Mary's Sinlessness

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

(Me again, the non-catholic with lots of questions)

Ok, so you say Mary is sinless.

Now you must have received this question 1000 times, but where does Mary come from?

Mary's Mother (Normal Sinner) -> Mary (Sinless, except for that what she inherited from her mother) -> Jesus (Totally sinless)

Why did Jesus not inherit the 'little' sin that Mary had from her mother?

Anyway, here is an argument. (Just check my logic and see which point you don't agree on, then explain to me why you differ from my logic at that point): 1. Jesus makes ALL sin go away in the eyes of the father (to those who accepted Him as saviour) 2. King David is saved 3. King David is saved on the principal that He believed in God and the promise God made to send a messiah. 4. In God's eyes King David is without sin, and can enter heaven after he gets judged to be without sin.

Now replace King David with Mary. Only place where I can see you *might* have a problem is 3. On what principal can Mary enter heaven? Because she is sinless? --"No-one can get to the Father except through Me"

Going on. New logic thing... 1. Jesus makes ALL sin go away in the eyes of the father (to those who accepted Him as saviour) 2. Jesus had to be without sin to pay for everyone's sins 3. Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless 4.1 If Mary had sin, roll back 3 then 2. Error (normal Catholic way of seeing it) 4.2 If Mary had no sin, see 1. Therefor Jesus's blood cannot wash away any of Mary sins. So Jesus's blood is good enough for everyone, but Mary has to get into heaven on her own. . . . Isn't that what Jesus is supposed to be doing? Being good enough to enter heaven on His own?

Both these pieces of logic comes down to the fact that Mary is not saved via Jesus's blood.

Protestant belief is, Mary had sin, but is sinless because she is saved by the blood of Christ, and therefor she could conceive Him. Like King David.

Ok, please explain where my logic is flawed. I guess it goes into interpretation...?

-Reenen

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 31, 2004

Answers

Jesus is Mary's Savior. She is still sinless. Think of this: there is a hole in the ground and it is covered up. Someone falls in it and someone pulls this person out. This person who pulls the other out is the savior. Think of this covered hole again, but this time think of the savior helping another person about to fall into the hole, before falling into the hole. Jesus is still the Savior of Mary, yet she is still sinless.

A priest explained that one to me and I think it might help.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.


Ah... I see.

So Jesus made Mary sinless... Just like the protestants say. :) I joke, I actually really see what you mean.

Jesus 'created' Mary sinless would be a better way of putting it.

I understand your hole story perfectly, I am just not sure that it can be applied to my logic about Mary.

Thanks for the reply.

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 31, 2004.


youre right, reneen, in that the story about the hole (the parable of the hole-- hahaha, it kills me...) doesnt fit with your logic.

That is because your logic doesnt fit with the story. Why is it that Christ would not be born from a sinner's flesh? because there could be no doubt that He was the pure Lamb to be sacrificed for the sins of man.

So, how is it that mary could be saved by Jesus when she was born without sin? simple really... like being about to fall into the hole, mary was about to be born with the stain of original sin. Jesus, to whom time holds no meaning, saved her by act of his death on the cross, which in earth years would not happen for another forty years. But God is God, and living outside of phase space is one of the perks of being the deity.

So, Christ's sacrifice saved mary, but did it in a manner outside of the normal bounds for humanity. She was without sin, without the temptations of sin, and without the curses of sin because of the act of her Son dying on the cross for all mankind. It's hard to explain, thats why the immaculate conception (mary's conception) is considered a mystery of the faith.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 31, 2004.


But now you are saying exactly what the protestants say: mary was about to be born with the stain of original sin. Jesus, to whom time holds no meaning, saved her by act of his death on the cross, which in earth years would not happen for another forty years.

Except this is what happens to EVERYONE, who will in the course of his life decide to follow christ.

She would have inherited sin from her mother. So Jesus would have to forgive that. Also then, she could just as well have had sin of her own, because Jesus's blood will erase that too.

And She was without sin, without the temptations of sin ??!!

Even Jesus had the temptations to sin! Jesus was lead into the desert by Satan, and tempted. Jesus could withstand each of the temptations. This is why we can say the Jesus was truely man, if He didn't have temptations, then He was not truely man, and His death could not save us.

the immaculate conception (mary's conception) is considered a mystery of the faith.

So you base a whole integral part of your religion on a mystery?

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 31, 2004.


Mary was born with sin. The bible clearly states all man has fallen short of the glory of God. Mary was not perfect, but she was highly favored in the eyes of God.

