it would be amazing if there were Spanish subtitles to your videos. The church in Mexico is very poorly catechized, and I am trying to teach my aunts and a few children in their village with videos. These are people that have an almost natural love for the church, a very childlike love for her, but very, very basic knowledge of her. It's heartbreaking to see the sad state in which church catechizes is down here. Religion is not taught well, and yet almost all the families in this small village pray the rosary together in their church at around 6 PM when the chapel is opened up by a lady who has the keys. They listen attentively and like learning about their faith, but I can see that dying out with the younger teenagers. The lack of church teaching made them easy pray for modernism and it shows. The priest has to travel a long distance to come here, and he really only comes for about an hour and a half on Saturdays to hear confessions and to say mass in the evening. A few sisters came here last week to give a mission, but they spoke mainly about love and ( not to be rude to the lovely, sisters) but very generic, almost bland subjects. There was nothing about church teaching, nothing about history, nothing about what these people lack the most.Then the mission was over and things went back to teenage girls giving children CCD classes on Sundays ( this mainly consist of memorizing a small pamphlet that says " Who is God? God is Three persons in one God! Where is God? Everywhere!" For about 10 minutes and then switches to the girls playing games with the kids the rest of the time without explaining any of the material in the questions. I went to get my nephew one day and he had told the rest of the children the stories I had told him about Saint Faustina the night before, and they all came up to me with him asking all sorts of questions. I mean, this hit me because they left their game with the older girls to come hear about Saint Faustina, 10 year olds! I have to chaise my nephews back home and nearly shove the saints down their throats lol! We stayed there for a good half hour talking, and we really only had to leave because it was getting late and I had walked there to get him. The main issue is that there are very few Spanish videos about theology ( actually, none so far that I have seen). It would just be amazing, at least for the adults, to be able to watch content like this. I never realized how lucky I was to have been raised in the US until I came here. It's truly very sad.
3 Hail Marys for you on this Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 2018! I've already given a thumbs up to this video sometime previously, but it was good to revisit it.
St. Alphonsus Liguori pointed out that only Jesus and Mary were conceived without original sin as both of them were said to be “full of grace” (“kecharitomene” in Greek)-Luke 1:28 says this of Mary and John 1:14 says this of Jesus. It was Bl. Duns Scotus, with his subtle distinctions, who formulated the doctrine that was later adopted by the Catholic Church in 1854. Bl. Scotus showed that the sanctification of Mary’s soul came in the “order of nature” and not in the “order of time”. In other words, Mary’s redemption from sin was “preventive”, while that of the rest of humanity was “curative”. The Roman Catholic Church settled the controversy with finality in 1854. The dogma was affirmed by Mary herself through St. Catherine Laboure before 1854 and through St. Bernadette Soubirous after that.
Mary was literally conceived without original sin, i.e. without sexual intercourse. Private revelation says that Mary was conceived when Saints Joachim and Ann were walking under the Golden Gate in Jerusalem without sexual intercourse...which is the transmitter of original sin.
Why do theologians has to try and make human sense of the actions of God? Instead of trying to explain how the blessed Virgin was without s sin, just accept it. How God accomplished it is obviously beyond our understanding.
Oh well, St. Thomas Aquinas was not after all omnisapient. This is how in came to terms wit this subject. The Holy Spirit simply did not revealed this truth to him, as it did to our Blessed Dun Scoto (very dear to me because he defended the honor of our Most Blessed Virgin Mary with all his heart). The topic was finally settled by the Our Lady herself, thanks to the grace's of our dear Lord who sent her to Lourdes to put this question to the grave (among other things). I pray to see the canonization of Dun before my term is ended. Love you Dun!..give my loves to our Holy Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, Mary Queen of Heaven.
If she had original sin then she would of had concupiscence and by nature a child of wrath, while carrying God in her womb. He is not compatible with that.
Scotus was never equival in his proclamations and writings. Gifted from Heaven through Mary, he has much to offer. His Christocentric theology and Primacy of the Will solve the new evangelization ... clearly and simply. Nice exploration of Aquinas, thank you.
Yeah like why worry about it we know she is our spiritual mom and asking her to pray for us is fine same with all saints people have wierd thought process specially protestants andnother denominations,
Also The actual Original Sin was that Eve was convinced by the serpent ( LUCIFER ) that she would not die and would be like God and Adam believed her. They both believed this and disobeyed God, this was their actual SIN, not Sex. Sex was allowed, Eve was Adams wife.
If you read on different particular apparitions of the Virgin Mary, She clearly calls Herself Thee Immaculate Conception, and for this to be true Mary could never of had Original sin, not even for the slightest moment. Jesus knew before time who his mother would be and made sure of Her purity, so if Saint Thomas of Aquinas said she did have Original sin for just a moment, then he was sadly mistaken.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty Before you debate someone you have to learn their position, otherwise you are simply refuting your own misconceptions. Seriously? You are so much more intelligent, knowledgeable. and Spirit filled than all those like Aquinas who Participated in that debate that you can redicule them. Do you think the Christology accepted by your Church just popped into the minds of Christian after Christ returned to Heaven? It took centuries of debate for the Spirit to guide Christians into understanding these things and who the hell are you to set time limits on how long is a reasonaable amount of time for The Holy Spirit to guide the Church for any article of Faith. Ask your Pastor how long it took for Christians to come to an understanding of the Cannon of Scripture. That is ab article of Faith and it took the Spirit 3 centuies to reveal it. Was that too long for you?
Hello Kitty, thanks so much for replying!!!!!! I appreciate you years of study!!!!!! You are not the only person with a background of study in this field. I studied at Columbia University and worked in the field in a professional capacity as an Education Supervisor in a Museum that specialized in the role of Calvinism in the early settlement of NE. I have spent almost 30 years learning about Judaism from reading, speaking with people at a Yeshiva in NYC, listening to Rabbis (including the Father of a Jewish woman I was going to marry, yes I was going to convert as I was not a commited Catholic at the time). Not once did I ever say that Judaism understood the notion of orignial sin as that is understood in Apostalic Christianity (Catholic and Ancient Eastern Churches) Btw, being raised Catholic doesn't make you an expert in Catholicism or Church history. Just sayin' Your post also seems to be quite ignorant (or possibly just being coy) or the similarities between Jewish understanding of prayers to and for the dead and other similarities between Catholicism and Judaism such as the notion that the soul is cleansed after death, of the incredible diversity of thought among Jewish people (not all Rabbis accept even the notion of an after life, etc), the importance of the oral tradition in Judaism , the development of doctrine in Judaism and the very large imortance of debate in that process, the length of time it has taking Jewish leaders to determine certain articles of faith (they use different language of course) , etc. You also seem to be rather coy about the differences in how Judaism understands the Spirit of God and Rwevelation vs. Christian. But we can get back to that. One good example of that lengthy process in determining an article of Jewish Fatih (yes, the notion of faith is also very different in Judaism) being the Cannon of Sacred Scripture. The books held to be in the Cannon of Sacred Writtings is an article of faith held by Jewish people. It took many many centuries to determine that Cannon. There were completing lists of Sacred books among different communities of Jews living in the meditarean world even when Christ walked the Earth. The Sadducces for example only accepting the Torah as Cannon, etc. It took debate and even to this day there is no agreement among Rabbis as to why some books like Macabbes was not included in the Cannon. I heard one Rabbi give his opinion that while the book is very important (containing the history of the Hanaka mircale as you know), the Rabbis did not include the Book for political concerns, etc. BTW, there still is not complete agreement on the Cannon among Jews since the African Jews retain a different Cannon than the communities we are most familiar with in the US(Sepharic and those from Eastern Euorpe). Now, Rabbis often answer a question with another question and a famous Rabbi once said "The begining of wisdom is to say 'I don't know.'" That is just one indication of how the Spirit of God using human conversation and the lively exchange of views among the learned students of Torah. Your version of the working of the Holy Spirit hitting us in a one time fashion doesn't seem to account for this venerable practice. Oh well, there is a saying among Jews in America which goes "Whenever you have two Jews together, you have THREE opinions." Any way, the best discussions are always among people who disagree. Not only in Judaism, but in all contexts. That is why I must thank you for returning my reply. You seem like a person worthy of discussing these important and interesting matters with. BTW, yes no doubt, Judaism and Christianity understand sin different
I have come to understand that everything that Protestants hate about the Catholic Church always reverts back to refutting Protestant theology . The imaculate conception is in a cloud of Protestant euphemism and distraction . The real issue is infant baptism ...if Mary was a saved Christian before her birth it threatens Protestant "age of reason".
@Fruit of Righteousness The Protoevangelium of James (written in the second century) deals with her birth and early life. For info on her death, see Dr. Taylor Marshall's video on the Assumption of Mary. He mentions a 4th century quotation on her death, I just can't remember it off the top of my head. For more on Mary, see my playlist titled "Truth of Catholicism vs all other heresies" in it, I have a video called "The Theotokos and the refutation of those who continue to slander her."It's number 14 on that playlist. That should answer your questions. May God also bless you with peace, safety, shelter, clothing and daily nourishement - in the name of Jesus!
@@alhilford2345 because they are unknowingly being used as pawns of Satan. Satan hates Mary with a passion because he knows she is the quickest and easiest way to bring souls to Jesus, so he will use any and all means to discredit her.
St Thomas indeed made a mistake in the Summa. He writes in the Part 3, Q27, a2, explication, by quoting Exodus ch 40, ".."After all things were perfected, the cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord filled it." Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected, viz. her body and soul." What he as a man did not pay attention to, is that Mary was immaculately conceived, but her body was not ready for so many years to take inside her the Saviour and His body, which happened only after the Spirit overshadowed her for that particular task. From the Exodus Ch 40 Latin Vulgate "Postquam omnia perfecta sunt," proper way of understanding is "When all was done" (for that moment to come), not "After all things were perfected" (and without any reference to time); there lies the confusion for the Latin can render two meanings. When Mary's body was ready to conceive, "all was done" for the Saviour to be born into the world at that particular time. That is why Mary says, "my spirit has found joy in God, who is my Saviour," not because she is a sinner, but because her role as a mother, is completed only through her Son. The sonship is the saviour of motherhood. She wanted to please God completely, with all her body and mind and soul, and only the full capacity of her body was still readying before the Annunciation. However, her role as the Ark of the New Covenant was "not yet complete" even after the childbirth, for she had to witness the proper time, that is, Saviour's death and completion of the covenant (sprinkling of the ark with the blood of lamb). Etc.
The rationale given early here (for the immaculate conception) - namely that God the Father had to provide a pure human through which His Son could come - may break down if, by the same logic, Mother Mary's predecessors would not similarly have to be made pure (and, then, 'turtles all the way down/back,' so to speak). This raises a tertiary question - in what sense might words like pure or holy be rightly defined and used. Do you overrate the conclusiveness of your arguments from geneology (of Thomas' thought), language, and analogy?
Wow it's 2020, why did I come across this video only now hahaha! Anyway St Thomas Aquinas the angelic doctor living in his age was limited by the standards and concepts of his culture, as well as by the advances or lack thereof in the fields of science and theology. But he sure helped secure a solid understanding for the foundation of our beliefs about salvation and how it relates to the Immaculate Virgin Mary. With that foundation, Duns Scotus would later be able to focus and develop on just how Mary was saved. And that development would eventually lead to the fuller definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception that Pope Pius IX many, many years later, would give and infallibly declare. Thank you St Thomas! And thank you Dr Taylor M and God bless you more.
if that is the case, then ,the Blessed Virgin ,even before God appointed her as the Mother of God, ( Jesus ) she was totally sinless , Perhaps there was some reason why some Sainspts seem to say differently, but to me ,I believed that from the moment of Her conception She has not been affected by sin, 😇😇😇
I appreciate that he encourages people to debate this topic in the forums. First, it was stated in the video that the Protestant translations are not accurate and the verb should be properly rendered "full of grace", yet no lexicons were cited. For the word χαριτόω, BDAG, which is the standard in NT Greek lexicography states: *to cause to be the recipient of a benefit,* _bestow favor on, favor highly, bless,_ in our lit. only w. ref. to the divine χάρις...in the angel’s greeting to Mary κεχαριτωμένη one who has been favored (by God) Lk 1:28 So the Protestant translations are in fact, correct. It was also stated that the perfect passive participial form of the verb indicates *"a past event continuing into the present reality. So Mary's being graced...goes perfectly into the past all the way to the present moment. So she is full of grace for her entire life."* Can the same thing be said of everyone with whom the perfect passive participle (PPP) is used or does this apply only to Mary? For instance, in Matthew 8:14, the PPP βεβλημένην (to lie as on a bed) is used for Peter's mother-in-law. Does this mean that she was lying there sick "for her entire life"? If not, why not? The exact same verb is used for the paralytic in Matthew 9:2. Was the paralytic lying there "his entire life"? Again, if not, why not? In Matthew 13:19, the PPP ἐσπαρμένον (to sow) is used of the word which is sown in someone's heart. Does this mean that the word was sown in their heart their entire life from the moment of conception? Again, if not, why not? I can cite no fewer than 200 more examples but I'll stop here. Could Mary have been immaculately conceived? The scriptures answer in the negative: οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, *"There is not a righteous person, not even one"* -Romans 3:10
I instinctively react against this kind of apologetics, because it applies material or physicalist explanations to spiritual states. If God has the powers attributed to him, which I believe he does, the precise point at which Mary becomes immaculate is irrelevant. God could make his mother eternally or retroactively perfect, as he is not to subject to any rules but the ones He chooses. This seems like an angels on the head of a pin discussion, a backstory to affirm existing presuppositions about the nature of Jesus's mother. It is clear Mary has a preeminent state among the saintly pantheon, and medieval proposals about exactly when she attained perfection qualify God's omnipotence and reduce it to a temporal event. I think I'm correct in saying Aquinas had some odd ideas about the nature of the soul, believing it arrived some time after conception. That fits his physicalist, "billiard ball", linear reading of matter and time.
Tell me if I am wrong , I feel like when Jesus was born he was the first born because he came as man but with out sin he was the first born of the dead because he had not died for us yet
Well, I do not know if you are Catholic or not, many protestants believe that original sin was the act of sex but they are wrong. God created Eve to be Adams partner and never did he say in scripture that they could not have relations with each other, he said not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve were having sex from day One, she was his actual wife and it was totally innocent. If Saint Augustine actually said what you just explained to me that Original Sin is based on the Sexual Act then he is mistaken also, you must understand that No Saint is infallible, they can make mistakes also, They were not perfect. Now let's take this step to the top, Jesus knew way beforehand who was going to be his Mother, do you actually think that he would wait for her to the last minute to keep her free of any type of Sin? No way. He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit had everything planned out before He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, ( ONE GOD ) created the World. Also I was not being disrespectful of Saint Thomas of Aquinas I was only showing that he can be mistaken, he was not infallible, he was not perfect, and he had no facts to back up his OPINION.
Maybe Marys redemption was, her giving JESUS up for our salvation. OUR LADY OF SORROWS. Or the families sin. To save Joseph and his family of sin. Redemption can be in a persons life at anytime. Someone pure is in pain for others in the family to be redeemed.🙆
bishop Well, if St Mary was conceived free from original sin, then she would, as a result, be free from concupiscence, thus she would not be inclined to sin :)
Don't completely deny it, but question the belief to lead to your own research on the matter while being Catholic. This is what I tell myself, because I want to be able to defend my faith in a respectful way, and history shows a respectful defense, whether it's right or wrong. That being said, nothing in the church is above reproach. So don't give up being Catholic just because you disagree. If you can't accept the answer, ask your priest. If his answer isn't satisfactory, tell him your concerns. If you can't resolve it with the said priest, find another. Eventually, you may have to consult higher authority in the church while still researching the matter. Until you can either find peace with the belief or find another way, don't completely deny the belief. IPieta is a great app for dogmas, letters, and council documents within the church for reference as the Catechism quotes them and has footnotes leading to them. I highly suggest downloading iPieta for finding the foundational truths either leading to scripture and/or early church leaders.
Matthew Anderson - Good question Matthew! First, sex is holy when following God's purpose within Marriage. It is a gift to unite husband and wife. A result of the union is children. So, yes she was conceived through sex between her parents. She is human and Christ's humanity comes from her. The term immaculate, for her conception refers to how at the moment of conception in her mother's womb, she was made free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ. God did this.
Mary needed salvation like any other human but she was saved in a unique way and preserved from sin because she had to be a spotless vessel to contain the Son of God, who had to be a spotless sacrifice and therefore could not come from someone contaminated with sin. Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant.
Mathew Anderson: Yes, the super-natural conception of Mary without sexual intercourse is described in private prophecy. Prior to original sin, children would have been born by an act of the will...rather than an act of passion. Adam and Eve changed that. And St. Augustine writes that original sin is transmitted through sexual intercourse.
This "Immaculate Conception" dogma depends on an equally unbiblical dogma or "Original Sin". When Adam sinned, he passed on death to the rest of mankind (not birds and trees or whatever). I am no different than Adam. I am created in God's image. I have everything within my emotional makeup that Adam had in his and Adam had everything in his emotional makeup that God has in His. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. Adam did NOT create sin. "Sin", in the context of the Garden, is rebellion against the word of God. It's not a thing that Adam created out of nothing. If I am rebellious then I can be sure that God too is rebellious. I am created in God's image and likeness - I am like Him (for better or worse). The Apostle Paul said it best when he wrote: Romans 7:9 - For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Without the commandment "Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge", the temptation to eat of it is not there. This is why we call it the Forbidden Fruit Syndrome. It's rebellion, which was builtin to the creation from the beginning. So, when we hear someone say, "I was born this way", our response is, "Well, duh!"
Dr., I believe in the Immaculate Conception. But one thing that I am wondering is whether Mary deserved to be conceived without sin. Was God obligated to do so? I would say yes, in the sense that God would always want what is the best for us.
+mejl2015 Let us just put an analogy and say you have a kid and you will be going somewhere that is very important. You would not left your kid to just anybody else, you don't just choose randomly to any person but instead choose a specific person whom you know that would really takes care of your kid. Same wise with God, He did not choose randomly for just any other woman to bear the human form of His Son. A woman was prophesied ages before of a virgin who will conceived the Lord, thus Mary was being prepared free from any form of sin so that the vessel where the unborn Jesus stayed in is pure and thus He comes out stained free from sins aside from His own distinct God nature of being sinless.
+mejl2015 To speak of God as obligated is to misunderstand God .... to reduce God to a human nature. God acts out of Infinite Love, which is always given freely and unconditionally. Love does not bind up, it is a function of free will even in human beings. Absolute freedom is never arbitrary. ... see I Corinthians 13 ... or understand the first sentence of The Catechism.
+Matthew Anderson Sin is a soul spot, not physical. Mary's mother, saint Anne, is said she never had a child before Mary as she and her husband saint Joachim were steriles.
