Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jun 29, '12, 4:02 pm
PoorKnight PoorKnight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 248
Religion: "Boomerang" Catholic
Default Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Ok I heard a great explaination from Tim Staples on Mary being with out personal sin especially in light of Romans 3:23 and 1 Jn 1:8.

He then teased me with saying those only deal with personal sin and Hebrews chapter 5 deals with Origional Sin to which, he said, there is reasonable explaination for Mary being an exception for that as well... except he didn't get to it!

So here's the question: What is the verse in Hebrews 5 he's refering to and what is, or are, the Catholic explainations of it.... I'm in the middle of an 11 page response to a Protestant radio show host (ex-Catholic too) about Mary and I want to head this off at the pass....

Thanks all and God Bless
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 29, '12, 4:58 pm
Rainaldo Rainaldo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 848
Default Re: Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Do you really think he's going to read eleven pages?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 29, '12, 5:33 pm
ZDHayden's Avatar
ZDHayden ZDHayden is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Posts: 792
Religion: Orthodox catechumen
Default Re: Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Unless there is an error in my NKJV (first one on hand), the entirety of the fifth chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews is concerning the priesthood in the first part and immaturity in the second. It is possible either that I missed something or that Mr. Staples misspoke.
__________________
Remember to pray for all the departed. I have made my final post, and will no longer be participating on these fora.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 29, '12, 6:18 pm
Rainaldo Rainaldo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 848
Default Re: Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDHayden View Post
Unless there is an error in my NKJV (first one on hand), the entirety of the fifth chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews is concerning the priesthood in the first part and immaturity in the second. It is possible either that I missed something or that Mr. Staples misspoke.
The Protestant probably has in mind "And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins", verse 3, as though a fortiori Mary needed a sacrifice for her sins as well.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jul 2, '12, 12:42 am
Huiou Theou's Avatar
Huiou Theou Huiou Theou is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 2,159
Religion: Catholic; eg: under the Pope -- love of Maronite rite too.
Default Re: Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorKnight View Post
Ok I heard a great explaination from Tim Staples on Mary being with out personal sin especially in light of Romans 3:23 and 1 Jn 1:8.

He then teased me with saying those only deal with personal sin and Hebrews chapter 5 deals with Origional Sin to which, he said, there is reasonable explaination for Mary being an exception for that as well... except he didn't get to it!

So here's the question: What is the verse in Hebrews 5 he's refering to and what is, or are, the Catholic explainations of it.... I'm in the middle of an 11 page response to a Protestant radio show host (ex-Catholic too) about Mary and I want to head this off at the pass....

Thanks all and God Bless
There's another (long-winded) thread going on that contains quite a bit of discussion on the same topic -- you might read the first page of it; and I can help you trace out later ideas in the thread (skipping the static...) that strike your fancy.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=686041
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jul 5, '12, 9:21 am
PoorKnight PoorKnight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 248
Religion: "Boomerang" Catholic
Default Re: Mary and Romans 5:12

Ok, my bad. I got the chance to listen to Mr. Staples conversion story again and the verse is not Hebrews anything...

It was Romans 5:12 (and maybe 13?) "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."

Ok so back to my origional question with the new info... what is our explaination here. In context this is talking about origional sin.

Thanks again folks and God Bless
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jul 5, '12, 3:39 pm
Huiou Theou's Avatar
Huiou Theou Huiou Theou is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 2,159
Religion: Catholic; eg: under the Pope -- love of Maronite rite too.
Default Re: Mary and Romans 5:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorKnight View Post
Ok, my bad. I got the chance to listen to Mr. Staples conversion story again and the verse is not Hebrews anything...

It was Romans 5:12 (and maybe 13?) "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."

Ok so back to my origional question with the new info... what is our explaination here. In context this is talking about origional sin.

Thanks again folks and God Bless
The passage you are looking at is the standard one that the Catholic Church interprets as defining Original sin. It is not sufficient, though, on it's own to prove every person has sin -- nor is Original sin, an actual sin in each person.
See CCC: 404, last sentence.

The word "all" is not strong enough to prove every single person. It must, however, prove that a representative of the "whole" group mentioned did, in fact, sin.

Original sin, however, does NOT mean according to Catholic Teaching that every person sins by "imitation" of Adam because of his example. That alternate explanation is offered from the Eastern Schizm, and can be traced back to St. Augustine's time. The so called "Pelagian" heresy -- not to be confused with "semi-pelagians" who aren't heretics as far as I know.

There are people who are incapable of sin; for example the mentally retarded, or a child who has just formed a brain -- but dies before they are able to perform any act. As it is Said of Esau and Jacob -- Roman 9:11 -- "They had not yet been born, they had done nothing good or evil."

That passage, alone, is proof that action is not what original sin is about. The following sentence is about the future "The elder is to be the servant of the Younger. So it is that we read, I have been a friend to Jacob, and an enemy to Esau."

In that passage, we are entering the arena of predestination -- and it is here that the Protestants can be shown to be the most in error because of their ignorance of the contexts which St. Paul is quoting.