No where in the bible does it ever, ever say mary was sinless! It does however say all mankind is born of corruptible seed, and until we are saved and in heaven we can never be sinless. I am saved, but as I write this I have sins to confess to God. Not to a preist..but to God through Jesus the only mediator between God and man. David still had to sacrifice his lamb one time during the year for his sins. Evey body did up until Jesus paid for our sins on the old rugged cross. Now all we do is go to God and confess our sins. It's that simple.

Mary was not sinless, she was not perfect, and she was not even saved until after she was told of Jesus being born through her. The reason Jesus was born without sin is because He was not conceived through sin-sex, yes sex is a sin. But instead Jesus was given life when the spirit came upon mary. Ergo.. no sin was passed on.

-- Drake S (kjvonlyrev22_18_19@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.



Drake S

What are you on about? How is sex a sin? It was given by God for a married couple to use for procreation? No where in the Bible does it say sex is a sin.

You are a fundementalist right? Why do you hold onto the Sola Scrpitura thing? John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. Also Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology. 2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

Concerning Marys Immaculate Conception look here and href="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html">here for scriptural basis

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.


Except this is what happens to EVERYONE, who will in the course of his life decide to follow christ.

yes, but people who choose to follow Christ have their stain of original sin wiped clean after their confession of Christ and their baptism. Mary, however, was never touched by the stain of original sin. She was pre-emtively saved.

She would have inherited sin from her mother. So Jesus would have to forgive that. Also then, she could just as well have had sin of her own, because Jesus's blood will erase that too.

no, you dont understand, that is the nature of the immaculate conception. Not that she was saved by erasing the stain of sin from her, but that she was never even TOUCHED by sin. Jesus protected (saved) her from ALL sin, and she never comitted sin on her own, because she was protected from it.

Even Jesus had the temptations to sin! Jesus was lead into the desert by Satan, and tempted. Jesus could withstand each of the temptations. This is why we can say the Jesus was truely man, if He didn't have temptations, then He was not truely man, and His death could not save us.

yes, but like Jesus, mary would never act on that temptation. Did satan make offers? yes. Did mary take those offers? no.

So you base a whole integral part of your religion on a mystery?

all of faith is a mystery. anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or doesnt know true faith. let me recount a few mysteries for you: a woman who is saved by an event which has not occured yet from a sin which has not yet touched her soul, a child born of a virgin, a God crucified by His own creations, the sins of all mankind washed clean by one perfect Sacrifice, creation of the universe, a hateful man struck blind for days then converts to the most influencial biblical NT writer, the blind see, the dead walk, sins forgiven by the word of God through the keys which the apostolic succession now possesses, a Man/God (fully man and fully human: two completely different natures in one being), Jesus rising from the dead, life after death, creation of the soul, revelations.

Or do you claim to have clear cut precise and accurate knowledge of all the facets of these things? THAT is the mystery of faith... the things we recognize and believe, though they cannot make complete scientific sense.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 31, 2004.


I know I am not going to change your mind.

But I will take a moral victory here because I got you to go to : "It is a mystery".

You are not likely to change my mind either, though on some things you (and those on the forum) have made some great strides.

Especially where sex is concerned. I still don't think that contraceptives are wrong, but I realise now that using them should not be a light and easy decision (as most people do nowadays).

I think however, (from my couple of visits to Catholic mass) that one of the beauties of the catholic faith is in their mysticism/mysteriousness. The rituals, the latin, I think really adds to realizing that you cannot explain most things, and makes you more humble in your faith.

Thanks for giving me more insight into the ways of your faith.

-Reenen

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 31, 2004.


Hi Reenen,

Actually, if we go back up to your orignial logic there are a couple of things that I would like to mention.

"Only place where I can see you *might* have a problem is 3."

Actually, I have a problem with 1. You speak as most Protestants do in saying that God 'sees' us as if we had no sin. You sound as if you are thinking in a Judicial sort of way. God doesn't actully make us sinless but by faith in Jesus he 'pretends', or legally declares, as if we are sinless. We are not truly justified but God acts 'as if' we are justified. We are not righteous, but God thinks of us as if we are righteous like Jesus.

Catholics don't think this way. We are not 'legalists'. We believe that what God declares, IS. Through the action of Christ (and our faith . ..), God does not just see us as sinless, but we actualy have our sins washed away. (This is why sinning later is a problem). God does not just see us as righteous, but he makes us righteous. God doesn't act as if we are justified, we ARE justified.

