Question for Catholics: Did Mary die?

[Faithr]

I just read a wonderful book on this topic called By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea. He is a former evangelical who became Catholic. The books traces the questions he began to have as an Evangelical and how he began to research history and early church documents. He goes through all his thought processes and how eventually all his objections were overcome by his study. He talks about all the things that are not Biblical that sola scriptura Christians believe, like the Trinity, ban on polygamy, sanctity of life from conception and other issues. He writes very well, very succinctly and logically and he's got a wonderfully ironic and humorous style. He's a pleasure to read.

[PineFarmMom]

I read the First Things article, but it didn't address my question that I could tell, so here goes.

 

So, I know that Catholic doctrine says that Mary was born without original sin. OK, so far so good. But you folks seem to be saying that she was also sinless, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does that mean that Mary is also believed to never have committed any sin during her lifetime? I had thought that being without original sin would mean that you were born innocent, but why would it follow that you could not commit sin after that?

 

If that is actually a belief within the Catholic church, then where does that knowledge/information come from? Honest question here. I haven't studied Catholicism a great deal.

[nova147]

I read the First Things article, but it didn't address my question that I could tell, so here goes.

 

So, I know that Catholic doctrine says that Mary was born without original sin. OK, so far so good. But you folks seem to be saying that she was also sinless, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does that mean that Mary is also believed to never have committed any sin during her lifetime? I had thought that being without original sin would mean that you were born innocent, but why would it follow that you could not commit sin after that?

 

 

The Church has declared that Mary was conceived without sin AND sinless throughout her life (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 493). DH tells me this belief follows logically from our beliefs about Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. (I'm stepping way out of my comfort zone with this stuff - I do daily prayers with the kiddos, not theology!) So it's not so much that being conceived without sin leads to Mary not committing sin, but that she was protected both from original sin AND from personal sin.

[Renee in NC]

FlockofSillies - I have wondered myself why we, as Catholics, say as much as we do about Mary, given how little is said in Scripture regarding her and her life. But my understanding of this is that most Marian doctrines have developed in protection of our beliefs about Christ. For example, the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God developed against heresies suggesting Jesus BECAME God at some point in His life. But the Church declares her Mother of God, indicating that He was God from conception. Other Marian doctrines follow similar logic.

 

 

You know, it really isn't the main focus of the Church. I think it comes up a lot because it is a MAJOR issue for many Protestants. The main focus is Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

[Renee in NC]

I just read a wonderful book on this topic called By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea. He is a former evangelical who became Catholic. The books traces the questions he began to have as an Evangelical and how he began to research history and early church documents. He goes through all his thought processes and how eventually all his objections were overcome by his study. He talks about all the things that are not Biblical that sola scriptura Christians believe, like the Trinity, ban on polygamy, sanctity of life from conception and other issues. He writes very well, very succinctly and logically and he's got a wonderfully ironic and humorous style. He's a pleasure to read.

 

I haven't read that one, but his story is the same as mine.:D:D

[CAMom]

I believe that the confusion comes from use of terminology. Mary's Immaculate Conception refers to her own being, at the moment of her conception, made special and sinless by a miraculous intervention of the Lord. It's not that the act of her parents in conceiving her was sinless (although that's true too, but it's also true of every sacramentally married couple acting in accordance with a proper understanding of marriage), but that she was specially created to be sinless, from the moment of her conception. :001_smile:

 

Thank you for answering.:)

 

I'm still left wondering though, why did Mary refer to Christ as her Savior? If she was sinless, she would have no need for a Savior.

 

In addition, Paul declares in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How does that reconcile with Mary being sinless.

 

Again, I hope my questions are seen as sincerely wanting to understand the Catholic perspective more fully.

[christielee7278]

It isn't proven by scripture at all--it isn't Biblical. But if I understand Catholic teaching correctly, they hold tradition as high or maybe even higher than scripture. So their doctrine doesn't have to be specifically Bible based, as long as it is held in their tradition.

 

Maybe a Catholic can chime in here and clarify in case I am confused...

 

Being a convert, I also had issues with this as well. Until a Baptist led me to Revelation 12. Specifically verse 1.

 

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Also in response to someone who asked about Mary being our mother, verse 17 for instance.

 

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Having been away from the Catholic Church for almost a year now because of my own faith issues, I was SO happy to have been pointed to Rev 12.

[KathyBC]

 

On the topic of Mary, the Catholic Church teaches that she was born without sin (of her parents Anne and Joachim), conceived Jesus as a virgin and that she "died" as a virgin.

 

 

 

If this isn't too off-topic, I've always wondered how Mary remained a virgin in Catholic tradition when she had other children.

[asta]

Not to pick on you or any of the other people calling out the Catholic teachings as false, but if the Bible were really the only important thing to understand and be a Christian, why didn't Jesus just hand them out himself? Why didn't he write it and hand it out on the street corners?

 

All the time Paul and the other apostles were teaching, there was no New Testament. Things were being written and collected, but it was definitely not in book form. It was collected as a liturgical document for liturgical use within the church to be understood and interpreted by the church. If it were all up to the Holy Spirit to interpret it within the hearts of individual believers, why is he failing so miserably and letting so many people completely misconstrue it and come to completely different understandings of the same words?

 

It would be easier if Jesus wrote a pamphlet that answered every possible question and handed them out himself, but he didn't. He certainly could have. But he chose not to. He chose to leave a church instead.

 

Not every true thing is written in the Bible.

 

Why, yes.

 

If people want a book that was dictated by god, promptly written down and passed out 'on the street corners', they should look into Islam.

 

I find it interesting that, while the Christian bible has edited out Jesus' childhood (for example), the Qur'an has chosen to leave it in.

 

As in all things - choose whose version of events you're going to follow, folks.

 

Thank you for answering.:)

 

I'm still left wondering though, why did Mary refer to Christ as her Savior? If she was sinless, she would have no need for a Savior.

 

Well, Mary was one person, wasn't she? Mother of god or not, she was still only one person. Was the Christ not to be the savior of the entire world? If your son was the savior of the entire world, would you not accept him as so? It wouldn't be a "need" in the traditional sense - but it would certainly be polite...

 

In addition, Paul declares in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How does that reconcile with Mary being sinless.

 

Again, I hope my questions are seen as sincerely wanting to understand the Catholic perspective more fully.

 

Paul was writing after the fact. I sincerely doubt he was going to stop and edit his work to say "all have sinned (except Mary) and fall short of the Glory of God (whose mom is Mary)." I think it was left unsaid - and understood. I mean, these guys were essentially writing daily diaries. "Paul's letter to the Corinthians" - these weren't edicts - I doubt they ever thought anyone would be reading their mail almost 2000 years later.

 

If this isn't too off-topic, I've always wondered how Mary remained a virgin in Catholic tradition when she had other children.

 

I don't know Greek, but I think we are trying to put a modern spin on the word "virgin", and also look at it in a different context. Firstly, I don't think that Saint Anne was without other children, either, yet Mary was an immaculate conception. Why? Because she was born through god's blessing. In terms of Mary, 'virgin' doesn't just mean "no sex" - it also means "unsullied". I don't think anyone would argue that the mother of god was "sullied" by anything - much less by having more children.

 

HTH

 

 

a

[FlockOfSillies]

Not to pick on you or any of the other people calling out the Catholic teachings as false, but if the Bible were really the only important thing to understand and be a Christian, why didn't Jesus just hand them out himself? Why didn't he write it and hand it out on the street corners?

 

Why doesn't God just bypass the whole Bible thing entirely? Why not just speak directly to every person all the time? Why not just save everybody automatically? Why not prevent Adam and Eve from sinning in the first place? Talk about an epic fail... :tongue_smilie:

 

If it were all up to the Holy Spirit to interpret it within the hearts of individual believers, why is he failing so miserably and letting so many people completely misconstrue it and come to completely different understandings of the same words?

