PeanutGallery
Well-known member
Isn't there a word for this kind of relationship? Epitome of blasphemy.
The Immaculate Conception
- Thread starter Mysterium Fidei
- Start date
romishpopishorganist said:
Mary being an exception to the verse---
======================
"Yea, hath God said"
Mary being an exception to the verse---
======================
"Yea, hath God said"
Bonnie
Super Member
I saw this in your quotebox; it is a gross mistranslation of the verse from Genesis:
""I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
See the feminine pronouns? In the original Hebrew, it is HE shall crush thy head and you shall bruise HIS heel. This is a huge difference. I don't know what so-called "translation" this is, but it is a lousy one. JESUS is the one who will crush the serpent's head--not Mary.
PeanutGallery
Well-known member
Comes from RCC's Douay-Rheims Bible.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
No, Protestant fundamentalists have caricatured what Catholics believe.
CrowCross
Well-known member
That is part of what is considered as Mary's song.
Luke 1:46 Then Mary said:
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!
48 For He has looked with favor on the humble state of His servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed.
49 For the Mighty One has done great things for me.
Holy is His name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear Him,
from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who are proud
in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
but has exalted the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things,
but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped His servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful,
55 as He promised to our fathers,
to Abraham and his descendants forever.”
1Thess521
Well-known member
1) Does Mary's nature ("free from all stain of original sin") change the way she would interact with God?
2) Was it possible for Mary (with her sinless nature) to refuse to cooperate with God?
3) Did God get permission from Mary before He changed her nature?
also
4) Was John the Baptist immaculately conceived?
5) Was Mary's mother immaculately conceived?
]]
so, RPO; all you have to do is, as Luke says
romishpopishorganist ;
where is this declaration of the Apostles
"which were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"
of all these things you claim were
"revealed about Mary"
so we too
might know the certainty of these things
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
Correct; we should not go beyond what is revealed about her
so, RPO; all you have to do is, as Luke says
"which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;"
romishpopishorganist ;
where is this declaration of the Apostles
"which were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"
of all these things you claim were
"revealed about Mary"
so we too
might know the certainty of these things
Last edited:
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Yes; it makes her a worthy mother.
No. That was the whole point of the IC. The IC is what makes her cooperation with God possible.
No.
No. Though he was sanctified in the womb. The Church sees in his leap at the sound of Mary's greeting of Elizabeth his sanctification. There is also a pious tradition that hands on that John the Baptist committed no actual sin in life.
No.
LifeIn
Well-known member
Even without any sin at all, no human is worthy of heaven. Everyone needs the Savior to open the way to heaven, even Mary, preserved without sin to be the suitable mother of that Savior.
1Thess521
Well-known member
so the Reformed view is that God changes our nature prior to us accepting faith.
(IOW our new nature makes it impossible to reject God's gift of faith)
and according to Catholics : the Reformed view has God turning us into robots.
If God changed Mary' nature (which altered her free will choices) without her permission
and if God changes our nature (which alters our free will choices) without our permission
How is that different?
Last edited:
LifeIn
Well-known member
Romans 3:23 (RSV) “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
The word for “all” here, in Greek (pas) can indeed have different meanings: as it does in English. It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos (“brother”) meaning “sibling” in one place rules out a meaning of “cousin” or other non-sibling somewhere else.
We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV has the phrase, “being filled with all unrighteousness,” whereas RSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, “all manner of wickedness.” As another example in the same book, Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong’s Concordance.
What would be contrary to a sinless / immaculate Mary would be a verse that read something like: “absolutely every human being who ever lived -- no exceptions – has sinned.” This would include Jesus since He is a man, but He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn’t entail that logical conundrum.
One could also say that Mary was included in the “all” in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin like all the rest of us but for God’s special preventive act of grace – a “preemptive strike,” so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). I don’t think that is stretching it, considering that Hebrew idiom was not at all “scientific,” “philosophical” nor excessively particularistic as to literal meanings, as English in our culture seems to be today.
This “exception / original sin / Hebrew idiom” explanation is, I submit, the most plausible. It allows one to take “all” here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, and it is also in line with the thought of Luke 1:47, as interpreted by Catholic theology, in light of its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.