My intent here is not to start a big discussion on this issue. It is a big topic, going to the very heart of the Sola Fide debate. It goes into sanctification, justification, the nature of faith, the backdrop of the book of Romans. It is huge. I just wanted to point out something that might cause confusion. We have different things in mind when we use the same words. When you say 'forgiven' and we say 'forgiven' we have different realities in mind.

There is one other piece of logic that is a common misconception about Cahtolic teaching. In your second logic you say, "2. Jesus had to be without sin to pay for everyone's sins 3. Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless " We don't actually believe that Mary 'necessarily' had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. This leads to a philosophical (I don't think that is spelled right, shame on me I have a degree in philosophy) problem of infinite regress. Mary was sinless because it is 'fitting' for Jesus to be carried in a pure vessel. God chose to do this, it was not required to be so.

In Christ,

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.


"Original sin" is not a sexually transmitted quality. It is in fact not a guilt we inherit at all but a lack of a supernatural gift which Adam and Eve had but lost through their actual sin.

Thus, from the biological point of view, man's body - insofar as it has parts, would have been exposed to the laws of physics including entrophy and death. God's eden and grace though promised man eternal corporeal life - not naturally but miraculously.

Adam's sin (which was first a spiritual rebellion and not merely eating a poisoned apple) lost this supernatural gift of eternal corporeal life to him and all his descendants. This is proven by the fact that he didn't physically die that very day - what died was his friendship with God and his miraculous liberty from the natural effects of corporeal life: hardship, pain, disordered passions etc.

It's not like there was some intrinsic quality in man that was turned "off" which science or magic could hot-wire back "on" giving us immortality. * This is the basic misunderstanding behind much of masonry and other secret-societies such as the gnostics, etc. who think immortality in corporality was intrinsic to man but robbed from us by "the gods" or God.

Nor is sexual procreation somehow the reason why Cain and Abel and all other decendants couldn't enjoy bliss with God or immortality.

Procreation merely produces the body - God creates the spiritual soul; and while immortality is a given for all spiritual beings, human souls included (having no parts), resurrection of the body is a gift of God.

Getting back to Mary. She would have been conceived like everyone else in the state of mere mortality and the other effects of this (pain in childbirth, disordered passions, etc) had God not SAVED her from this by virtue of a special grace at the moment of her conception. The biblical proof of this is both Old Testament and New. The conceptual reason is: the woman through whose humanity the Incarnate Word would become human could not have ever existed in the fallen state because God's perfection is such that only a spot-less, perfect womb (or temple) would do.

In Isaiah, the Lord talks about a "sign" higher than the heavens...and goes on to talk about "the virgin shall be with child". Now everyone goes off the deep-end about the word "virgin" forgetting the context: if the word meant "young girl" it would not have been a big deal "as high as the sky" or a sign at all since young girls always have babies!

Virgin conception then is a miraculous sign. A sinless virgin though is a sign "higher than the sky".

In the Gospel Mary is greeted not by her name but by her reality: full of grace. But being full of grace requires that she never experienced sin or the loss due to original sin...thus simple deduction led Christians to the belief that she was preserved from sin by God in preparation for the Incarnation of the Word of God in her womb.

Finally a bonus bit of info: Mary and Jesus are the only two human beings apart from Adam and Eve to be conceived without sin. But John the baptist was born without sin because he was "filled with the Holy Spirit" at 6 months in utero when Mary arrived to her kinswoman's home.

Pro-lifers obviously make note of this fact: a fetus at 6 months was aware of the presence of Mary and the Incarnate Word (who was presumably only about 1 month along gestation wise).

Catholics who know their stuff, know this stuff.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.



Reenen,

Thanks for coming to the forum! When you said:

I know I am not going to change your mind. But I will take a moral victory here because I got you to go to : "It is a mystery".

If all you wanted was for a Catholic to admit much of faith is a mystery, you could have just asked! I'd be happy to admit that Christ's sacrifice for ALL past and future is one heck of a mystery, to give just one example. I'd go further and say that someone's faith who had NO mystery is either currently enjoying the beatific vision, or isn't much of a faith.

As far as changing someone's mind, I wouldn't worry about that. It is more than enough that your questions can help us Catholics better understand our own faith. This IMO would be a better result than having someone embrace potential errors anyway (again IMO).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 31, 2004.


Jesus said that unless you become as little children you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven..a "moral victory" because one person debated another until he stated his belief was based upon a "mystery"? One individual (or many) writing that they refuse to believe until and unless someone PROVES to them with some sort of flawless LOGIC the very power of the Almighty to DO as He chooses? People who absolutely demand something to be written down somewhere in the bible before they will accept it as Jesus' teaching, despite the FACT that Jesus' teachings were taught orally for HUNDREDS of years before the bible existed....my my my..and how exactly do little children believe? Do THEY insist upon cold logic, do THEY demand absolute PROOF ? Do THEY tear apart everything, trying to reduce it to their own level, rejecting out of hand whatever THEIR immature minds cannot understand? May we ALL be as little children.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.

I will take a moral victory here because I got you to go to : "It is a mystery".

but you see, herein lies the problem with protestantism: they cannot believe what they do not understand. Whoever said that faith was to be simple and fully understood by all people? Thats the factor that makes it faith, you believe in something even though all aspects of it are not clear.

I can see where, in our society, we end up with so many protestant groups. They all discard what they dont understand as "not valid to the faith." But, as has been stated, Jesus tells us to be like children in the faith. when i was young i didnt know anything about transubstantiation, but i believed in it. So today, i know more about the philosophy behind transubstantiation, but by no means enough that i understand all of it... and yet still i believe. Its a societal issue, however, that teaches us that anything not empirically verifiable is bunk, and that issue is the ultimate downfall of most forms of protestantism.

In reality, however, we are knowledgeable about the mysteries of the faith, in fact a good catholic should know more about MOST of the mysteries than almost any protestant thinks they know about any of their sureties. Why? because sureties are tangible, and dont need to be digested to be considered. mysteries require depth and thought, and must be mulled over to deepen our faith and understanding of the way that God effects are lives. I cant imagine the sick sad world of faith without mystery, where i could no longer grow any closer to God spiritually than i am today.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 31, 2004.


Dano:

God does not just see us as sinless, but we actualy have our sins washed away.

This is what I believe, if what you say the protestants say is true, then I disagree with them. (But also there are SO many protestant groups, I am sure there is some that agree with you on this)

My intent here is not to start a big discussion on this issue. It is a big topic, going to the very heart of the Sola Fide debate.

Sola Fide?

We don't actually believe that Mary 'necessarily' had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. This leads to a philosophical (I don't think that is spelled right, shame on me I have a degree in philosophy) problem of infinite regress. Mary was sinless because it is 'fitting' for Jesus to be carried in a pure vessel. God chose to do this, it was not required to be so.

Philosophical looks fine. Ok, so Mary being sinless is just a 'flavour' to the religion. No problem then.

Joe:

"Original sin" is not a sexually transmitted quality. It is in fact not a guilt we inherit at all but a lack of a supernatural gift which Adam and Eve had but lost through their actual sin.

That is not how I understand it. Doesn't it state something along the lines of :"Sins will be inherited to the 3rd or 4th generation of those that hate me, but I will show my love to the 1000th generation of those who love me". *NOTE: I read my bible in my native tongue, and this is a translation from that (and out of my head).

(... interesting stuff about gnostics and masons ...)

The conceptual reason is: the woman through whose humanity the Incarnate Word would become human could not have ever existed in the fallen state because God's perfection is such that only a spot-less, perfect womb (or temple) would do.

I presume what follows is the explaination.

In Isaiah, the Lord talks about a "sign" higher than the heavens...and goes on to talk about "the virgin shall be with child". Now everyone goes off the deep-end about the word "virgin" forgetting the context: if the word meant "young girl" it would not have been a big deal "as high as the sky" or a sign at all since young girls always have babies! Virgin conception then is a miraculous sign. A sinless virgin though is a sign "higher than the sky".

How about a sign "higher than the sky" means a special kinda star that leads sheppards to the birthplace? Like a star perhaps?

Does the hebrew word mean "young girl"? I wouldn't know.

In the Gospel Mary is greeted not by her name but by her reality: full of grace. But being full of grace requires that she never experienced sin or the loss due to original sin...thus simple deduction led Christians to the belief that she was preserved from sin by God in preparation for the Incarnation of the Word of God in her womb.

Right before you do your 'simple deduction'... 1) Your bible reference to : "Mary is greeted not by her name but by her reality: full of grace" 2) Your bible reference to : "But being full of grace requires that she never experienced sin or the loss due to original sin."

*NOTE: I've said before I do not know the bible well, so I am not saying they don't exist.

Frank: If all you wanted was for a Catholic to admit much of faith is a mystery, you could have just asked! I'd be happy to admit that Christ's sacrifice for ALL past and future is one heck of a mystery, to give just one example. I'd go further and say that someone's faith who had NO mystery is either currently enjoying the beatific vision, or isn't much of a faith.

I agree with you. I didn't take the moral victory because I wanted people to say "it's a mystery", I took it because people started to explain it to me, and then after it went to and fro it ended with "it's a mystery". Had it been Q: "Why is Mary sinless?" A: "There's been a lot of debates/philosifying going on, but it's pretty much a mystery" (and maybe even after that, "but here are a few things which might help clearing up some of it: ") then saying, "ok I'll take a moral victory" would be just plain silly. But that was not the case.

As far as changing someone's mind, I wouldn't worry about that. It is more than enough that your questions can help us Catholics better understand our own faith. This IMO would be a better result than having someone embrace potential errors anyway (again IMO).

You are truely a noble person, and I truely hope that my questions does that for you (and everyone else here).

Lesley: See above on moral victory.

Paul: I will take a moral victory here because I got you to go to : "It is a mystery". but you see, herein lies the problem with protestantism: they cannot believe what they do not understand. Whoever said that faith was to be simple and fully understood by all people? Thats the factor that makes it faith, you believe in something even though all aspects of it are not clear.

Please see above. But for further explaination, I didn't ask "make me believe this", I asked "Tell me, why do you believe this". Protestantism has very little to do with this.

I can see where, in our society, we end up with so many protestant groups. They all discard what they dont understand as "not valid to the faith."

LOL, yes, I tend to agree, I agree more with the Catholic teachings than I do with a lot of the protestant stuff. (or at least have respect for it because they are willing to admit it is a mystery)

When i was young i didnt know anything about transubstantiation, but i believed in it.

Huh?

In reality, however, we are knowledgeable about the mysteries of the faith, in fact a good catholic should know more about MOST of the mysteries than almost any protestant thinks they know about any of their sureties. I am sure you are right. (As a surety...) :)

mysteries require depth and thought, and must be mulled over to deepen our faith and understanding of the way that God effects are lives.

See my original post (with moral victory... everyone seems to look flat into that), where I give my respect and admiration to the Catholic faith.

Thanks all. (I DO hope I had all the b's and the /b's and i's and /i's right this time - in SUCH a long post.



-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), April 01, 2004.


Reenen,

I agree with you. I didn't take the moral victory because I wanted people to say "it's a mystery", I took it because people started to explain it to me, and then after it went to and fro it ended with "it's a mystery". Had it been Q: "Why is Mary sinless?" A: "There's been a lot of debates/philosifying going on, but it's pretty much a mystery" (and maybe even after that, "but here are a few things which might help clearing up some of it: ") then saying, "ok I'll take a moral victory" would be just plain silly. But that was not the case.

Oh, I think I understand now. This forum gets a lot of abuse heaped on it (I'm NOT refering to your post here, but we get a lot of "I hate the Pope" type posters), and as such if you come in at a bad time, even a completely innocent question might get blasted because people are really still reacting to someone else. Please don't worry about it, people here DO mean well, even if they appear gruff at times.

You are truely a noble person, and I truely hope that my questions does that for you (

LOL! I don't think I'd go as far as to say I'm noble, but I *do* learn a lot from people asking questions here. I don't know if you've seen the old thread categories at the bottom of the main page, but there's a LOT of good information there, information you normally wouldn't bump into on the street. Of course there's also a lot of JUNK on the forum too, that's just how it is here.

I DO hope I had all the b's and the /b's and i's and /i's right this time - in SUCH a long post.

Now THAT is something I can relate to. I've screwed up more than one post after checking it twice before posting! :-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 01, 2004.



Reenen-

Concerning mysteries- you have been to Mass, so you have heard the priest sing "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith". Then the congregtion responds "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." So there's another mystery. Concerning Mary's sinlessness- could God have created her sinless if he wanted? Of course. Can our feeble minds understand it? Of course not!! It's a MYSTERY!! How does bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus? Another mystery!!! And Catholics aren't the only ones with mysteries. How did the universe come into existance? Also a mystery!!!

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 03, 2004.


Concerning Mary's sinlessness- could God have created her sinless if he wanted? Of course. Can our feeble minds understand it?

He could. It just seems to be a debate (among prots and caths) whether He in fact did.