 

Yeah, epic fail again! Especially since those misunderstandings were happening during the apostolic age! And during Christ's ministry on Earth! The apostle Paul (and the other epistle writers) spent a whole lot of ink refuting false teaching in the early church.

 

It would be easier if Jesus wrote a pamphlet that answered every possible question and handed them out himself, but he didn't.

 

Jesus WAS and IS the pamphlet. People still turned away, because God hardened their hearts.

 

He chose to leave a church instead.

 

Not every true thing is written in the Bible.

 

He left the Scripture -- the Word of God -- and the Holy Spirit, the authoritative teacher of the church.

 

Everything that a person needs to know in order to believe in the true God and to be saved from his sins is written in the Bible.

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

Any and all church doctrines and practices must line up completely with the Word of God. There must not be any tension or discrepancy between the two, because God will not say one thing in Scripture and say the opposite elsewhere. If there's any conflict, then Scripture wins out every time. Some core Roman Catholic teachings are indeed scriptural, but others are not. Tradition is not part of the infallible Word of God.

 

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." -- Galatians 1:8-9

[FlockOfSillies]

FlockofSillies - I have wondered myself why we, as Catholics, say as much as we do about Mary, given how little is said in Scripture regarding her and her life. But my understanding of this is that most Marian doctrines have developed in protection of our beliefs about Christ. For example, the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God developed against heresies suggesting Jesus BECAME God at some point in His life. But the Church declares her Mother of God, indicating that He was God from conception. Other Marian doctrines follow similar logic.

 

I can understand that the Church may have wanted to combat heresy, but the Magisterium chose to rely on invented doctrines instead of basing their arguments in the authoritative Scriptures:

 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." -- John 1:1-3

 

"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." -- Colossians 1:13-20

 

And that's only two passages! If Christians can't find clear teachings in their holy book that lay out the central tenet of their religion, then they aren't looking very hard. There's no need to beef up Mary's resume. Besides, it really doesn't add anything. On the contrary, why defend the truth with a lie, especially when the truth is practically shouting from the pages of Scripture?

 

When it comes to interpreting Scripture, Alistair Begg likes to say, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." The stuff that is said clearly and repeatedly in the Bible is where we should be building the foundations of doctrine. We get into trouble when we try to form dogma based on things that are either unclear or absent from Scripture.

[FlockOfSillies]

You know, it really isn't the main focus of the Church. I think it comes up a lot because it is a MAJOR issue for many Protestants. The main focus is Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

 

It's a major issue because it's obvious to the typical nominal Protestant. "Those Catholics, they sure do like Mary an awful lot." Naturally, this leads to the question, "Why?"

 

The greater points of division are in how people are saved, authority in the church, and the Mass. I suspect that the Mass doesn't get more attention because so few people in the modern world, Catholics included, understand everything that's going on in the Mass, much less whether it contradicts Scripture. (One small example: it wasn't until about 15 years ago that I first learned the purpose of genuflecting. Not sure how I missed that in CCD...:001_huh:)

[asta]

I'm starting to feel like Jim Gaffigan.

 

People can argue "if it's not in the bible, it's WRONG" all they want, but the cold, hard fact is that the Roman Catholic Church not only published the first bible, they decided what documents went IN to the first bible.

 

There really is no way to know what is "scriptural" and what isn't w/o having access to the bowels of the Vatican, where the super duper secret vaults of scrolls are kept.

 

For all anyone here knows, every. single. thing. the Catholic Church says is indeed scriptural. They just don't feel the need to justify it to anyone else.

 

It's the whole "You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church" thing.

 

Pithy, but true.

 

At least if you believe it. :001_smile:

 

 

a

[Shelly in IL]

She was the "ever-virgin." There were enough differences in the language translations at the time to interpret what may look like other children (son, daughter, etc.) as what really were cousins.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Being a convert, I also had issues with this as well. Until a Baptist led me to Revelation 12. Specifically verse 1.

 

Also in response to someone who asked about Mary being our mother, verse 17 for instance.

 

Having been away from the Catholic Church for almost a year now because of my own faith issues, I was SO happy to have been pointed to Rev 12.

 

There are those who would say the woman is Israel (or God's chosen), the twelve stars would be the twelve tribes.

 

Verse 17- "those who obey God and hold to the testimony of Jesus(The son of Israel who will rule those of every nation)" are also the spiritual offspring of Israel.

 

This idea is supported by Peter in 1 Peter chapter 2.

 

As you see there is more than one way to interpret these scriptures.

[Moxie]

I read the First Things article, but it didn't address my question that I could tell, so here goes.

 

So, I know that Catholic doctrine says that Mary was born without original sin. OK, so far so good. But you folks seem to be saying that she was also sinless, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does that mean that Mary is also believed to never have committed any sin during her lifetime? I had thought that being without original sin would mean that you were born innocent, but why would it follow that you could not commit sin after that?

 

Without Original Sin, she would not have been tempted by actual sin.

[Moxie]

Thank you for answering.:)

 

I'm still left wondering though, why did Mary refer to Christ as her Savior? If she was sinless, she would have no need for a Savior.

 

In addition, Paul declares in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How does that reconcile with Mary being sinless.

 

Again, I hope my questions are seen as sincerely wanting to understand the Catholic perspective more fully.

 

It was explained to me that Jesus is outside of our timeline so Mary was preserved from sin by His death but at the moment of her conception.

[Renee in NC]

There are those who would say the woman is Israel (or God's chosen), the twelve stars would be the twelve tribes.

 

Verse 17- "those who obey God and hold to the testimony of Jesus(The son of Israel who will rule those of every nation)" are also the spiritual offspring of Israel.

 

This idea is supported by Peter in 1 Peter chapter 2.

 

As you see there is more than one way to interpret these scriptures.

 

Exactly. And that is why Jesus instituted the Church. Otherwise, everyone would interpret it the way that they wanted to and their would be major division among Christians.....

[LMA]

If that is actually a belief within the Catholic church, then where does that knowledge/information come from? Honest question here. I haven't studied Catholicism a great deal.

 

This is called the Immaculate Conception. We just celebrated the feast day on Dec. 8.

 

Here is a source to which to begin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[Renee in NC]

It's a major issue because it's obvious to the typical nominal Protestant. "Those Catholics, they sure do like Mary an awful lot." Naturally, this leads to the question, "Why?"

 

The greater points of division are in how people are saved, authority in the church, and the Mass. I suspect that the Mass doesn't get more attention because so few people in the modern world, Catholics included, understand everything that's going on in the Mass, much less whether it contradicts Scripture. (One small example: it wasn't until about 15 years ago that I first learned the purpose of genuflecting. Not sure how I missed that in CCD...:001_huh:)

 

It seems that you were a victim of poor catechesis as so many others were. Were you not taught about the real presence in the Eucharist?

 

When you did finally start learning the true teachings of the Church, was it from a Protestant source?

[lionfamily1999]

I'm starting to feel like Jim Gaffigan.

 

People can argue "if it's not in the bible, it's WRONG" all they want, but the cold, hard fact is that the Roman Catholic Church not only published the first bible, they decided what documents went IN to the first bible.

 

There really is no way to know what is "scriptural" and what isn't w/o having access to the bowels of the Vatican, where the super duper secret vaults of scrolls are kept.

 

For all anyone here knows, every. single. thing. the Catholic Church says is indeed scriptural. They just don't feel the need to justify it to anyone else.

 

It's the whole "You are Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church" thing.

 

Pithy, but true.

 

At least if you believe it. :001_smile:

 

 

a

One caveat. God put together the scripture, through the Church. God chose the books, through the Church. If God had wanted it in, it would be in there. ETS, I believe the act of handing the scriptures over to anything other than God, to either blame or give tribute is blasphemous. The word is God's word, He's given it to us. While the Church may have been the vehicle, God was driving and giving credit for the word of God to anyone/anything else is tantamount to lifting them above God.

Edited December 11, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Exactly. And that is why Jesus instituted the Church. Otherwise, everyone would interpret it the way that they wanted to and their would be major division among Christians.....

