, 3),

the kingdom of God (Mark, ix, 46),

the kingdom of the Father (Matt., xiii, 43),

the kingdom of Christ (Luke, xxii, 30),

the house of the Father (John, xiv, 2),

city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebr., xii),

the holy place (Hebr., ix, 12; D. V. holies),

paradise (II Cor., xii, 4),

life (Matt., vii, 14),

life everlasting (Matt., xix, 16),

the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21),

crown of life (James, i, 12),

crown of justice (II Timothy iv, 8),

crown of glory (I Peter, v, 4),

incorrup crown (I Cor., ix, 25),

great reward (Matthew 5:12),

inheritance of Christ (Eph., i, 18),

eternal inheritance (Hebr., ix, 15).

The Location of Heaven

Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?

Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Apoc., xxi). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the beaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.

[mustbenothing]

(musturde) Could I please have some proof that the Blessed Mother was sinless, maybe a Bible verse or anything.

(Me) Romans 3:10-12

10 as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one."

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

(Jake Huether) I also thought that "ALL Israel would be saved"?

(Me) They will. Paul explains in Romans 9 that the certain salvation of Israel is the certain salvation of the spiritual Israel -- that is, the elect. He explains in Romans 11 that the nation of Israel will ultimately receive covenantal blessings in a far-off revival.

(Jake Huether) So will "ALL" Israelites be saved?

(Me) No. In Romans 9, Paul has in mind the individuals within the spiritual Israel. In Romans 11, Paul has in mind the corporate body of the nation of Israel.

(IXpenguin21) Luke 1:28 -

And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

what reason on Earth would an Angel, a being who is purly soul, purly worshiping God in His kingdom, have to "Hail" a sinful humanbeing? then go on and say that they are "favored" and that "The Lord is with you"? where has there ever been a situation where man has found favor with God after the fall of man? after origional sin? here is where we start to see just what Mary is all about, and just what she's not about; sin.

(Me) Someone has favor with God, so that person must be sinless, even lacking original sin? All sorts of people in the Bible find favor with God (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Abel), but I don't see you claiming that any of them were sinless

(IXpenguin21) Genesis 3:15 - I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

God is speaking to satan in this passage and says that He will keep the woman from satan, which must mean she will always be in a state of grace, which means she is without sin.

(Me) He says that He will have the woman's (Eve's) offspring (that is, the representational forces of God, consummated in Christ) defeat the offspring of the serpent (that is, Satan and his servants/minions. Nowhere does this say that He will keep Mary from being guilty of sin!

(IXpenguin21) luke 1:41-42

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,

cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

sooo... the Holy Spirit of God anounces this through His servant, elizabeth. Mary and Jesus (the fruit of her womb) are both put under the same heading as "Blessed". infact, mary is said to be MOST blessed out of all women! not just the women then, because God has no time. mary is most blessed out of ALL women ever!

(Me) Peter says that many Christians are "blessed":

1 Peter 4:14

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

Clearly not all of these people were born without original sin.

(Jake Huether) Greatness doesn't imply sinlessness. Being FULL of Grace does.

(Me) Would that include Stephen?

Acts 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

[Chrysologus]

Does Paul's condemnation of all humanity as sinful include Jesus? How about little children incapable of actual sin?

[musturde]

MustBeNothing I asked proof that she was sinless, not proof that she was a sinner.

[ReformationNow]

MustBeNothing I asked proof that she was sinless, not proof that she was a sinner.

In order for there to be proof she was sinless, God Himself would have to tell us through scripture. Nothing less than that is definitive proof. The fact is, scripture is entirely silent on this. However, scripture tells us over and over that all mankind are sinners.

[cmotherofpirl]

Scripture itself tells us everything is not in it.

Scripture itself never claims to be the end all and be all of revelation.

Therefore your theory is untenable.

[Jake Huether]

A burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim. The Catholic Church claims that Mary was sinless. Scripturally, there is no basis for this. It is the responsibility of the Catholic Church to prove any claims she makes.

Oh my! Why is the burden of proof on the Catholic Church. It was the Protestants who claimed she was NOT sinless. Likewise, Scripturally, there is no basis for this.

Therefore, I say, it is the responsibility of the Protestants to prove any claims it makes.

See what I mean! We've "proven our case" and you've "proven your case", but in the end we are where we started!

That is EXACTLY why there are a zillion and counting protestant churches! Because each one has their own meaning, and although they believe the Bible can "prove" their beliefe, it mysteriously has the ability to "prove" to others the exact opposite and all possibilities inbetween!

That is why Christ would not have left us alone with just a book. Isn't that proof enough. Would Christ want his Church divided? St. Paul must have not known, when he pleaded that we all be one, with ONE FAITH, and ONE BELIEF.

[mulls]

THe Church Fathers say Mary was sinless, therefore she was.

are you serious?

Scripture itself tells us everything is not in it.

Scripture itself never claims to be the end all and be all of revelation.