Another Q: I received a post in my mail box that someone replied to, but I don't see it here. Was it deleted?

Jesus is the way to the Father (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com) responded to a message you left in the Catholic bboard:

This does mean that it was posted here, or am I wrong?

Regards

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), April 05, 2004.


Hello Reenen,

Yes, since you started this thread, you receive posted replies directly to your email. Yes, the post in question was deleted from the forum (along with a few other posts from the same contributor) for its hostile, anti-Catholic content.

As for a "debate" between Catholicism and Protestantism, anyone with a historical perspective of Christianity must recognize that the Catholic position represents what every Christian on earth accepted and professed for fifteen centuries before the opposing view was proposed. The Protestant position therefore clearly represents a deviation from the beliefs of original Christianity. The "debate" therefore is really no contest. Remember what Jesus had to say about "new traditions of men" arising in opposition to the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 05, 2004.


Hello Reenen, Your posts have been open and honest, unlike many of the non- Catholic posts. There are plenty of non-Catholic boards that would have been glad to "help" you with your question. What prompted you to visit this board?

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 05, 2004.

Yes, I have been honest, simply because I wanted to know the answers. I found this forum through google searching (I wanted to know whether catholics HAVE to pray through Mary (if you recall)). I enjoy having debates on these kinds of topics because of it's abstract nature and no 'facts'. In the end if you want to know about something you have to ask those who practice it. (I've read christian books on Islam, and the bias of it sickens me)

I come from a large family (7 people) and confrontations is unavoidable. However, we learnt that you confront the other's point of view, not the person. And so we always have a respect etc. for those we are debating.

About the 1500years. The first pope, did not believe in praying through Mary (as she was still alive), when did the belief come into practice?

Regards

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), April 06, 2004.


as early as the council of trent, the idea of esteemed respect for mary as the mother of God, and as the 'most blessed amongst women' came into practice. Likely this came even before as well, but i'm not too sure

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 06, 2004.

"The first pope, did not believe in praying through Mary (as she was still alive)"

A: On the contrary, people who knew Mary no doubt asked her to pray for them, even while she was still alive - just as Christians have asked one another for prayer of intercession in every generation. When Mary and the other great saints of the Church died, there was no reason to stop asking them for prayer of intercession, since Christians accepted and believed the promise of Jesus, "everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die". Talking to the saints and asking for their prayers demonstrates acceptance of these words of Jesus. If the saints are truly alive as Jesus said, what possible reason could there be for not asking them to pray for us? If they could pray for us here, as earthly sinners, why would they not be able to pray for us before the throne of God? Refraining from addressing the saints because they are "dead" would seem to contradict the words of Jesus.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 06, 2004.


Plese read the following . You'll find it interesting:

The Nestorian Controversy: Council of Ephesus (431) 1. Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428. He came from the Antioch school and was taught theology there by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He opposed a relatively new theological and devotional slogan Theotokos - affirming that Mary was the "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." Nestorius was concerned with the thought that God might be seen to have had a new beginning of some kind, or that he suffered or died. None of these things could happen to the infinite God. Therefore, instead of a God-man, he taught that there was the Logos and the "man who was assumed." He favored the term "Christ-bearer" (Christotokos) as a summary of Mary's role, or perhaps that she should be called both "God-bearer" and "Man-bearer" to emphasize Christ's dual natures. He was accused of teaching a double personality of Christ. Two natures, and two persons. He denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching. 2. He was an adherent of the Antiochene "school" and he wished to emphasize a distinction between Christ as man and Christ as God. a. He did not deny that Christ was God. b. He said, however, that people should not call Mary thetokos, the "mother of God," because she was only the mother of the human aspect of Christ. c. Great opposition developed against Nestorius' teaching and his opponents charged that he taught "two sons" and that he "divided the invisible." d. Nestorius denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching. e. The leader of the opposition to Nestorius was Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, a man who was one of the most ruthless and uncontrolled of the major early bishops.. 3. Disturbed by the controversy, the emperor Theodosius II (408-50) summoned a council to meet in 431 in Ephesus. a. Cyril did not confine himself to theology. He stirred up the monks and the politicians.b. Cyril used the delayed arrival of the Assyrians to accomplish the triumph of his doctrines. When the Easterners arrived, they were outraged and set up a rival council and condemned Cyril.c. The bishops asserted that one could no separate the human from the divine nature of Christ. d. Nestorius was deposed and sent into exile.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 06, 2004.


"Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 06, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