That said, I go now to linguistic reference works. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:
Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., “all Jerusalem” in Mt 2:3 and “all the sick” in 4:24. (pp. 796-797)
See also Matthew 3:5; 21:10; 27:25; Mark 2:13; 9:15; etc., especially in KJV.
Likewise, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives “of every kind” as a possible meaning in some contexts (p. 491, Strong’s word #3956). And Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean “every kind or variety.” (vol. 1, p. 46, under “All”).
Nevertheless, I am inclined to go with the “exception” interpretation I described above. My point here is simply to illustrate that pas doesn’t necessarily have to mean “no exceptions,” so that Mary’s sinlessness is not a logical impossibility based on the meaning of pas alone.
We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says: “No one is good but God alone” (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.” (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English “good” the Greek word is the same: agatho.
Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:
Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely,
that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good,
[Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)
Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.
Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.).
One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.
The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It’s not always literal.
(analysis courtesy of David Armstrong, full-time Catholic author.)
If Paul's words in Romans are to be taken literally, then he should have mentioned that exception of Jesus Christ right there in that sentence, for as it stands, it makes no exceptions for Jesus Christ either. Of course we know Jesus Christ was sinless from other sources, so the exception is assumed. Why then are you so sure that Paul was not also aware (but didn't think it necessary to mention it either) that Mary was sinless? Nevertheless, I think David Armstrong's analysis above makes a better case than I could.
well, I posted this in reply to RPO
then LifeIn chimes in so lets see if he can give us an answer
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
so, RPO; all you have to do is, as Luke says
"which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;"
romishpopishorganist ; or and RCC'er
where is this declaration of the Apostles
"which were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"
of all these things you claim were
"revealed about Mary"
so we too
might know the certainty of these things
then LifeIn chimes in so lets see if he can give us an answer
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.
Correct; we should not go beyond what is revealed about her
so, RPO; all you have to do is, as Luke says
"which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;"
romishpopishorganist ; or and RCC'er
where is this declaration of the Apostles
"which were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"
of all these things you claim were
"revealed about Mary"
so we too
might know the certainty of these things
LifeIn
Well-known member
Your mistake is assuming that God "changed Mary's nature". But if Mary was sinless from conception, there would be no need to "change her nature" because her nature was already created differently than most. She did not start out with the propensity for sin and then have that propensity for sin removed. She never had it to begin with.
1Thess521
Well-known member
I'm echoing the CC view that Mary's nature that she was conceived with was different from that of all other humans;
therefore changing her possible responses to God.
is this better?
If God caused Mary' nature to be different from all other humans (which alters her free will choices) without her permission
and God caused our nature nature to be different (which alters our free will choices) without our permission
How is that different?
LifeIn
Well-known member
Your "echo" is a distortion, and even still, it does not apply to humans generally. Jesus as a human was an exception, and so was Mary. Their exceptionalism inspires all of humanity - it does not demean them.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
I do not claim to be an expert on this area of theology. There are several theological theories within Catholicism that are acceptable. Some are close to the Reformed view without actually being the reformed view. This is one of the most complex areas of theology.
The Catholic objection to the reformed view I think is the idea that those who are damned were directly willed by God to be damned.
I don't know. If what you say of the Reformed view is the Reformed view, maybe in this case it isn't different. Someone smarter then me will have to answer your question.
But with the IC, then, all the Catholic is saying is that God changed Mary's nature the moment she was conceived in order to 1) allow her to make the humble "yes" to God, and 2) to make her a worthy vessel and mother for Christ. Becasue God changed Mary's nature from the moment she was conceived, this resulted in a sinless Mary.
1Thess521
Well-known member
God changed my nature prior to me accepting His gift of faith so that it was IMPOSSIBLE to reject His gift of faith
Did God make me a robot?
Last edited:
LifeIn
Well-known member
The question of free will vs pre-destination is not going to be solved by any one-liners, and is probably beyond the understanding of Man anyway.
But I will object to the term "robot" which implies something made by man and subject to the will of man. Comparing the "will of man" with the "will of God" is beyond comprehension. Most analogies that place Man in the position of God are bound to fail - this one included.
1Thess521
Well-known member
"Robot" is the most common term used by those (including Catholics) who reject the Reformed view that regeneration precedes faith:
God causing Mary to have a different nature: is OK
but God causing the unregenerate to have a different nature is unacceptable
Just looking for a little consistency from the Catholics
Last edited: