A Catholic Thread?

[Historian]

The discussions, clarifications and arguments about Mary and other aspects of Catholic teaching seem to be getting heavy on some threads. How about taking them here?

I'd be interested in knowing more about our Catholic brethren's views on Mary's sinlessness. The Protestant answer to the sinlessness of Christ would, in my opinion, be less a scientific discussion of DNA, and more a theological discussion of the place Adam.

We're always condemned in Adam, not in Eve, though she was the first sinner. Adam was the head, the one God made the covenant with. We would say that Jesus' sinlessness depended on his being a descendant of Mary, but not of a human man. Thus the importance of the virgin birth, but it was not essential that Mary be sinless herself. The sinlessness would have to keep going back, wouldn't it? If Jesus can't be sinless without Mary being so, how could Mary be sinless if HER parents were sinless, and their parents and so on?

[Just Curious]

(02-13-2011 11:40 PM)Historian Wrote:  The discussions, clarifications and arguments about Mary and other aspects of Catholic teaching seem to be getting heavy on some threads. How about taking them here?

This is an excellent notion! I definitely would like to get info about Catholics from...well, Catholics.

[elfdream]

(02-13-2011 11:40 PM)Historian Wrote:  The discussions, clarifications and arguments about Mary and other aspects of Catholic teaching seem to be getting heavy on some threads. How about taking them here?

I'd be interested in knowing more about our Catholic brethren's views on Mary's sinlessness. The Protestant answer to the sinlessness of Christ would, in my opinion, be less a scientific discussion of DNA, and more a theological discussion of the place Adam.

We're always condemned in Adam, not in Eve, though she was the first sinner. Adam was the head, the one God made the covenant with. We would say that Jesus' sinlessness depended on his being a descendant of Mary, but not of a human man. Thus the importance of the virgin birth, but it was not essential that Mary be sinless herself. The sinlessness would have to keep going back, wouldn't it? If Jesus can't be sinless without Mary being so, how could Mary be sinless if HER parents were sinless, and their parents and so on?

First of all thank you for starting the thread. I thought about starting a generic one called 'Liturgy Lovers' . And once again I am NOT out to convert anyone. Just answer some questions.

Mary was not divine in any way shape or form. When we say she was born sinless it is in the same way that Adam and Eve were created sinless. She was human.

The idea of original sin coming through Adam and not Mary is interesting but IF you are a 'Bible Only' believer that is an extra Biblical tradition. Its not in there. If the sin nature is only through the man then Mary would have inherited a sinful nature through her father. She gave birth to someone who was fully God and fully man. He got his human 'DNA" from her.

She was not free of original sin because of the spiritual state that her parents were in. God miraculously kept her free of the stain of original sin by simply willing it.

She did need a Savior but I used the example of the muddy pit in the other thread. Some fall into the pit but are pulled out and cleaned up. They are 'saved'. Some are stopped from falling into the pit to begin with..they are still 'saved' from the pit.

The teaching of Mary being sinless goes back to 180 A.D. --St. Ireneaus of Lyon, a disciple of the early Greek father St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself, speaks of Mary’s sinlessness, comparing it with the original sinlessness of Eve before the Fall. Its not something made up in the middle ages like I used to believe. Its been around a long time. The idea that Mary was a sinner is a relatively new doctrine.

Many Protestants think we are putting Mary on the same level to Jesus which is understandable but in truth Catholics compare her to Eve. We believe she was the "woman' of Genesis 3.

We also compare her to the Ark of the Covenant which was a vessel set apart for a special purpose. No one could touch the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark carried the Manna, the Staff of Aaron and the Ten Commandments. Mary was set apart for a special purpose to be the vessel that carried the one who was the High Priest, the Bread of Life and the one who fulfilled the Law.

And because someone will ask for Scripture the greeting of Gaberial in Luke 1:28. "Hail Full of Grace'. She is not called Mary. Full of Grace is her name in the eyes of God. The Greek words can be interpreted as being in a state of grace not limited by time. As in 'already full of Grace'. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. She wasn't suddenly filled with Grace when the angel showed up. She was already full of Grace. I realize that is open for a lot of debate.

[elfdream]

Its a sin to worship Mary. Anyone who advocates Mary worship is excommunicated. Granted if you read some writings over the centuries it might look like some are worshiping her but keep in mind the times in which those essays were written. Some of those same writers might have spoken just as eloquently about their own mothers...or their pet cat. Compare the love letters of soldiers during the American Civil war with those of our own era. Big difference in language. I should also say that someone can be a very good Catholic and not have any particular devotion for Mary.