 

Ahh, and if I believed the church is a spiritual entity ruled only by Christ and not a physical one ruled by mere men, I would say that there are no divisions among Christians, that all those who truly seek God will find Him. :001_smile:

[Renee in NC]

He left the Scripture -- the Word of God -- and the Holy Spirit, the authoritative teacher of the church.

 

Everything that a person needs to know in order to believe in the true God and to be saved from his sins is written in the Bible.

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

Any and all church doctrines and practices must line up completely with the Word of God. There must not be any tension or discrepancy between the two, because God will not say one thing in Scripture and say the opposite elsewhere. If there's any conflict, then Scripture wins out every time. Some core Roman Catholic teachings are indeed scriptural, but others are not. Tradition is not part of the infallible Word of God.

 

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." -- Galatians 1:8-9

 

I agree that God will not say one thing in one place and then refute it somewhere else. There is nothing that Catholic Church teaches that goes against Scripture. I know you think so, but I think you are wrong. That goes to the core of why you are Protestant and I am not (even though the switch is interesting - I used to be fundamentalist and you used to be Catholic.:D)

 

The Catholic Church is not teaching a Gospel that is different than your Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, period. The Church does not teach anything different. The Sacraments are things instituted by Jesus for *sanctification* not justification.

 

As for the 2 Timothy verse, I don't disagree with it at all - of course Scripture is infallible, profitable, etc. but nowhere in that verse does it say it is they ONLY source.

 

Remember that so many of the things that all Christians do come from Tradition. Why do you go to church on Sunday? Celebrate Christmas in December? Have Good Friday and Easter Sunday? Those are just some of the things that are not in Scripture yet most Christians do. (I know some don't, but that is a small minority.)

[Renee in NC]

Ahh, and if I believed the church is a spiritual entity ruled only by Christ and not a physical one ruled by mere men, I would say that there are no divisions among Christians, that all those who truly seek God will find Him. :001_smile:

 

If I believed that I would be forced to say that Jesus failed, and I know that isn't possible.;) I don't think the Church is ruled over by mere men, but by Jesus. I truly believe in apostolic succession and papal infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra only, of course.)

 

This thread has been good for me, thanks for the conversation!:D

[nova147]

You know, it really isn't the main focus of the Church. I think it comes up a lot because it is a MAJOR issue for many Protestants. The main focus is Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

 

:iagree: Sadly, however, I'm not sure all Catholics understand that Christ is the main focus. But that's a whole other thread!

 

Thank you for answering.:)

 

I'm still left wondering though, why did Mary refer to Christ as her Savior? If she was sinless, she would have no need for a Savior.

 

In addition, Paul declares in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How does that reconcile with Mary being sinless.

 

Again, I hope my questions are seen as sincerely wanting to understand the Catholic perspective more fully.

 

Mary DID need a savior - Christ saved her from sin from the moment of her conception onward, instead of after the fact. And your questions are very respectful -- thank you!

 

If this isn't too off-topic, I've always wondered how Mary remained a virgin in Catholic tradition when she had other children.

 

The Church teaches that she had no other children. Another poster pointed out the ambiguity of language here - there was no word for sibling, just a general familial word, closer to cousin.

 

 

Everything that a person needs to know in order to believe in the true God and to be saved from his sins is written in the Bible.

 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

 

I am hesitant to comment, as I fear this is turning into a debate. But this particular section bothers me. This verse doesn't say "everything a person needs . . . is written in the Bible". It says all Scripture is profitable. It doesn't say nothing else is profitable.

 

Ok, I'll hold my tongue now. :D

[dangermom]

 

Without Original Sin, she would not have been tempted by actual sin.

For you and for all the other people who have responded to my question, thank you for explaining. I had not realized that was part of Catholic teaching.

[Renee in NC]

One caveat. God put together the scripture, through the Church. God chose the books, through the Church. If God had wanted it in, it would be in there. To say otherwise is, imo, blasphemous.

 

I agree, because the Church was given the authority by Jesus.

[asta]

One caveat. God put together the scripture, through the Church. God chose the books, through the Church. If God had wanted it in, it would be in there. To say otherwise is, imo, blasphemous.

 

Well, if I'm going to be called something in cyberspace, I guess being anonymously called blasphemous isn't the worst I could get.

 

And if you'll excuse me now, ladies, I gotta go hang out with some WWII vets.

 

 

a

[Peek a Boo]

There really is no way to know what is "scriptural" and what isn't w/o having access to the bowels of the Vatican, where the super duper secret vaults of scrolls are kept.

 

For all anyone here knows, every. single. thing. the Catholic Church says is indeed scriptural. They just don't feel the need to justify it to anyone else.

 

 

actually, there IS a way to know whether something is scriptural or not: through the Holy Spirit that guides and convicts every Believer.

 

There have ALWAYS been differences in what documents are considered "scriptural." The Catholic Church settled on a set of scripture that it believes serves God's people. The LDS Church has extra, the Jehovah's Witness have some key points, and other denominations feel led to include or set aside various apocryphal books.

 

I do not believe that the Catholic church is "wrong", but it's not the way for ME in my walk with Christ. I think every denomination of Believers serves a unique function in the Whole Body of Christ, with individual congregations as organs and each member as specialized tissue designed to function w/in those organs/systems.

 

Sometimes the body's systems appear to be working at cross-purposes: a fever may be killing the sickness, but also negatively affecting other systems-- it is still working to preserve the LIFE of the Body.

Some of us were meant to be part of the immune system. Others are more of a digestive tract kinda Christian. Still others are growing well as a member of the nervous system and can react and communicate in very effective ways. As i learn more about the other "systems" out there it helps me function as a Believer in a complementary way to the Body.

 

One system [the Catholic Church] may not look the same as another system [the Baptist Church], but they are all functioning with a similar foundational goal-- Christ as as our Savior.

 

but that's just my take on it. :001_smile:

[PineFarmMom]

This is called the Immaculate Conception. We just celebrated the feast day on Dec. 8.

 

Here is a source to which to begin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

Well, from my understanding "immaculate conception" would be that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb, NOT that she was sinless or even born sinless. Obviously, I'm not Catholic, so if it's not Biblical, I'll not be on board with it. I'll read the link, though. :)

[PineFarmMom]

One caveat. God put together the scripture, through the Church. God chose the books, through the Church. If God had wanted it in, it would be in there. To say otherwise is, imo, blasphemous.

 

:iagree::iagree:

Edited December 11, 2009 by Texas T
Rethought my wording

[PineFarmMom]

but that's just my take on it. :001_smile:

 

I agree with much of your take on it. :)

[LMA]

Well, from my understanding "immaculate conception" would be that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb, NOT that she was sinless or even born sinless. Obviously, I'm not Catholic, so if it's not Biblical, I'll not be on board with it. I'll read the link, though. :)

 

 

Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus in the womb. That is a common misconception.

 

Catholic theology is based more than on scripture. It is based on Tradition also. One thing is that Protestants try to put Catholic beliefs in the context of just the Bible and you can't. Catholic theology comes from sources beyond the Bible.

 

I wasn't asking you to believe in Immaculate Conception. I was just trying to give a link that explained it.

 

(FWIW, I was Southern Baptist until I was married. I understand where you are coming from.)

 

Louise

[PineFarmMom]

Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus in the womb. That is a common misconception.

 

Catholic theology is based more than on scripture. It is based on Tradition also. One thing is that Protestants try to put Catholic beliefs in the context of just the Bible and you can't. Catholic theology comes from sources beyond the Bible.

 

I wasn't asking you to believe in Immaculate Conception. I was just trying to give a link that explained it.

 

(FWIW, I was Southern Baptist until I was married. I understand where you are coming from.)

 

Louise

 

Makes sense. Thanks, Louise. If that sounded snarky, I apologize. I didn't mean it to. It's just a little foreign to me. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

Well, if I'm going to be called something in cyberspace, I guess being anonymously called blasphemous isn't the worst I could get.

 

And if you'll excuse me now, ladies, I gotta go hang out with some WWII vets.

 

 

a

Ack, I didn't mean to call you blasphemous, I meant that saying that anyone besides God was responsible for the Bible was!

 

I'm so sorry!

 

Need to see a specialist to get my foot removed from my mouth now :(

[lionfamily1999]

I agree, because the Church was given the authority by Jesus.

I agree, but again with a caveat... hopefully one that does not come across as brutally as the last.

 

It's because God is all powerful. He can use sinners or saints, He can use anything and everything to His purpose.

 

IOW, I don't see it as the church being superior, so much as God wouldn't allow anyone to mess that up, and could use anyone to make it as He wills it to be.

[Renee in NC]

I agree, but again with a caveat... hopefully one that does not come across as brutally as the last.

 

It's because God is all powerful. He can use sinners or saints, He can use anything and everything to His purpose.

 

IOW, I don't see it as the church being superior, so much as God wouldn't allow anyone to mess that up, and could use anyone to make it as He wills it to be.

 

I agree with what you say here. God can use anything for His purpose (and does!)

[cathmom]

There is no teaching that she died or didn't die. At the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into Heaven. Whether she died first or not, we don't know. Sorry if this has already been said, but I'm not reading all 9 pages LOL!

[christielee7278]

There are those who would say the woman is Israel (or God's chosen), the twelve stars would be the twelve tribes.

 

Verse 17- "those who obey God and hold to the testimony of Jesus(The son of Israel who will rule those of every nation)" are also the spiritual offspring of Israel.

 

This idea is supported by Peter in 1 Peter chapter 2.

 

As you see there is more than one way to interpret these scriptures.

 

True. Some non-Catholics do interpret it differently.

 

However someone was asking whether Mary being the Queen of Heaven was considered tradition or biblical within the Church. Along with the reference to the ark of the covenant Rev 11:19, Rev 12 tells the Catholic Church that she is the Queen.

[PineFarmMom]

I agree, but again with a caveat... hopefully one that does not come across as brutally as the last.

 

It's because God is all powerful. He can use sinners or saints, He can use anything and everything to His purpose.

 

IOW, I don't see it as the church being superior, so much as God wouldn't allow anyone to mess that up, and could use anyone to make it as He wills it to be.

 

:iagree: I was trying to say something like that above, didn't like my wording and deleted it, but you said it better than I did anyway!! :) I think we owe gratitude to those who brought us the Holy Word of God, but that doesn't make them perfect anymore than it makes any human entity that God has used for His purposes since the beginning. It makes them one of the many vessels that God has and will use.

[CAMom]

Mary DID need a savior - Christ saved her from sin from the moment of her conception onward, instead of after the fact. And your questions are very respectful -- thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

Ahhh....thank you for the answer. That makes sense.:)

[Renee in NC]

:iagree: I was trying to say something like that above, didn't like my wording and deleted it, but you said it better than I did anyway!! :) I think we owe gratitude to those who brought us the Holy Word of God, but that doesn't make them perfect anymore than it makes any human entity that God has used for His purposes since the beginning. It makes them one of the many vessels that God has and will use.

 

I don't agree with that. Scripture tells us that he instituted a Church and that he made Peter the earthly head of that Church. I don't think that the people within the Catholic Church are perfect, but I do believe that the Church holds the "deposit of faith" and is the authority here on earth. Yes, God can use people and groups outside of the Church to spread the Gospel, but that doesn't make them all equal or the Church "one of many."

 

Matthew 16: 16-19

 

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

(Peter means rock. Cephas is the Aramaic word, Petros/petra in the Greek. I think - I am not a Greek scholar.)

[CAMom]

Without Original Sin, she would not have been tempted by actual sin.

 

I don't get that.:confused:

 

Adam (and Eve) was born without original sin and he was tempted and fell. Christ was born without original sin and He was tempted although remained sinless.

 

How would it follow that Mary would not have even been tempted by actual sin?

[PineFarmMom]

I don't agree with that. Scripture tells us that he instituted a Church and that he made Peter the earthly head of that Church. I don't think that the people within the Catholic Church are perfect, but I do believe that the Church holds the "deposit of faith" and is the authority here on earth. Yes, God can use people and groups outside of the Church to spread the Gospel, but that doesn't make them all equal or the Church "one of many."

 

Matthew 16: 16-19

 

 

 

(Peter means rock. Cephas is the Aramaic word, Petros/petra in the Greek. I think - I am not a Greek scholar.)

 

That is a difference in what protestants think He was referring to when He said "Upon this rock". I need to look up the Greek on this again, but He wasn't saying He would build His church on any one, failing human. Peter does mean rock, petras, and He was talking to Peter, from my understanding, but he was saying He was going to build the church on the truth that Peter had just spoken, i.e., that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He wasn't building it on Peter or his talents, his abilities, his righteousness, but on the truth that Peter had just spoken. The two Greek words are different. Peter is petros which is basically small rock or small stone and the Rock Jesus referred to was a large rock. Peter was definitely a key person who affirmed the truth of who Christ was, but the church was not to be built upon Peter himself. Peter was the very one that Jesus also said "Get thee behind me, Satan" and also the very one who denied Him three times. There's not a human being alive, from beginning until present, other than Christ Himself, who could carry the weight of having a church built upon him alone.

 

The only foundation of the church is to be Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God. Again, I am fully aware that Catholics won't agree with that. I'm done. :)

[calandalsmom]

Catholics rely on both Tradition with a capital T and the Bible. Some questions are not answered. We call that a Mystery. That's catholic for "let it go" ;)

[Parrothead]

That is a difference in what protestants think He was referring to when He said "Upon this rock". I need to look up the Greek on this again, but He wasn't saying He would build His church on any one, failing human. Peter does mean rock, petras, and He was talking to Peter, from my understanding, but he was saying He was going to build the church on the truth that Peter had just spoken, i.e., that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He wasn't building it on Peter or his talents, his abilities, his righteousness, but on the truth that Peter had just spoken. The two Greek words are different. Peter is petros which is basically small rock or small stone and the Rock Jesus referred to was a large rock. Peter was definitely a key person who affirmed the truth of who Christ was, but the church was not to be built upon Peter himself. Peter was the very one that Jesus also said "Get thee behind me, Satan" and also the very one who denied Him three times. There's not a human being alive, from beginning until present, other than Christ Himself, who could carry the weight of having a church built upon him alone.

 

The only foundation of the church is to be Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God. Again, I am fully aware that Catholics won't agree with that. I'm done. :)

The Matthew 16: 16-19 verses refer to the giving the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter and St. Peter being made the first head of the Church the Jesus established on Earth. Essentially Catholics believe that those verses are about Jesus giving St. Peter, the first pope, the authority to be the first pope.

[PineFarmMom]

The Matthew 16: 16-19 verses refer to the giving the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter and St. Peter being made the first head of the Church the Jesus established on Earth. Essentially Catholics believe that those verses are about Jesus giving St. Peter, the first pope, the authority to be the first pope.

 

I do understand that that is what they believe.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

True. Some non-Catholics do interpret it differently.

 

However someone was asking whether Mary being the Queen of Heaven was considered tradition or biblical within the Church. Along with the reference to the ark of the covenant Rev 11:19, Rev 12 tells the Catholic Church that she is the Queen.

 

Sorry, I truly cannot see how these scriptures are in any way a reference to Mary. For that I would need to have confidence in the extra-biblical traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church, which I am most definitely lacking. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. :001_smile:

[PineFarmMom]

Sorry, I truly cannot see how these scriptures are in any way a reference to Mary. For that I would need to have confidence in the extra-biblical traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church, which I am most definitely lacking. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I think that's where I am. :001_smile:

[Parrothead]

I don't get that.:confused:

 

Adam (and Eve) was born without original sin and he was tempted and fell. Christ was born without original sin and He was tempted although remained sinless.

 

How would it follow that Mary would not have even been tempted by actual sin?

St. Augustine explains if very well in Nature and Grace:

 

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins-for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?