Therefore your theory is untenable.

so the church fathers are more reliable, or equally reliable as, Scripture?

[Jake Huether]

(Jake Huether) So will "ALL" Israelites be saved?

(Me) No. In Romans 9, Paul has in mind the individuals within the spiritual Israel. In Romans 11, Paul has in mind the corporate body of the nation of Israel.

That's my point! In Scripture, "All" doesn't always mean "All". That is why Scripture can be inerrant, yet still NOT be infallible. Because in written text there is NO way of getting into the head of that person who is writing!

Now, show to me, in context, using text only how you know FOR SURE that St. Paul means that ALL (humans past present and future) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

You've shown me how you know for SURE that St. Paul "has in mind the individuals within the spiritual Israel". Show me now what St. Paul "has in mind".

That is what you must understand about Scripture. Yes, the writers were inspired by God. But they were human, with human understanding. St. Paul probably didn't know Mary as much as, say, Peter did. Since St. Paul came after. So, when Paul uses the term All, it isn't an infinite ALL - because when he uses "all" it is exclusive to what he knows alone. The OT writers didn't have in mind generations into the future. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write, yet they still had to use their own intelect to produce what they believed to be the right words in order to convey what their minds were thinking.

Genesis, for example, isn't a scientific manual on how exactly the world was created! The writer was using his human intelect to convey what he was inspired to write. Ispiration doesn't mean, a person off the street all of a suden knows the meaning of e=mc^2. Inspiration isn't a leap in intelectual knowledge. It isn't a leap in worldly truth! It is a desire to do what is on your heart. To head to voice of God in your soul. Inspiration is when one is filled with the Spirit! That is, the Spirit (as I write - I too must search for the right words) causes the one being "inspired" to have the desire to do His Will. So, the writer of Genesis didn't all of a sudden know that it took exactly 6X24 hours to ceate the univers, and that the air contained hidrogen, oxegen and nitrogen. He was inspired to write the Spiritual Truth of the World be created by God!

Same too with Paul. His main point wasn't to count how many people, past present and future, were sinfull! God sent Jesus into the world (he was fully Man - yet sinnless). Pauls main point, in writting to the Romans, was about faith in Jesus Christ!

[Jake Huether]

(Jake Huether) Greatness doesn't imply sinlessness. Being FULL of Grace does.

(Me) Would that include Stephen?

Acts 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

In the original written language of these Scriptural passages, the word used to describe Mary's Fullness of Grace is distinct. I'm no linguistics expert, but I do know that when the Angle said, "Hail, FULL of grace", the FULL used in that sentance was used no where else, and the translation is that she was so full, that there was no room for anything else.

Whereas, when they said that Stephen was "full of grace and power", the word used for full, wasn't the same.

Someone else might be able to give specific words.

[ReformationNow]

What chapter and verse do you find the words 'Full of Grace?'

[ReformationNow]

Oh my!  Why is the burden of proof on the Catholic Church.  It was the Protestants who claimed she was NOT sinless.  Likewise, Scripturally, there is no basis for this.

Therefore, I say, it is the responsibility of the Protestants to prove any claims it makes.

See what I mean!  We've "proven our case" and you've "proven your case", but in the end we are where we started! 

That is EXACTLY why there are a zillion and counting protestant churches!  Because each one has their own meaning, and although they believe the Bible can "prove" their beliefe, it mysteriously has the ability to "prove" to others the exact opposite and all possibilities inbetween!

That is why Christ would not have left us alone with just a book.  Isn't that proof enough. Would Christ want his Church divided?  St. Paul must have not known, when he pleaded that we all be one, with ONE FAITH, and ONE BELIEF.

The Catholic Church made the claim that Mary was sinless. According to scripture, we are all born in sin, and all have sinned. The burden of proof lies upon those who teach something which scripture does not support.

[cmotherofpirl]

are you serious?

so the church fathers are more reliable, or equally reliable as, Scripture?

Mulls

THe Early Church Fathers were the ones who chose what books were in the NT Scriptures. Their writings ( and they were prolific authors) are what we call Tradition (notice the big T). Their authority is equal to the Sciptures (since they picked them).

THe Church is made of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

[Jake Huether]

What chapter and verse do you find the words 'Full of Grace?'

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/4Advent-b.html

Actually, the more acurate translation is "full of grace". Interesting article.

The Catholic Church made the claim that Mary was sinless. According to scripture, we are all born in sin, and all have sinned. The burden of proof lies upon those who teach something which scripture does not support.

So now the Burnden of proof lies on those who teach something which scripture does not support. I thought the burdern of proof was on those who claim something. But again, Scripture doesn't support Mary being a sinner either! If you can find where the Bible specifically sais Mary was a sinner, than I will sit on my hands. But the Church existed before the Bible - and knows the Bible fully (she wrote the new testament). It wasn't until LATER that the Protestants claimed the Bible said she was a sinner. Truth is, the Bible doesn't say one way or another! It hints one way, and it hints the other. But history proves that this is what the Church believed! It is their "claim" that according to Scripture, we all are born in sin, and all have sinned. But Jesus was born a human, without sin. Therefore, there are exceptions, no matter what. Therfore the burden of proof is on Protestants!

[Jake Huether]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/rosary_...y_scripture.htm

http://www.john654.org/mary.html

Edited again: Sheesh - there's so much cools stuff on Mary!

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/MARY1.HTM

http://asia.geocities.com/albinocat_sc/cat...conception.html

I'm thankfull for this discussion, because it has caused me to learn to Love Mary ever so much more (and remember - her soul Magnifies the Lord, and thus it Magnifies my Love For God)!

[mulls]

Mulls

THe Early Church Fathers were the ones who chose what books were in the NT Scriptures. Their writings ( and they were prolific authors) are what we call Tradition (notice the big T). Their authority is equal to the Sciptures (since they picked them).

THe Church is made of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

OK, i want this to be settled once and for all....

as Cmom has just explained to me, the writings of the early church fathers have equal authority as the Scriptures.

Right?

Now, I should be able to bring this up to any knowledgeable Catholic layperson or priest and they will affirm this, correct? If so, this will be a BIG step in my understanding of Catholocism.

BIG.

[cmotherofpirl]

The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture.

This relation is the same as that between the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. Christ made use of the Bible, He appealed to it as to an irrefragable authority, He explained and interpreted it and furnished the key to it, with it he shed light on His own doctrine and mission. The Apostles did in like manner when they spoke to the Jews. Both sides had access to the Scriptures in a text admitted by all, both recognized in them a Divine authority, as in the very word of God. This was also the way of the faithful in their studies and discussions; but with pagans and unbelievers it was necessary to begin with presenting the Bible and guaranteeing its authority -- the Christian doctrine concerning the Bible had to be explained to the faithful themselves, and the guarantee of this doctrine demonstrated. The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. It was the Church's part to guard the Bible, to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what she knew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moral doctrine with a view to our supernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, the Old Testament being a preparation and annunciation of the Messias and the new dispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies. It was for the Church in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case of doubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even when necessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity, chronology, exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or the veracity of its doctrine or to maintain a given body of revealed truth contained in a given text. It was above all for the Church to circulate the Divine Book by minting its doctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourish souls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium.

On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture. There it finds the word of God, new-blown so to speak, as it was expressed under Divine agency by the inspired author; while oral tradition, although faithfully transmitting revealed truth with the Divine assistance, nevertheless transmits it only in human formulas. Scripture gives us beyond doubt to a certain extent a human expression of the truth which it presents, since this truth is developed in and by a human brain acting in a human manner, but also to a certain extent Divine, since this human development takes place wholly under the action of God. So also with due proportion it may be said of the inspired word what Christ said of His: It is spirit and life. In a sense differing from the Protestant sense which sometimes goes so far as to deify the Bible, but, in a true sense, we admit that God speaks to us in the Bible more directly than in oral teaching. The latter, moreover, ever faithful to the recommendations which St. Paul made to his disciple Timothy, does not fail to have recourse to Biblical sources for its instruction and to draw thence the heavenly doctrine, to take thence with the doctrine a sure, ever-young, and ever-living expression of this doctrine, one more adequate than any other despite the inevitable inadaptability of human formulas to divine realities In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon against error and heresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of the necessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminous truth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness to faith defended at need against error by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have an ad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it.

Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are not infallible as individuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable to error or heresy. As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question. It claims this power of infallible interpretation only in matters of faith and morals, that is where religious or moral truth is in danger, directly, if the text or passage belongs to the moral and religious order; indirectly, if in assigning a meaning to a text or book the veracity of the Bible, its moral value, or the dogma of its inspiration or inerrancy is imperilled. Without going further into the manifold services which the Bible renders to the living magisterium mention must nevertheless be made as particularly important of its services in the apologetic order. In fact Scripture by its historic value, which is indisputable and undisputed on many points, furnishes the apologist with irrefragable arguments in support of supernatural religion. It contains for example miracles whose reality is impressed on the historian with the same certainty as the most acknowledged facts. This is true and perhaps more strikingly so of the argument from the prophecies, for the Scriptures, the Old as well as the New Testament, contain manifest prophecies, the fulfilment of which we behold either in Christ and His Apostles or in the later development of the Christian religion.

In view of all this it will be readily understood that since the time of St. Paul the Church has urgently recommended to her ministers the study of Holy Scripture, that she has watched with a jealous authority over its integral transmission, its exact translation, and its faithful interpretation If occasionally she has seemed to restrict its use or its diffusion this too was through an easily comprehensible love and a particular esteem for the Bible, that the sacred Book might not like a profane book be made a ground for curiosity, endless discussions, and abuses of every kind. In short, since the Church at last proves to be the best safeguard for human reason against the excesses of an unbridled reason, so by the very avowal of sincere Protestants does she show herself at the present day the best defender of the Bible against an unrestrained Biblicism or an unchecked criticism.