I agree completely that Peter and Paul,the apostles etc and the New Testament saints ALL had their parts to play in the story of redemption.

The communion of saints should lead us to be closer to Jesus. If it does not...that's when it turns into 'weirdness'.

[Jordan M. Poss]

Quote:I should also say that someone can be a very good Catholic and not have any particular devotion for Mary.

I know several who do not. Fundies have gradually developed the idea that a Catholic's entire day is spent staring at statues of Mary and praying to her and only her. It's not so.

Also muddying the waters is the fact that the word worship has meant slightly different things over the last 1000 years. Its original idea in Anglo-Saxon (as worþscip, the first syllable being literally "worth") was simply "worthy of honor." It wasn't until later that its connotation of adoration developed--but the original meaning hung on for quite some time ("your worship" as a courtesy form of address being a good example), so the overlap could produce confusion when someone would say they "give worship to Mary"--meaning strictly the archaic sense of honoring her--while someone familiar only with the idea of directing worship to God gaped, appalled, and went off to inform Jack Chick.

Quote:We also compare her to the Ark of the Covenant which was a vessel set apart for a special purpose. No one could touch the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark carried the Manna, the Staff of Aaron and the Ten Commandments. Mary was set apart for a special purpose to be the vessel that carried the one who was the High Priest, the Bread of Life and the one who fulfilled the Law.

Beautiful comparison, and one that is new to me. Thanks for posting that.

Donb123, a lot of your questions I've found answers to in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by David B. Currie. The first primarily addresses misconceptions and conspiracy theories of the Chick tracts variety, and the second is the story of a man and his family's decision to join the Catholic Church; the bulk of the book is devoted to explaining to his Protestant friends why he chose to do so, and he tackles lots of these questions.

[IFB No More]

elfdream,

What is your opinion on the varying degrees of theological differences within the RCC? There are priests, even dioceses, that are liberal, or even endorse syncretic customs/practices (prevalent in some third world countries), some are very conservative. There are "evangelical Catholics" - one such guy attends our inter-denom evangelical campus ministry group. I even know of some traditionalist Catholic folks (mostly of the SSPX variety) who remind me of IFB-xers' - with the same separatist conduct and outlook as the fundies do.

[elfdream]

(02-15-2011 11:42 PM)IFB No More Wrote:  elfdream,

What is your opinion on the varying degrees of theological differences within the RCC? There are priests, even dioceses, that are liberal, or even endorse syncretic customs/practices (prevalent in some third world countries), some are very conservative. There are "evangelical Catholics" - one such guy attends our inter-denom evangelical campus ministry group. I even know of some traditionalist Catholic folks (mostly of the SSPX variety) who remind me of IFB-xers' - with the same separatist conduct and outlook as the fundies do.

When you become a Catholic you state that you believe all the Catholic Church teaches and these teachings are set down in the Catechism for anyone to see. Any Priest who rejects those and teaches something outside of those is not Catholic. He might call himself that but he's something else. People like that have been around since the beginning.

There are also Catholics out there who are badly taught about their own church. We say they have been 'badly catechized'. Now maybe its because I'm a convert and had to go through a rigorous nine months class of everything Catholic before confirmation but I am constantly amazed at Catholics out there who do not know the basic teachings of their own church! Some blame Vatican II. I do know this has has turned around.

There are 'traditional' Catholics who like traditional Latin masses done in the pre-Vatican II style. There is nothing wrong with this because they are not espousing heretical teachings. I don't have contact with many of these people and the few friends I have who are Traditional Catholics sometimes do come across as rules and regulation type of people when it comes to worship but when they are out and about in the secular community they go to movies, listen to different kinds of music etc, love Star Wars or whatever. I personally (although you're experience may be different) think their 'fundamentalism' is limited to the style of Mass they like.

(and an aside here-I think the consensus here on this forum is that when it comes to Christians and their way of life anyone can live any kind of lifestyle they choose as long as they don't judge someone's else's spirituality on their own personal standards-the same applies with Traditional Catholics.)

Catholics believe that people in ministry have a 'charism' (anointing) for particular ministries and some are called to evangelism and others a ministry to the poor and some to music or teaching or whatever, similar to what goes on in Protestant churches so its very likely you will find some Priests popping up at interdenominational meetings depending on his ministry.