Matthew, here's my answer to your question. On December 8, 1854 Pope Pius IX defined as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin. By this dogma, the Catholic Church confesses: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC #491-492, 508) Unfortunately, many Christians objected this dogma. Referring to Rm. 5:12-13, they argued that since sin has spread to all men, and that sin has been in the world before the law was given; Mary could not be conceived without sin. In addition, for Mary to be conceived without sin, they argued, her parents would have to be sinless as well. So was Mary conceived without sin? To answer this question, and to understand this teaching of the Catholic Church, it would be helpful to begin with the Book of Exodus, chapters 25-30. In these chapters, through Moses, the Lord commanded the Israelites to build a sanctuary that he may dwell in their midst. Within the boundary of the sanctuary were the tabernacle, the altar for burnt offering, the bronze laver and its base, and many other furnishings for the tabernacle. The heart of the sanctuary, however, was the tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant. When the Lord commanded the Israelites to build this sanctuary, he was very specific about the exact details as how everything had to be made, but most noticeable were the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, and the blending of the holy anointing oil. Concerning the construction of the Ark, the Lord said: Ex 25:10-22, (10) You shall make an ark of acacia wood; two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. (11) And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. See Ex 25:12-22 for more details. To blend the anointing oil, the Lord commanded, Ex 30:23-25, (23) Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty, (24) and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin; (25) and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be. The Lord further commanded: Ex 30:26-29, (26) With this sacred anointing oil you shall anoint the meeting tent and the ark of the covenant, (27) and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, (28) and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base. Then the Lord declared, Ex 30:29, When you have consecrated them, they shall be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. Thus, creatures consecrated to the Lord became holy, but note that the Ark became most holy even if, at the time of the consecration, it was empty, (Ex 25:16), and that the anointing oil was holy even if it wasn’t consecrated to the Lord. The anointing oil was holy because the Lord preserved it to be holy, he said, Ex 30:25, “...; a holy anointing oil it shall be.” So Scriptures tell Christians that though this world has been under a curse (Gn. 3:17-19), and that sin has spread to all men (Rm. 5:12); the Lord, in his omnipotence, can always have any of his creatures consecrated to him, and he can always preserve any of his creatures for his ‘personal use’. When he did, consecrated and preserved creatures became holy. Scriptures also tell Christians that the Lord had the old Ark of the Covenant made to house his covenant with the Israelites, or the stone tablets on which the ten commandments or the words of the Lord were written (Ex 40:20). This covenant was not the last, nor was it eternal; yet the Ark, which housed it, had to be the most holy. How holy then Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, in whom the Eternal Word dwells has to be? Therefore, since the old Ark which was made of acacia wood, by human hands, and covered with pure gold was the most holy among all things; the new Ark, Mary, who was created by God’ hands, over shadowed by the Most High (Lk 1:35), from whom the Eternal Word received his flesh must be the most holy among all creatures. One question, which will surely arise is: Who consecrated Mary to God? The answer is, of course, Mary did. She consecrated herself to God, and she did it freely saying, Lk. 1:38, Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word. By her consecration of self, the Word incarnated in her virginal womb, and in her the Word really, truly, and substantially dwelled. Mary must be the most holy among all creatures, angels included. This, understandably, will lead us to the next question: Was Mary the most holy only from the time she consecrated herself to God, or was she always the most holy? As pointed out earlier, the old Ark was the most holy when it housed the words of God as well as when it was empty. Mary, the New Ark, therefore, had to be the most holy when she carried Jesus in her womb as well as when Jesus was not physically in her. In other words, Mary was the most holy throughout her life. This was so, for just in the same way that God had preserved the anointing oil to be holy, so that, by this oil, God gave consecrated creatures their holiness; God had also preserved Mary to be holy and free from sin, so that, through her, God gave his only Son to the world. This preservation, through Prophet Isaiah, God had announced to his people: Is 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. So it’s clear that God had preserved Mary to be the Virgin; God had also made his will known more than 700 years before Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb. Mary, therefore, had to be the most holy and free from original sin at the time of her conception. Thus, by defining as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin, the Catholic Church did not define the Immaculate Conception as a new revelation. Instead, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she only brought forward the favor, which the Almighty had bestowed on Mary, Lk. 1:30, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” This favor was only one of the many great things the Almighty had done for her so that all ages will call her blessed. (Lk. 1:39-56) Who through all ages will call her blessed? Only Mary’s offspring will. The offspring of her adversary will undoubtedly never call her blessed. (Gn 3:14-15) Finally, as for the argument: if Mary was conceived without sin, her parents would have to be sinless as well. It’s clear that since the consecration of the Ark made holy only the acacia wood and the gold which was used in the construction of the Ark, and that God preserved only Mary to be holy and free from sin to be the mother of his Son; neither the rest of the acacia wood and gold were made holy nor Mary’s parents were preserved to be sinless. Christians, please pray: “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.” By praying this prayer, we ask Mary to pray for us, not that we pray to her.
So what the Roman church is saying is that God was not capable of preserving Jesus from sin, so He needed to preserve Mary from sin in order to ensure Jesus was free from sin? What? Why was God not capable of preserving Jesus from sin in Mary's womb, if He was capable of preserving Mary from sin in her mother's womb? You say it was "fitting" for Jesus to be born of a sinless woman. Why? It was not "fitting" that God needed to lower Himself and become a man, suffer, bear our sins, and die, but He did it! So why the need for a "fitting" birth? It was not "fitting" that He be born in a manger, spat upon, and cursed either. There was no way to preserve Mary from sin UNTIL Christ had completed His redemptive work on the cross. This makes it impossible for Mary to be born sinless. Mary herself admitted she needed a Savior, AND she qualified that JESUS CHRIST was her Savior (Luke 1:47.) The Bible says that no one is good, NO NOT ONE. This includes Mary. Also Steven was said to be "full of grace" as well. Was He sinless? Jesus Christ was a man born of woman (Mary), so it is impossible for Mary to have been sinless at birth. There - problem solved. Mary was a sinner just like you and me, redeemed by the blood of Jesus that was shed at Calvary - not before.
You need to learn how to read the bible. First, you claim,"The Bible says that no one is righteous, NO NOT ONE" - which is actually false. For that verse in Romans 3:10 comes from (Psalm 14:1-5), which distinguishes between the wicked from the righteous. And then we have verses such as (Luke 1:6 & Luke 2:25), "And they were BOTH RIGHTEOUS before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." ""Now there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, who was righteous and devout." Both of these verses (as well as Psalm 14 and many others) identify individuals as righteous and devout BEFORE Christ had completed His redemptive work on the cross. Then we have verses such as (John 9:2), when the apostles asked Our Lord, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" …..How did Jesus respond? He said, "NEITHER THIS MAN NOR HIS PARENTS SINNED, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." So your whole "none is good" argument and your false reasoning such as "There was no way to preserve someone from sin UNTIL Christ had completed His redemptive work on the cross"…….falls like a cheap deck of cards. Of course Christ was her Saviour, have you ever heard a Catholic say otherwise? Did you ever stop to think He saved her by preserving her from original sin in the first place? The Church teaches, "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin". So she was saved, by anticipation. You then mention St. Stephen, "Steven was said to be "full of grace" as well. Was He sinless?" Ever read the greek text? lol If you did you would know that it is a simple present tense. Acts 6:8 does not describe St. Stephen as "full of grace" (past-perfect tense). Rather, in the greek, Stephen is described as "filled with grace - "pleres charitos" - present tense, and literally translated as "filled with grace" (at that moment). The Greek of Acts 6:8 is dramatically different from the Greek of Luke 1:28, which describes Mary as "full of grace." In Luke 1:28. Mary is [called] "Kecharitomenae" [the angel calls her by this name] a past-perfect tense, and literally translated as "perfectly graced." or "completed in grace, literally - hence "full of grace". And so, from the point of view of the original Greek, there is simply no comparison between Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:3. (or any other verse dealing with grace). "Kecharitomenae" is a term exclusive to Luke 1:28, and so exclusive to Mary. No one else in the Bible is described in this way in regard to grace. And this becomes especially striking when we compare it to verses like Ephesians 1:6 and Ephesians 2:8, where Scripture speaks of Baptized Christians as being "graced" -("a charie toson" --past tense), but never "perfectly graced" or "completed in grace" ("kecharitomenae" --past perfect tense). And lastly, the most striking difference between Acts 6:8 and Luke 1:28 is that, in Luke 1:28, Mary is being called "Kecharitomenae" (that is "Full of grace" or "Perfectly graced") as a proper name! It is amazing how people always overlook that. There is a similar Hebrew word in the Old Testament with the word in greek used in Luke 1;28 which describes Mary (the name which the angel calls her). The word is "barar" , and it means "to make bright, , the chosen, the cleansed,, the polished, the purified, the purged out". There - problem solved. Mary was sinless just like you and me will be one day hopefully! (Jude 1:2). All of us, Redeemed by the Blood of Christ at Calvary;Perpetuated in the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.
For every tree is [known by] its [fruit]. (Luke 6:44). Make a tree [good] and its [fruit] will be [good], or make a tree [bad] and its [fruit] will be [bad], for a tree is [recognized] by its [fruit]. (Matthew 12:33) So then, by [their fruit] you will [recognize them]. (Matthew 7:20) Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the [fruit] of [thy womb]. (Luke 1:42)
Of course Mary needed a savior, but if you study the scriptures as they ought to be studied, paul shows us the importance of OT types when he calls Jesus the new Adam. Luke & John does the same showing us that Mary is the new Ark of the covenant, as she bore in her womb the WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH, THE BREAD OF LIFE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN & THE HIGH PRIEST as opposed to the old testament type which held the word of God on stone tablets, the manna which fed there fathers in the desert, but they still died as it was only food for the flesh & Aaron's rod which represented the first High Priest. Both spent 3 months in the hill country. David, in awe, said who am i that the ark of my Lord should come to me. Elizabeth said, "who am i that the mother of my lord should come to me. David was filled with the Holy Spirit and "LEAPED" when the Ark came into his presence. John the Baptist "LEAPED" when Mary came into the house of zaccaria & greeted Elizabeth. Why did she greet Elizabeth first-Because she was a Levite as was the priests present when David "LEAPED". The Ark, after been hid by the prophet Jeremiah on mount sion before he said it will not be seen again until the Lord shows his mercy. John sees it in Heaven and in the very next sentence goes on to describe a woman.(THERE WAS NO CHAPTER & VERSE IN SCRIPTURE UNTIL CENTURIES AFTER BIBLE WAS ASSEMBLED...who gave Birth to the messiah, who can only be Jesus, therefore only Mary gave birth to him. Uzzah died after not following the law which stated anyone who touched the ARK would die as it was Holy. Wouldnt Mary be more Holy. SO SINCE GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, AND IS OUTSIDE OF TIME, COULDN'T HE APPLY THE FRUITS OF HIS DEATH & RESURRECTION TO THE ONE WHO WOULD GIVE BIRTH TO HIM. WOULDN'T YOU, WHEN CHOOSING YOUR MOTHER MAKE HER PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. FINAL NAIL IN COFFIN- "What is the definition of enmity?"-- Jam 4:4; " Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is ENMITY WITH GOD? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." - Now Gen 3:15 " I will put ENMITY BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN." This means one is of God & one the Devil ,"ENMITY", which, presuming God was correct, would mean Mary WAS NOT UNDER THE POWER OF SIN, WHICH IS THE SAME AS BEING UNDER THE POWER OF SATAN'S KINGDOM. If she was in sin then Jesus came to us threw a gateway under satans control, as all in sin are. THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND ANYONE WHO LOSES THE ANGER AND HATRED TOWARD THE CHURCH SEES THIS. AND ITS OF THE DEVIL-IF IT WERE NOT, ALL CHURCHES "DEEMED WRONG" WOULD BE PERSECUTED TOO, BUT OUR PERSECUTORS ARE OTHER OTHER CHRISTIANS, FULL OF THE OPPOSITE OF VIRTUE, AND SO KNEE DEEP, CANT EVEN SEE HOW MUCH THEY HATE US. JUST COUNT TO 5 AND THINK OF THIS AND SEE AM I WRONG. This is all 2000 year old Catholic teaching. We could go on all day showing proof but i pray you at least think all the evidence over.I was once closed of because of anger i inherited toward my fellow humans who happened to be Christian Catholics, until it was pointed out that we were the ones full of anger & hatred, while they prayed for us, and anger and hatred is of the devil and not a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit...This shocked me ...God Bless
+Revelation 18:4 You said, "there in not one work you can do". See (Philippians 1:29) "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him". ...Also read (Romans 2:6-13) (Matthew 16:27)(2 Corinthians 11:15) (James 2:24-26)(Matthew 7:21)(Matthew 19:17)(1 Corinthians 7:19)(1 Corinthians 3:13)(2 Corinthians 5:10)(Ephesians 6:8)(Revelation 22:12)(Matthew 25: 31-46) - just to give a few examples. When Christ said, " IT IS FINISHED", it was in reference to completing the work for which He was sent to do (John 17:4). And the apostles were included in that work (John 9:4)(Colossians 1:24 ). You said, "cease from "dead works" to serve the Living God." (James 2:18) "But someone will say, "You have faith and I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds." You mentioned "redundant 'offerings of bread and wine" and recommended reading the Epistle To The Hebrews. Excellent! If you notice in [Hebrews 13:10-15], St. Paul mentions an altar (the table of the Lord as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:21) and that the priests of the Old Testament had no right to eat at it. Then it says in [verse 15]….. "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. " If you read verse in the greek, * the word 'offer' (anapheró) means "to prat upon the altar, to bring to the altar, to offer" * the word 'sacrifice' (thusia) means "a sacrifice, victim"; * the word 'praise' (ainesis) means "a thank offering", * the word 'continually' (dia) means "through continued time, always ". * the word 'fruit' (karpos) means "which originates or comes from something; an effect, result;" * the words 'mouth' (chelios) means "of the speaking mouth" * and the word confessing (homologeó) means "to confess; declare, to agree with, assent, to profess" So here we have St. Paul saying that we offer on the altar of the Lord, a sacrificial victim, a thank offering to God, always, through continued time, which results by professing the words, spoken by the mouth, which is to be declared. And just in case it hasn't sunk in yet. The "table of the Lord" mentioned by St. Paul in (1 Corinthians 10:21) is an altar. - (the Lord's Table is synonymous with altar - Malachi 1:7-12). That is why St. Paul says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).
+Revelation 18:4 I like how you use the pejorative term "Romanist ",lol, and claim you have to put up with "whining" since it's you who initially comes to a Catholic webpage and incessantly proceed to "whine" as a protestant to begin with. (a far too common practice among protestants if you search throughout youtube I'm afraid). You obviously missed the theological implications of (Philippians 1:29), as well as the many verses which I provided, (which you never gave any critical or biblical response to directly), …..other than claiming the "twisting of scripture". In order to deflect your own inability to defend your theology, you then turn to the historical subject of the Waldensians (who were heretics by the way). You then mention the "inquisition", of which you know little to nothing most likely (except the 'black legends' which were invented and spread by the English during the time period) - which have perpetuated to this day unfortunately. You then mention "works-righteousness" but this term is a distortion of Catholic theology. What does St. Paul say about works in (Romans 2:6-13)? What does St. James say in (James 2:24? James 2:18?) What does Christ say in (Matthew 16:27) and throughout the Gospels? Are these "works-righteosness"? You mention "vain repetition" yet you miss the point of the verse. It's not repetitious prayer that is displeasing but rather praying repetitiously in a vain manner. Because if repetition is wrong then we have a problem: Revelation 4:8 for example (someone needs to inform these angels about “vain repetition!”) Scripture indicates that Jesus prayed for hours (Luke 6:12). Then we have scripture showing us that Jesus used repetitious prayer in Matthew 26:44, Mark 14:32-39, and even commends it in (Luke 18:1-14). If you wish to try and claim salvation through heretical novelties and teachings of protestant heretics that reject the clear teaching of Hebrews, as well as the rest of Scripture, then by all means at least offer a counter argument to what has been stated to you, with scriptural support, other than your 'incessant ramblings' and pejorative accustions. Regarding the "cult that is drunk, though still not satiated, with the blood of history's true saints and martyrs" (Revelation 18:24). If you read closely, (Rev. 17:18) mentions the [great city] right? Well, if you read (Rev. 11:8) Scripture identifies this [great city] as the place where the Lord was crucified (Jerusalem). -,this reflects what St. Paul wrote of in (Romans 9:29). This is also supported by (Matthew 23), (Isaiah 49:26)(Acts 7:52), (Luke 11:48-49)(Ezekiel 16) - , (Isaiah 1:9-10)(Jeremiah 23:14), as well as many other passages.) Count how many times Jerusalem is called a "harlot" in Ezekiel 16 alone. That is why Jesus condemns Jerusalem in Matthew 23.
If the Answer is "God just did it" why didn't God "Just do it" for cane and able... or for all of us. There must be a better answer than that. Also; Adam and eve were born without sin but after being exposed to temptation they fell. So Mary could have just as easily fallen. The idea of original sin itself is maybe incorrectly taught. Maybe all of us are born innocent, are surrounded by temptation, and then fall in our own lives. If sin is some how genetically passed down then wouldn't a the son of a saint be born with less sin than the son of a murderer? if its not genetic then at the moment of conception when God is present in creation, why does he create a stained soul?
+Chris Nault I want to say that the answer to the unstated question is not _God just did it._ It is rather _It was fitting, and therefore God did it._ The first implies that God is only being arbitrary, rather than acting according to some scheme. So then, we must try to determine why it was not fitting to remove Original Sin from our souls. Being the God Bearer is perhaps reason enough for Mary, although I suppose there are other reasons I could add. I think before we can answer your questions, someone needs to point out what Original Sin is. The explanation I am most familiar with is the loss of Sanctifying Grace (as well as other gifts I have not mentioned, which we never had any right to). Given such an explanation, I hope to weigh in on your musings. I hope I have them all in their proper order: º It is true that nothing about Sanctifying Grace entails that a person cannot fall away, or Adam and Eve would have stayed in the Garden. But being conceived in a state of Sanctifying Grace is a different matter than whether Mary fell at some point afterwards. We can handle that another time. º Since you propose that maybe Original Sin is incorrectly taught, and then hypothesize that we are all born innocent, and then fall in our own lives, I advise you to watch your step. You are very close to committing the heresy of Pelagianism. When we are born, we have no personal sins on our souls, but these are not the same as Original Sin. We are born innocent, but lack Sanctifying Grace. º It is mistaken to say that passing Original Sin is a genetic condition. It is also not something on a continuum, but binary. The descendants of saints are born with Original Sin on their souls, just as much as the descendants of murderers. º Finally, if Original Sin just means we lose Sanctifying Grace, what's with the phrase "stained soul"? I suppose the effects of Original Sin on the soul might be counted as stains in themselves, but I should check in on that before I call it anything other than a guess!
Chris Nault: Original sin resulted in Adam and Eve losing their preternatural gifts that they had prior to original sin. Since they lost those preternatural natural gifts....they could not be passed on to us genetically. Just like if parents lose all their money...then their children do not inherit anything. We do not inherit freedom from sickness and death and tendency towards sin...because Adam and Eve lost those freedoms or preternatural gifts.
Chris Nault there is a philosophical angle I take with your question which leads down a different path to a similar end. What do we ask when we say "why doesn't God just fix us?" (Given that he "fixed" the Blessed Virgin, say). So, God could just fix us, well that's like asking why does God permit evil, isn't it? That I'm a sinner means I do wrong, evil happens because of sin, fix sin no evil. We're at the problem of theodicy. But rather than tackle it the standard (and utterly correct) way let's engage in a little self-analysis. See I'd love nothing more than to be just "fixed". Imagine that? Never sin again, none of the evil in this world would be down to me. Holy @£%! What am I thinking! I'd last a second. Pride for starters. Okay, not just fixed but with a saintly will, that's the kind of fixed I need. Magic wand stuff. Or else where/how to get a saintly will? A sanctified life full of virtue and self sacrifice is a well attested method. A good upbringing from saintly parents perhaps, then a life of dutious virtue, trials (many trials), definitely some serious suffering might be called for... Erm... 😉
If I understand correctly, Mary is believed to have been free of all stain of sin because that was necessary for Jesus to have been born without original sin. But if it is necessary that one's parents be completely free of sin in order for a person to be born free of sin, how could Mary have been free of sin unless her parents were as well? And how could they have been free of sin unless their parents were as well? And how could their parents... Doesn't the immaculate conception assume that God intervened supernaturally to make sure that Mary was not touched by original sin despite having parents who were? And if God can do that, why couldn't God have just done that with Jesus instead of Mary?
No ...not so Jesus was born without sin .....but because he is God ....purity laws explain why Mary could not touch Jesus Christ if she carried original sin . It isn't about Mary's greatness ...it's about the fact Jesus is God.
It makes her Fiat less if she wasn't just like us. Takes our hope away of ever saying yes. If she was sinless she was the Christ . Her Fiat means more if not imaculate. Gives us hope of saying yes too. Smacks of predestation and the elect. Full of Grace ,Grace is help from God not proof being sinless. Some big former sinners abound in Grace . Doesn't mean they never had sin. It does mean God looks at them like they haven't. If they keep saying yes to the Grace of God then he always will. That's why the Fiat is important because she was like us . So we too can say yes to God! Dogma was over reaction to the Protestants . Well meaning but created it's own problems. Remember Hail Mary full of Grace. Not Hail Mary you never had sin nor sinned
Mary says that her God is her salvation. So that ends immaculate conception. There is no debate really. Did the apostles who layed the foundations of Christianity even mention anything of the sort? No, In fact, once Mary's story is finished, she is not mentioned that much. She is around obviously, but not to the importance that the Catholic or Orthodox churches would like her to be. The foundation is Christ......and Christ alone. That is the foundation built on rock. ALL else is sinking sand that gets washed away. We should all heed that warning.
As revert back to Catholicism, this doctrine is one of two points I’m struggling with the most. It seems to be a totally unnecessary and troubling claim based on almost nothing. It is troubling because 1) if God could and did give a special dispensation to Mary so that it isn’t Christ’s death that saves her from sin, but this moment of “preventing her from falling in the mud with the rest of us”, then Christ didn’t need to die at all to save the world. All God had to do was give this special dispensation to each of us, or just to Cain and Able, and sin would have been abolished. Also, if Christ’s sinless nature could only be preserved by Mary being Immaculately conceived, wouldn’t that mean Mary’s sinless nature would require her parents were immaculately conceived as well, ad Infinitum, back to Adam and Eve? I think the Church is wrong on this doctrine and needs to correct it, but even to say that is to undermine the whole Church?! Why? Can’t we continue to learn and fix things? Why have theologians at all if that is true? I’m trying here, but this doctrine is a mess.
Firstly, Christ did not need to die to save the world; God can do LITERALLY ANYTHING, that's what believing in a God means. The truth is, "God became man so that man may one day become gods" (or rather 'like-gods,' having achieved God's supernatural destiny, divine conscience, however you want to put it). The reason it is dogma is because it was always believed by Catholics to a certain degree throughout history, it was just not entirely clear. And no, we cannot change this, it is dogma, that means it can never be altered.
If God intervened to make Mary free from original sin then why doesn't He do the same for all of us and no need for incarnation and crucifixion? If God found a way to make it happen for one person then He would have done it for all.. Most of these weird catholic teachings are late inventions.. Like the infallibility of the Pope
All human beings inherited the stain of original sin. From the time of Adam/Eve and their fall. God's plan was to use the Virgin Mary and her offspring (Jesus) to save humanity from sin. Mary's Immaculate Conception and the Incarnation are thus necessary. Please see Genesis 3:15.
Justin Jakob That doesn't answer the question. Mary's parents would have been stained by original sin too. And yet according to the immaculate conception dogma, God was able to bring Mary forth from them without being touched by original sin. That means that God could very well bring anyone forth from sinful parents without them being sinful themselves. Now I am a Christian myself and therefore can accept that God had reasons for not just fixing everything right away in the Garden of Eden and letting history play out until He returns at the end of this world. But since God could bring someone forth from sinful human parents without that person being touched by original sin, then He at least could have done so with anyone. And for us Protestants, He could have certainly done so with Jesus directly instead of Mary (especially since Jesus had no human father and was in His nature God which would have made such a feat much easier I would imagine).
@Dylan Fernandez , Global Ciro is likely reading the doctored protestant book they call their "Bible." There is only ONE original Holy Bible and it was organized and compiled by the Catholic church...certainly not by the 16th century traitors to the one true faith...Luther removed 7 books and altered the Book of James...to make it conform with his insanity...so between Luther and the fallen King Henry VIII, how many billions of souls since have not received the sacraments from Christ??? So freakin sad...
full of grace indicates that Jesus is already in her, not that she was without sin, immaculate is not in the bible it is something made up to support other UN biblical concepts
No one listen to this protestant moron. Jesus was not yet in her. Mary says herself, "how can i when I have not yet known man." She wasn't pregnant during the conversation with the angel. The angel came to let her know that she was about to become pregnant. She was not pregnant at anytime before that encounter.
Matthew Anderson: The name of the Holy Trinity is not in the Bible either. The Bible itself does not contain a list of books to be included. In fact, the Church existed years before the New Testament was written. That list was compiled by the Catholic Church around the year 400 AD. The Bible does not contain everything that Jesus did. Jesus taught things to the Apostles that He did not teach to the crowds and which are not written in the Bible. "The disciples came to him and asked, 'Why do you speak to the people in parables?' He replied, 'Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.'" (Matthew 13:10-11) The first generation of early Church Fathers were taught things by the Apostles that were not in the Bible. And those were handed on by the Sacred Tradition. Example: Mary knew Jesus' birthday and told the Apostles...but that is not written in the Bible. "The last verse of the Gospel of John tells us that NOT everything Jesus did or taught is written in the Bible: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)
Mary, like every other human, needed salvation because she was human. No human can exempt Mary from needing Christ's salvation, and, she was a virgin up until when she had marital relations with Joseph. The Bible plainly says it, he didn't have martial relations with her until after Christ was born. Mary was a vessel, Carrying the Great Redeemer. That's all.
@Alison Heatwole This theory goes against the fact that accepting Christ as ones sufficient Savior is a choice. Saving Mary with out her choosing would violate her free choice. God doesn't do that,
On December 8, 1854 Pope Pius IX defined as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin. By this dogma, the Catholic Church confesses: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC #491-492, 508) Unfortunately, many Christians objected this dogma. Referring to Rm. 5:12-13, they argued that since sin has spread to all men, and that sin has been in the world before the law was given; Mary could not be conceived without sin. In addition, for Mary to be conceived without sin, they argued, her parents would have to be sinless as well. So was Mary conceived without sin? To answer this question, and to understand this teaching of the Catholic Church, it would be helpful to begin with the Book of Exodus, chapters 25-30. In these chapters, through Moses, the Lord commanded the Israelites to build a sanctuary that he may dwell in their midst. Within the boundary of the sanctuary were the tabernacle, the altar for burnt offering, the bronze laver and its base, and many other furnishings for the tabernacle. The heart of the sanctuary, however, was the tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant. When the Lord commanded the Israelites to build this sanctuary, he was very specific about the exact details as how everything had to be made, but most noticeable were the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, and the blending of the holy anointing oil. Concerning the construction of the Ark, the Lord said: Ex 25:10-22, (10) You shall make an ark of acacia wood; two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. (11) And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. See Ex 25:12-22 for more details. To blend the anointing oil, the Lord commanded, Ex 30:23-25, (23) Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty, (24) and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin; (25) and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be. The Lord further commanded: Ex 30:26-29, (26) With this sacred anointing oil you shall anoint the meeting tent and the ark of the covenant, (27) and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, (28) and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base. Then the Lord declared, Ex 30:29, When you have consecrated them, they shall be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. Thus, creatures consecrated to the Lord became holy, but note that the Ark became most holy even if, at the time of the consecration, it was empty, (Ex 25:16), and that the anointing oil was holy even if it wasn’t consecrated to the Lord. The anointing oil was holy because the Lord preserved it to be holy, he said, Ex 30:25, “...; a holy anointing oil it shall be.” So Scriptures tell Christians that though this world has been under a curse (Gn. 3:17-19), and that sin has spread to all men (Rm. 5:12); the Lord, in his omnipotence, can always have any of his creatures consecrated to him, and he can always preserve any of his creatures for his ‘personal use’. When he did, consecrated and preserved creatures became holy. Scriptures also tell Christians that the Lord had the old Ark of the Covenant made to house his covenant with the Israelites, or the stone tablets on which the ten commandments or the words of the Lord were written (Ex 40:20). This covenant was not the last, nor was it eternal; yet the Ark, which housed it, had to be the most holy. How holy then Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, in whom the Eternal Word dwells has to be? Therefore, since the old Ark which was made of acacia wood, by human hands, and covered with pure gold was the most holy among all things; the new Ark, Mary, who was created by God’ hands, over shadowed by the Most High (Lk 1:35), from whom the Eternal Word received his flesh must be the most holy among all creatures. One question, which will surely arise is: Who consecrated Mary to God? The answer is, of course, Mary did. She consecrated herself to God, and she did it freely saying, Lk. 1:38, Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word. By her consecration of self, the Word incarnated in her virginal womb, and in her the Word really, truly, and substantially dwelled. Mary must be the most holy among all creatures, angels included. This, understandably, will lead us to the next question: Was Mary the most holy only from the time she consecrated herself to God, or was she always the most holy? As pointed out earlier, the old Ark was the most holy when it housed the words of God as well as when it was empty. Mary, the New Ark, therefore, had to be the most holy when she carried Jesus in her womb as well as when Jesus was not physically in her. In other words, Mary was the most holy throughout her life. This was so, for just in the same way that God had preserved the anointing oil to be holy, so that, by this oil, God gave consecrated creatures their holiness; God had also preserved Mary to be holy and free from sin, so that, through her, God gave his only Son to the world. This preservation, through Prophet Isaiah, God had announced to his people: Is 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. So it’s clear that God had preserved Mary to be the Virgin; God had also made his will known more than 700 years before Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb. Mary, therefore, had to be the most holy and free from original sin at the time of her conception. Thus, by defining as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin, the Catholic Church did not define the Immaculate Conception as a new revelation. Instead, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she only brought forward the favor, which the Almighty had bestowed on Mary, Lk. 1:30, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” This favor was only one of the many great things the Almighty had done for her so that all ages will call her blessed. (Lk. 1:39-56) Who through all ages will call her blessed? Only Mary’s offspring will. The offspring of her adversary will undoubtedly never call her blessed. (Gn 3:14-15) Finally, as for the argument: if Mary was conceived without sin, her parents would have to be sinless as well. It’s clear that since the consecration of the Ark made holy only the acacia wood and the gold which was used in the construction of the Ark, and that God preserved only Mary to be holy and free from sin to be the mother of his Son; neither the rest of the acacia wood and gold were made holy nor Mary’s parents were preserved to be sinless. Christians, please pray: “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.” By praying this prayer, we ask Mary to pray for us, not that we pray to her.
This doesn't explain how a mere person is explicitly sinless. It may seem a neat and tidy version of what could possibly be, but it is nothing more than that. I could just as easily say esther the woman who saved the jews is the new eve and saved the jewish people and this humanity through her boldness and sinlessnes. Furthermore, I could spend weeks and months detailing various potential scripture and obscure theologians and church fathers to back it up. However, that wouldn't make it true. So, let's look at the fruit of this dogma then shall we? The catholic church prides itself on being non divisive, but this account has caused a great deal of it. What it produces is group of people bowing down to a small statue in their home and praying to a dead woman because they dont truly believe they access to God through Jesus Christ alone. This dogma is based on additional teachings of sinful people who are exactly as infallible as I am. Having said that each person who has been given the Holy Spirit should train themselves to listen objectively to all sides of the discussion and learn for themselves through Christ as a kingdom of priests what is true and what is false doctrine. This will then free us all up to accept always the most universal of truths and that is that Christ alone is the father of truth and the only true guide to our father. Amen
Hail Mary FULL of grace... FULL, not almost full nor privileged. If the Angel said it then God said it. In the Gospel when Jesus talked about goodness, He said that only God is good and that we have all fallen short of goodness. Fallen short. 99.9% of goodness is still not goodness. not full. In addition, for the sake of entertaining the other notions, even if Mary was conceived without original sin, she would still need Jesus, her son, for salvation because no one comes through the Father except through the Son. It may be a different form but it is still salvation.
We Know that Jesus is perfect naturally his mother would be perfect before, during, and after his son was born our savior lord Jesus Christ..She is sinless! she's the mother of the most high ( almighty God) and the queen of heaven.. Our Saint (Thomas Aquinas) explains it perfectly 🙏🕊🕊
@@bairfreedomEvery baby in a burning house needs a 'saviour'. Therefore, all of them need to be burned by flames before the fire-fighter rescues them. The logic there doesn't work.
"Full of grace", does not mean what you want it to mean. For example, Noah was full of grace - i.e. he found favor with God. Catholicism has a world view that "Grace" is a magical state - almost a sacramental state. If I say that "you graced me with your presence", I'm not saying anything special about myself. I am pleased that you came to see me. So, for an angel to tell Mary that she was full of grace, isn't unusual. God found favor in Mary. He was pleased with her. It doesn't impart anything magical. In fact, we all want to be "full of grace" - i.e. we all want to be pleasing to God. That doesn't mean we desire a super-holy stature in His kingdom. Listen to the Douay-Rhiems version of the bible: Gen. 6:8 - But Noe found grace before the Lord.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Luke 1:46 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior (if one is sinless would they need a Savior)? Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mary is no exception to grace ...we are not implying in any way that Mary is exempt from the grace of her son ..we are saying that Mary was a saved Christian before she was born .
Jesus also needed a Saviour at times.. just think about it. Plus Paul never met Mary it seems, and that sentence is collective and taken out of context
I'm unsure Garrigou-Lagrange was right: the first and third "periods" are in line with the second one, as they only say Saint Mary was exempt from original sin, they do not speak about her conception; while the Summa affirms that She had the original sin in the moment of conception, but was purified of it.
Dr. Taylor Marshall, I have recently started listening to Br. Francis from the Benedictine Center, NH. He has the same favorite Thomist as you. I just found that interesting, maybe after I finish with Br. Francis' stuff I'll look him up.
As to Our Ladys Immaculate Conception it never bothered me that Thomas was left in the dark about this subject, this holy doctrine was reserved for later ages. Saints thur out this time were having revelations about this same subject, in one of St Bridget's revelations Mary revealed that St Jerome had indeed always believed in her holy purity, and he live at the same time as Augustine. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the eternal fate of Origen, and Marys prerogatives (forgive me if I worded that wrong) have always intrigued theologians thur out church history.
No, Aquinas did NOT deny the immaculate conception. Aquinas, like the Catholic Church, made a distinction between the stain of original sin and the penalty of original sin.
If the Orthodox accepted this dogma than would you? I doubt it. So the real question is why do you reject the dogma? However a short answer to your question is that the Orthodox Church is incapable of accepting any Catholic dogma because they are not in communion with them at this time. It is not because of theology. I know this because the Eastern Catholic Churches are the exact same as the Orthodox other than the fact that they have rejoined communion with Rome (ex. Ukrainian Catholic Church). These Eastern Catholic Churches do accept all Catholic dogma. The Orthodox Churches will accept the dogma once God reunites these Churches with Rome.
Because Mary died, the Feast of the Dormition proves this. Having Original Sin means you die, when adam and eve fell, they brought about death. Death did not exist before the fall. Also it completely breaks the incarnation since Christ assumed our Human Nature, but since He is God He never sinner. He took on out corruptible flesh, deified it and made salvation and resurrection possible to us. Mary had our human nature. She gave that same human nature which was subject to death to Christ, which is why we say “Christ conquered and destroyed death”. Another objection to the immaculate conception is that it puts mary as another type of human being, being the only being without human nature, makes her out to be a robot. If God can do that to mary and save her at her conception, one must ask themselves why He cant do that to all creation? It renders her obedience to God completely without meaning at the annunciation
@@CatholicK5357 the Orthodox Church will never accept error, it’s not a matter of “who they weren’t in communion that’s why they dont accept it” The Rest of the Church was in communion with the Latins when they were pushing heretical beliefs such as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque) when the latins would not repent, they were cut off. And so now we see greater heresies manifested such as ecumenism, and the notion of muslims and Catholics worshiping the same god. It’s all coming to a close soon
Why does Conception have to be associated with sex? conception has another meaning and is to do with thought or to have a Concept. Immaculate conception is pure mind without sinful thought.
Knowledge is progressive to the human race. How much has the library of Rome grown since that time? How many truths have been revealed? Each day is a new day, the Lord's day. One we are given and hopefully strive to fulfill according to his will. St. Thomas Aquinas is a pillar of the faith. He used,to his availability , all of his ability granted to him by Christ our Lord and Saviour . Thank you for another informative presentation. May God the Father,Christ Jesus,the Holy Spirit and, Blessed Mary watch over and keep you and yours.
A very wise servant of God once said, " satan has lost the main battle, and he will be defeated in the final battle by a humble woman, a human who has, as promised to those who humble themselves-They will be exalted. And God loves us so much he wants to share his glory with us. So the off-spring of " the woman...who gave birth to the messiah, who was taken up to Heaven...the off spring who keep Gods commandments," and as Mary, the mother of God, whose mystical body is the Church, with HIM been the HEAD of the mystical body, making MARY the Mother of the Church and mother of those who KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS, and as we see in scripture, 7 TRUMPETS WAS A LITURGICAL SERVICE AND IT WILL BE ANOTHER LITURGICAL SERVICE THAT WILL BRING SATAN DOWN FINALLY AS WE KNOW TILL THE CLOSE OF THE AGE A PURE OFFERING WITH INCENSE WILL BE MADE FROM THE RISING TO THE SETTING OF THE SUN IN ALL THE NATIONS, MEANING AFTER MESSIANIC TIMES AS PROPHESIED IN Mal 1:11- ( IN 300 LANGUAGES, 3 TIMES A SECOND FOR 2000 YEARS the cup of Blessing IS BEEN HELD UP WITH INCENSE IN ALL THE NATIONS - What Church not only does this-BUT IS HATED WITH THE MOST VENOMOUS ANGER BY OTHER CHRISTIANS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ACCEPT OUR BIBLE, ADD WORDS TO IT, DELETE THE WORDS, REMOVE BOOKS FROM NT & OT, REPLACE SOME, LEAVING THEM NOY WAY TO TELL IF WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS FACTUALLY 100%, UNLESS INFALLIBLE, AND THIS IS DENIED-SO DID GOD LEAVE THE WORLD WITH NO WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH ( WHICH IS VITAL AS HE IS THE WAY,TRUTH & LIFE ) OTHER THAN TO RELY ON OUR OWN OPINIONS & INSIGHTS...SO WHICH OF THE 40+ THOUSAND DENOMINATIONS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT TRULY GUIDING, COULD THEY BE DECEIVED.SINCE GOD IS ABOUT ONITY, ONENESS, DOESN'T IT SEEM SOME ONE, OR TENS OF THOUSANDS RATHER HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, AS THE FRUIT THAT HAS BEEN BORN OF THIS FORM OF CHRISTIANITY IS DIVISION, ANGER & PURE HATE WITH VENGEANCE TOWARD OTHER CHRISTIANS, AND, BAR A FEW, NO GROWTH IN VIRTUE...PLZ AT LEAST ASK OUR GOOD LORD TO GIVE YOU AN OPEN MIND AND LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH...GOD BLESS
Th Word of God became flesh and Jesus was born through Mother Mary. He was sinless and had no earthly father. However mother Mary had an earthly father and a mother. If Mary was without sin, then her mother would have to be without sin and should born without an earthly father. If this is so, then, it goes to Mary's grand mother and ends up with Eve. However Eve bore children after sin. Mary was the most blessed woman on earth, no two words about that. All Christians accept that and no body insults her as indicated by most people. If you go to the lineage of Jesus, there were prostitutes. God never discriminated them when choosing a lineage for Jesus. The Catholic church declared in 1951 as Mary was born sinless, until such time all believed her born with original sin. Who has the authority add something to the scriptures?
Thanks for the lengthy reply. Mary got the salvation through Jesus as she said" Lord is my salvation" May is the most Blessed woman on this earth. All Christian accepts that. If we go through the lineage of Jesus, there were prostitutes, but God's way is not the way man thinks.
The Catholic church believes in the communion of saints, of which Mary is one. Catholics venerate Mary as the "mother" of the church, they do not worship her. Worship is the preserve of God. The alternative is to believe Mary was chosen by chance and her role in our salvation is of no consequence. That is an extraordinary reading of her part in the Christian story.
Thomas Aquinas believed that Holy Mary was not conceived without original sin. I personally have read a book about this subject by mystics and the mystic says that God baptised holy Mary.
Ahhh yes you can trust a mystic but you can not trust God's written word? Mary was born with a sin nature just as scripture says and she required a savior just as she says in Luke! Read the bible for the truth and quit listening to people who tell you what to believe. Heb 12:2 Mary is not there.
- St. Thomas did not deny the Immaculate of Virgin Mary. The problem is, "WHEN..?" "We do not know". - The sanctification of Mary’s soul came “order of nature” and not in the “order of time”. How could that "the conception" does not deal with time? - Mary’s redemption from sin was “preventive”, while that of the rest of humanity was “curative”..? I sense a lot of speculation and developments that are expanding here. Whether that means St Joachim and St Anne and receive the gift of prevention at the time of conception (only)...? - "The Christlike Conception of The Virgin Mary?.
Raymond, I'd like to share this with you. On December 8, 1854 Pope Pius IX defined as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin. By this dogma, the Catholic Church confesses: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC #491-492, 508) Unfortunately, many Christians objected this dogma. Referring to Rm. 5:12-13, they argued that since sin has spread to all men, and that sin has been in the world before the law was given; Mary could not be conceived without sin. In addition, for Mary to be conceived without sin, they argued, her parents would have to be sinless as well. So was Mary conceived without sin? To answer this question, and to understand this teaching of the Catholic Church, it would be helpful to begin with the Book of Exodus, chapters 25-30. In these chapters, through Moses, the Lord commanded the Israelites to build a sanctuary that he may dwell in their midst. Within the boundary of the sanctuary were the tabernacle, the altar for burnt offering, the bronze laver and its base, and many other furnishings for the tabernacle. The heart of the sanctuary, however, was the tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant. When the Lord commanded the Israelites to build this sanctuary, he was very specific about the exact details as how everything had to be made, but most noticeable were the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, and the blending of the holy anointing oil. Concerning the construction of the Ark, the Lord said: Ex 25:10-22, (10) You shall make an ark of acacia wood; two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. (11) And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. See Ex 25:12-22 for more details. To blend the anointing oil, the Lord commanded, Ex 30:23-25, (23) Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty, (24) and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin; (25) and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be. The Lord further commanded: Ex 30:26-29, (26) With this sacred anointing oil you shall anoint the meeting tent and the ark of the covenant, (27) and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, (28) and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base. Then the Lord declared, Ex 30:29, When you have consecrated them, they shall be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. Thus, creatures consecrated to the Lord became holy, but note that the Ark became most holy even if, at the time of the consecration, it was empty, (Ex 25:16), and that the anointing oil was holy even if it wasn’t consecrated to the Lord. The anointing oil was holy because the Lord preserved it to be holy, he said, Ex 30:25, “...; a holy anointing oil it shall be.” So Scriptures tell Christians that though this world has been under a curse (Gn. 3:17-19), and that sin has spread to all men (Rm. 5:12); the Lord, in his omnipotence, can always have any of his creatures consecrated to him, and he can always preserve any of his creatures for his ‘personal use’. When he did, consecrated and preserved creatures became holy. Scriptures also tell Christians that the Lord had the old Ark of the Covenant made to house his covenant with the Israelites, or the stone tablets on which the ten commandments or the words of the Lord were written (Ex 40:20). This covenant was not the last, nor was it eternal; yet the Ark, which housed it, had to be the most holy. How holy then Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, in whom the Eternal Word dwells has to be? Therefore, since the old Ark which was made of acacia wood, by human hands, and covered with pure gold was the most holy among all things; the new Ark, Mary, who was created by God’ hands, over shadowed by the Most High (Lk 1:35), from whom the Eternal Word received his flesh must be the most holy among all creatures. One question, which will surely arise is: Who consecrated Mary to God? The answer is, of course, Mary did. She consecrated herself to God, and she did it freely saying, Lk. 1:38, Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word. By her consecration of self, the Word incarnated in her virginal womb, and in her the Word really, truly, and substantially dwelled. Mary must be the most holy among all creatures, angels included. This, understandably, will lead us to the next question: Was Mary the most holy only from the time she consecrated herself to God, or was she always the most holy? As pointed out earlier, the old Ark was the most holy when it housed the words of God as well as when it was empty. Mary, the New Ark, therefore, had to be the most holy when she carried Jesus in her womb as well as when Jesus was not physically in her. In other words, Mary was the most holy throughout her life. This was so, for just in the same way that God had preserved the anointing oil to be holy, so that, by this oil, God gave consecrated creatures their holiness; God had also preserved Mary to be holy and free from sin, so that, through her, God gave his only Son to the world. This preservation, through Prophet Isaiah, God had announced to his people: Is 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. So it’s clear that God had preserved Mary to be the Virgin; God had also made his will known more than 700 years before Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb. Mary, therefore, had to be the most holy and free from original sin at the time of her conception. Thus, by defining as dogma that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without original sin, the Catholic Church did not define the Immaculate Conception as a new revelation. Instead, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she only brought forward the favor, which the Almighty had bestowed on Mary, Lk. 1:30, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” This favor was only one of the many great things the Almighty had done for her so that all ages will call her blessed. (Lk. 1:39-56) Who through all ages will call her blessed? Only Mary’s offspring will. The offspring of her adversary will undoubtedly never call her blessed. (Gn 3:14-15) Finally, as for the argument: if Mary was conceived without sin, her parents would have to be sinless as well. It’s clear that since the consecration of the Ark made holy only the acacia wood and the gold which was used in the construction of the Ark, and that God preserved only Mary to be holy and free from sin to be the mother of his Son; neither the rest of the acacia wood and gold were made holy nor Mary’s parents were preserved to be sinless. Christians, please pray: “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.” By praying this prayer, we ask Mary to pray for us, not that we pray to her.
Excellent work. Well written. Also... look at the building of the temple by Solomon which was lined with purest gold, etc. And God, when He formed Mary... lined her interior with faith, which is more precious according to St. Paul than fire-tried gold which has been made pure. God made Eve free of sin... and He also made the new Eve free of sin. Why is that so hard for people to accept? Being born under the state of original sin is the anomaly from what God actually desires for us. God never intended to divorce us from himself... but He understood that it was necessary in order to purify our choice for love. One reason people do not accept the perfection of Mary by grace... is they do not esteem Christ highly enough. Frankly, if we understood the dignity of God... we would understand the extreme dignity that God gave to a creature... and perhaps we might finally begin to understand the extreme dignity that God has for us as well. But Protestants remain cherubim and seraphim seeking to worship God outside of themselves, rather than grasping the extreme dignity given to us... to worship God indwelling... of which Mary is the first. "My soul magnifies the Lord... for He has done great things for me and holy is His name." It was Mary who God chose to make the sacrifice of faith that Abraham was not required to follow through on. Abraham made the choice in the will... and Mary also surrendered her will wholly to God but also gave her greatest good, God himself in the person of her son, back to the Father. She is the form of every woman and every one of us who will be saved... to wholly receive the Gift of God and to wholly return it. Still, Protestants refuse to accept the dignity that God gave to the highest of his creatures. And of course, satan hates her because she took his spot as the most glorious creature, radiating the Presence of God from within her very being. Lucifer never radiated God from within... as none of the angels do. Scripture say's "the angels long to look upon what we see..."
The birth of Mary is consistent with the purity laws surrounding the arch of the covenant and moses' interaction and dialogue with God . Mary had to be a saved Christian to carry God in her womb , and she had to be saved before she was born ..it doesn't make her a God it makes her an Eve before the fall .
Does it need to write everything in the Bible for everyone to believe.. Your name is not even in the Bible yet you believe you are save. Blessed are those who do not see yet believe.😊
Think about it: If God can save a person from his sins without Jesus then why didn't He just do that to Adam from the outset? The Apostle Paul posed something similar in the Book of Galatians: Gal. 3:21b - for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. In other words, if God could free a man from sin WITHOUT the shedding of Christ's blood then He surely would have opted for that solution. The Marian Dogmas actually nullify the cross.
You mention the Early Father's where did they get their information from? Did they reference the Apostles and what they said, etc. All we see are Early and later Christians using reason without references from those who truly knew. It's certainly not clear in Scripture.
First you said since the moment of conception she was without sin and then you said that for a very short amount of time she had sin that was removed which one is it? You have to do a lot of gymnastics to explain Immaculate conception..
She couldn't have had sinned removed, because Christ hadn't shed his blood yet. What your saying is that there is something more efficient that the blood of Christ that removes sin.Thats the corner stone of Christianity! Once she had sin she was under Gods condemnation and needed salvation only offered through the sacrifice of Christ. God wouldn't just take her sin away because that would make him an Unjust God! and as we know, God is Just!
Marianism within Catholicism has grown to dominate the faith especially over the last 200 years. The Theology behind the "Immaculate Conception" Dogma has sufficient philosophy, exegesis and debate entwined with it to give it some degree of legitimacy. The Dogma promulgated by the flamboyant Pius XII " The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven" is ludicrous in the extreme and must by now, be a cause of embarrassment to many 'thinking Catholics. Dun Scotus Eriu-gena (born in Eire/Ireland) was one of the many Irish Preaching Scholars that did much to drag Europe out of the 'Dark Ages' through a huge network of Monasteries and Schools. The 'Pagan' religions and cults of Ireland were not obliterated by St. Patrick but were in many cases absorbed into Christianity. These cults often centred around female Deities. Thus Ireland has Two Patron Saints - St. Patrick & St. Brigid. 'Brigid' being "Brìdeog" (Bride) in Irish. From the 1800's on, the Irish put Marian Devotion on Parr with Above Christian devotion as did many of the other impoverished and marginalised regions of Europe.
@@alexpanagiotis4706 nice try again one of many interpretations that just confuses many. If you can't explain just dont even try. A fool thinks he is wise in his own eyes
No one can say that we are born with sin. A baby does not sin. The old teztiment says that children are innocent until the age of reason. Jesus said that we must be like innocent children to get to heaven. One thing is that God purified her to conceive Jesus when she said yes, and another is saying that she was born without sin. We have free will...so if she said no to the angel....but she did say yes. So God purified her. Then she went to the temple for.purification after Jesús birth. Her father was a priest, and he knew who this baby was. So in midevil times a MAN deceides that Mary was born sinless. The bible is Gods word and not mans. In no place does this say about her birth but it does of her verginity, in the old and new testiment.
One major problem with that hypothesis of yours is that Mary being born immaculate is a theology that predates Medieval Times. Maybe you should ask the early Church why they believed it or maybe they should ask you why you reject it (the faith passed down from the Apostles).
Fruit of Righteousness: God bless you as well. But what you stated was horseradish. Where's your evidence of these claims? 'Blasphemously called Fathers' - lol?
Fruit of Righteousness: God bless. I am not going to respond to everything you mentioned because you mentioned so much. I asked you for evidence rather than what Catholics are commonly accused of (I've heard it all before). Protestants and heretics always make these accusations, but they do not and never held up to scrutiny. You are making the claim that the followers of the disciples and the Church Fathers do not agree. I am not claiming they agreed on everything, but they agreed on much. What they disagreed on were things that were not really covered by the Apostles or Christ. This is how doctrine/teachings develop over time. The teachings are taken and developed to show how they apply to different circumstances. In the book of acts itself, it shows the Apostles disagreeing on certain matters. When they came together and needed to resolve a disagreement, they had a method for doing so - and this likewise how we have done so ever since. We have counsels. The Apostles had to decide about circumcision and such - they came together and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with St. Peter as the Vicar of Christ, they agreed. Do you now how hard it is to get people to agree? The fact that in the Counsel of Nicea there was virtually unanimous agreement on doctrinal decisions (minus two heretical Bishops who later recanted). These counsels are a good thing because it reminds us that we do not make decisions alone, but with God and His Church the way that He set it up. The counsels are led by the Holy Spirit. And since Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, we have the guarantee of Him not allowing out teachings/doctrines to become corrupted. They do develop over time - but never in a contradicting way. It is like a rose bud that opens up slowly into a beautiful rose over time. Much of what you said about the early Church was not true. However, some of it was. Christians in every time period have there own unique issues to face - so we have to judge each period on its own with Christ. Once Christianity becomes legal, it changes a lot and has the risk of making some no longer take as much heed - but don't forget that even under persecution there were bad Christians. The book of Acts proves this. You claim that hardly anyone after the early Church was 100% faithful. This is not true. My Church has a long history of the Communion of Saints and sinners. And I am so grateful that we have amazing examples of faithful Catholics who have been canonized from every single century - including our current one. Name a century and I can list you plenty of Saints. As to why there are so many who are unfaithful is something that each of us have to give our own account for and we ourselves have to look to the example of Christ and the Saints rather than sinners. Even in Jesus time, most of Israel was unfaithful. Israel in the Old Testament is very similar to the Church in the testament as a whole. They both go through periods of reform and stumbling. And the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, and the Revelation of John's letters also prove how many issues there were in the early Church - this did not stop when the Apostles died. The Catholic Church has always taken Christ words seriously as well as Paul - and they do not contradict each other. You claim that we only take proof texts which is completely false. We have a 3 year lectionary which requires the Priests on Sunday to read certain scripture sections and to do a homily on them. So every 3 years, Catholics get to hear the entire gospel. There is also a 2 year for those who attend daily Mass. Our entire Catechism is the Churches interpretation of Scriptures (which they reference vividly) to help the faithful better understand and always have access to good sound teaching. Mind you there are bad Priests who teach the opposite of Church teaching as wolves in sheeps clothing, but that is a constant battle. All of our teachings are united with Scripture in marriage. There maybe some teachings that have no specific scripture if there is none about the topic - but is there at least by principle and never contradicts what Christ taught. We definitely do not put the Doctors of the Church (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc...) above the teachings of our Lord. After testing their writings, the Church has found them to have described the teachings of the Church very well and are edifying to believers - and they were/are especially good at answering against heresy and other falsehoods. You claim they contradict Christ - but clearly we disagree. There is actually a lot of evidence of the early Church praying for the souls of the dead as well as asking for the prayer and assistance of the Saints and Martyrs. Statues came later once it was legal - but they did have primitive iconography (which statues develop from). Both Jews and Catholics pray for the dead and iconography existed even in the Old Testament. Icons are not the same as idolatry. Nor is venerating those in heaven the same as conjuring the dead. Conjuring the dead has been and always will be forbidden in Catholicism. Baptizing babies has never been an issue in Catholicism - and not even the mainstream protestants had a problem with this. There is baptism of infants in the scriptures implied. As well, baptism was always considered the new covenant replacement of circumcision. Jews did not wait for their children to grow up to make them a part of the faith, and neither do Christians. Baptism even when done to adults does not prevent later apostacy - in other words following Christ is a daily decision and using reason to do so is not a reason to forbid children from coming to Christ. Unlike paganism, Christianity sees children as part of the family - and this includes the Sacraments. Before children reach the age of reason, we make all decisions for them - so why on earth would we defer baptism when it is so much more important than earthly things? Baptism of babys and young children is not about actual sin, but original sin - bringing the children under the adoption of Christ (the Second Adam) rather than Adam. In Catholicism, someone is either a faithful Catholic or a bad Catholic. Someone does not become un-Christian for acting like a sinner - they rather are not being faithful to their Church teachings. The only thing that can cease someone from being a Christian is apostasy. Anyone who is baptized is a Christian because they have been brought into Christ. It is not blasphemous to call Priests 'Father'. Jesus often taught using hyperbole and not always literal. Don't believe me? Than cut out your eyes and hand, etc... If you are interested in the Catholic answer as to why Jesus did not forbid us from calling Priests 'Father', than you should look it up on Catholic Answers as they have tonnes of informative videos on youtube. But one thing about it is that Priests literally become our Father because we become his adopted children. Priests choose to have an adopted family rather than a natural one. It also has a little to do with the fact that a Priest represents Christ himself which is why he can do the Sacraments. To conclude, your accusations against the Church are nothing new and it is not as if the Church ignores these accusations. Faithful Catholics have been writing apologetic in every century against every accusation - you just have to look. And they are not silly responses, but well thought out and executed. There is nothing new under the sun and every new error is really an old error in a new way. Catholicbridge.com is a great resource if you want some good articles that answer most doubts about the Church - written by a former non-Catholic Christian.
Fruit of Righteousness: You claim that the Church Fathers disagree with the Apostles, but that is not true. You say that it is clear - if that were true there would be no disagreement between us. I think it is clearly the opposite based on my research. A 180 degree change in teaching? - where/what? The continued writings of the Church further define what has always been taught - without contradiction. And it absolutely holds up to evidence. Do you think that Catholics don't study, or is it just that you don't like that there conclusions lead them to Rome? A doctrine is never defined until it is violated - so it is heretics we have to thank for inspiring such great writings to refute them. You claim we removed stones to rebuild and you mention the same accusations as before. As I said, these things have been done in the Church Catholic from the beginning - and there is evidence for it. You say that the only heresy existing before Constantine is gnosticism. This is not true. The gospels and Revelation itself lists many heretical groups. If you are interested to know about some heresies in the first century: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MRFCdk8eBWE.html You claim that Catholics are gnostic. This is a false charge and we are the ones who were against the gnostics. Gnosticism is elitism and a denial of Christ being truly man + denial of the resurection. Not only do we believe in Christ coming in the flesh and in the resurection, we accept all people (not ideologies) who are willing and fully share the teachings with them. The gospel is and always has been simple enough for a fisherman to understand and yet mysterious enough that the greatest theologians can only scratch the surface to this day. Considering that we even accept babies and infants who are capable of knowing much, we are certainly not gnostic. We accept anyone into our Church - even outcasts of society. What we don't accept is false teachings and such. However, those who believe they can get unique knowledge from the Bible without needing the Catholic Church have gnostic tendencies and spirit. The book does not specify the different age groups of his household because it makes no difference to the story. If it were an issue, it would be mentioned either way. But the fact that the story did not specify adults or those who have reached the age of reason implies that there is no issue if there were infants. And yes infants are capable of rejoicing. I also mentioned to you the scripture of Jesus telling us not to refuse children from coming to him. And that Baptism is the new testament form of circumsision of the heart. Baptism does not require repentance unless someone needs to repent. Those who have not sinned need not repent. Jesus was baptized and was not a sinner. Repentance is clearly only demanded of those who are in sin. We bring children to Church, teach them to pray and feed them. There is no reason to deny them the grace of baptism. In the Catholic Church, when people reach the age of reason - they have the sacrament of Confirmation, which confirms their previous baptism. We also remind ourselves of our baptism everytime we use the holy water with the sign of the cross. Infant baptism was not even questioned by anyone until the heretical annabaptists. If you say otherwise, show me someone in the early centuries who condemned infant baptism in writing. We have evidence of infant baptism happening for over 2000 years and so do the Orthodox Christians and most mainstream Protestant sects. We don't just go by the Bible. The scriptures and Tradition (including interpretation) go hand in hand. I honestly find anti-infant baptism to be ridiculous. Infant Baptism was introduced because Christ wanted to include children in His Church under his yoke. In case you have not noticed, baptism in of itself does not keep everyone from leaving the Church. This truth does not change when someone defers baptism 'till adulthood. We should never defer God's grace. We must all repent and be baptized. Repentance is a continual practice, but I have already been baptized. Likewise to you, I will say that the Catholic Church as a whole has been faithful to this day. The term 'Catholic' may mean 'universal' it's basic sense of the word, but within Church history it has always included other things to specify the boundaries of what it means to be included in said Universal/Catholic Church. This includes the Eucharist, and the Apostolic Priesthood/Bishops. The writings of this go back to the early centuries. Other Christians try and change these boundaries and then claim it just means universal, but we stick with the boundaries that Christ himself set up. As to the excommunication, I agree. Every heretical group - including Luther and all Protestant sects were excommunicated. Excommunication actually happens every time we sin until repent - but public excommunication is to avoid scandal. No good Catholic would ever claim that Peter was the founder - but rather Christ founded His own Church and chose Peter to be his first Vicar on earth. I would agree that my Church being called Catholic does not prove in of itself that it is the same one that Christ started - but the same goes for your claims. However, I clearly believe that the proof is in the pudding and I have 2000 years of history to back it up. There is even a wikipedia article that lists and all of the Popes back to the first. None of these things are reasonably deniable. Protestants argue instead that the Church became corrupted and that they are the new Church. We believe that Christ stays with his Church until the 2nd coming. Private revelations help to edify the faithful and kindle a renewed faith. They are always investigated to make sure that they do not contradict the true faith and that it is not a scam or explained away naturally. Our doctrines are based on the teachings of Christ - not private revelations; in fact we do not believe that anything new can be taught to the faith after the Apostles went to heaven. Private revelations only explain or expand upon things in a new way or method - but not a different teaching. I have already tested all the accusations against the Catholic Church when I was becoming Catholic myself. I don't have a need to watch and sort through 25 videos and a bunch of articles that attack the faith when I am already satisfied against scrutiny. If you want to instead link me to something specific that I asked for (such as providing evidence of anyone having an issue with infant baptism in Christendom pre-annabaptist), than be my guest. I have not been able to find such evidence, but perhaps you are better at research than me. If I sent you 25 videos as proof, I don't think you would bother yourself. However, instead I did mention Catholicbridge.com before. It is easy to find any topic and if you wish I can link you to a specific topic. But I don't expect you to look through an entire encyclopedia when you are so convinced where you stand. You accuse me of not being willing to hear correction - but this is not true. I consistantly reform my views whenever I am shown proof of being wrong - this is what led me to the Catholic faith to begin with. I likewise think that you have no interest in being shown to be wrong. You say that because I have heard it all before, that this does not diminish the truth of it - well perhaps not in of itself. However, I have heard it all before and researched it to the bone. I was satisfied with my conclusions. And so clearly I do not see any truth in said accusations. Likewise, you have heard the true faith defended and it is up to you to investigate if you are open to being wrong.
Fruit of Righteousness: God bless. I only checked the link of videos at first because I figured they were both related. The video link you gave me was not of the writings of the early Church - it was rather a group of sermons of someone giving his interpretation of those writings (I would argue out of context). That is why I do not have any interest in watching them, because as I said - I have heard it before and am not convinced. As for the writings. I actually have read some early Church writings already - and that is one of the things that led me to Catholicism. At first it led me to consider the Orthodox faith - and the the Catholic one. It even says on the website that the writers were Orthodox (though back then Orthodox and Catholic were together because there was no schism yet). I guarantee you that those writings are not iconaclist in any way - because the Orthodox Church, just like the Catholic Church loves icons as well as those writings (which both call their own). If you think that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are ignorant of those writings, you are quite mistaken. I do not know how you interpreted those writings in an anti-Orthodox/Catholic way, but I clearly interpret them differently. Did you end up finding any text that condemns child baptism before the annabaptists yet? I was never able to find it myself, which is one of many things that convinced me I was wrong and needed to become Catholic. Repent.
If a sinless perfect Jesus, the Son of God, needed a pure vessel to be born, then so would Mary, meaning her parents must have also been perfect and so on and so forth. Keep it simple. The Bible isn’t the Lord of the Rings. Mary was a sinner and died a sinners death just as I will and anyone else will.
Just because you do not understand a concept does not make it untrue or complex. You are complicating it by adding and taking away from the faith. Mary did not need to be born from a pure vessel. It was Jesus who needed to be. There is no need to limit God.
MetalSandman999 Because Christ would need to take on flesh from a perfect person so to not defile Him. Mary on the other hand only needed to be made perfect for Christ's sake and therefor did not require the same thing. They both have different reasons for needing to be born perfect and so God used different methods for each. Why would you think that Mary would need to be born of someone perfect?
Keith Mayhew Hammond So...Mary was defiled (because she took on flesh from an imperfect person)? If she was defiled, how was she perfect to make Jesus come forth as perfect?
You clearly misread what I stated - purposely. I said both of them were born perfect for different reasons. How do you get 'defiled' from 'perfect'. I was saying that Christ would have been defiled if he took flesh from an imperfect woman because Christ was perfect as God before He was ever born and His purpose was for our salvation. Mary's purpose for being made perfect was to give birth to Christ, so God made her perfect without needing to be born of a perfect woman. Mary needed to be created perfect. Jesus was never created. Jesus could not be born of a woman with original sin. Mary could be born of a woman with original sin, but would need to be rescued from original sin miraculously during conception.