It is important to grasp that the ancient mindset of Tribes, makes Esau already the nation of Edom; and Jacob, already, the nation of Israel.
Roman 9:
From this perspective, the sin Paul speaks about is the community sin of these nations -- not necessarily that of Adam;

Genesis 25:23 "two NATIONS in your womb"

I also caution you, there are two aspects of Esau and Jacob -- they are both individual people capable of Sin, and nations who are a community culpable of Sin -- And Be careful, Esau is mostly in the right -- not the wrong.
Jacob, being the younger son -- served Esau; THEN when the father's blessing of the eldest Son was given to Jacob; while the Father lived, only, a short period -- Esau served Jacob.

cf: Joshua 24:4 -- consequence of Jacob's sin;
Deute 23:7-8 Esau was NOT banned from the promised land.
2Samu 8:14 Edom allowed David to have a military presence in their land.
2King 3:9 allies.
1King 9:26; 11:17

The hating of Esau is not his damnation; but merely his rank next to his brother Jacob. It isn't until the nation Edom (with reason, for what Israel did to them) murdered Israel, that God punishes them completely.

Note also my point Concerning community sin: St. John 1:8 is in the plural; NOT the singular. Even John does not single out every individual regarding the committing of sin -- but he does prove that there is no basis for a racist position of the sinless vs. the sinner nations or church.

There are a handful of passages that I would point you to, in order that you become very familiar with them; They are routinely used in discussions about original sin;

Psalm 50/51 -- [ Going into the purpose, this is a psalm of David .. when Nathan the prophet ... about Bathsheba. ]

RKV.

"Have mercy on me O' God, as you are ever rich in mercy, ..."
...
" For indeed, I was born into sin; Guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me."

What the psalm shows is that the parent can damage the child. Original sin is transmitted by Propagation (reproduction.)
Note, the mother is considered the point of weakness.

The passage is tied by a unique Greek word to a passage about Jacob; The passage in Genesis is overlooked in apologetics; Viz: Genesis 30:37-40;
In that passage, notice two things -- Jacob is purposely (and succeeding) in damaging the sheep -- and it is again the mother who is susceptible to damage vv. 38.

Another place to see this idea clearly of the parent(s) sin damaging the child, also look here:

1Cori 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

St. Augustine, in railing against the Pelagian heresy doesn't appear to grasp the significance of this issue completely -- and I attribute this to him not having enough time to study it before his work was made public. However, NOT all sheep were damaged by Jacob's effect upon the mother.

St. Augustine is the one, however, who records that the Churches -- ALL of them, east and west, shared a Tradition; this Tradition is possibly the strongest proof to the idea of the EFFECT of original sin on infants. All churches East and West at the time of Augustine, included an Exorcism in their Baptism of infants. It is Tradition, and not Scripture -- which proves infants are in danger of hell through the power of the Devil.

See also: Genesis 6:2 and 6:5; Sons of God is sometimes used of the demons. The passage may refer to rulers taking women, or to the pollution of sexual union by sin and demons. It is a double meaning passage.

Personally, I believe in Original Sin -- because the church Teaches it.
I don't allow that Someone outside the Church, use a scripture alone argument -- and demand that I accept original sin from Scripture without solid proof. If the Church is the source of the Doctrine, it can't be argued that the Church is wrong concerning an exception; PERIOD.

Without going into detail, until you ask, actually read these passages and think about what they actually say; be a lawyer, and consider the words *CAREFULLY* and what groups are being addressed; compare and contrast them.

Roman 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: { P s a l m 14 : 1-3, 52 :... } -- but it is the Fool, not all people...
Roman 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: { P s a l m 5 : 9 }
Roman 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: { P s a l m 10 : 7 }
Roman 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed {innocent} blood: { P r o v e 1 : 16 }
Roman 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: { I s a i a 59 : 7 - 8 }
Roman 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Roman 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. { P s a l m 36 : 1 }

Best wishes.
Your brother in Christ,
--Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jul 7, '12, 7:42 am
PoorKnight PoorKnight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 248
Religion: "Boomerang" Catholic
Default Re: Mary and Romans 5:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huiou Theou View Post
The passage you are looking at is the standard one that the Catholic Church interprets as defining Original sin. It is not sufficient, though, on it's own to prove every person has sin -- nor is Original sin, an actual sin in each person.
See CCC: 404, last sentence.

The word "all" is not strong enough to prove every single person. It must, however, prove that a representative of the "whole" group mentioned did, in fact, sin.

Original sin, however, does NOT mean according to Catholic Teaching that every person sins by "imitation" of Adam because of his example. That alternate explanation is offered from the Eastern Schizm, and can be traced back to St. Augustine's time. The so called "Pelagian" heresy -- not to be confused with "semi-pelagians" who aren't heretics as far as I know.

There are people who are incapable of sin; for example the mentally retarded, or a child who has just formed a brain -- but dies before they are able to perform any act. As it is Said of Esau and Jacob -- Roman 9:11 -- "They had not yet been born, they had done nothing good or evil."

That passage, alone, is proof that action is not what original sin is about. The following sentence is about the future "The elder is to be the servant of the Younger. So it is that we read, I have been a friend to Jacob, and an enemy to Esau."

In that passage, we are entering the arena of predestination -- and it is here that the Protestants can be shown to be the most in error because of their ignorance of the contexts which St. Paul is quoting.

It is important to grasp that the ancient mindset of Tribes, makes Esau already the nation of Edom; and Jacob, already, the nation of Israel.
Roman 9:
From this perspective, the sin Paul speaks about is the community sin of these nations -- not necessarily that of Adam;

Genesis 25:23 "two NATIONS in your womb"

I also caution you, there are two aspects of Esau and Jacob -- they are both individual people capable of Sin, and nations who are a community culpable of Sin -- And Be careful, Esau is mostly in the right -- not the wrong.
Jacob, being the younger son -- served Esau; THEN when the father's blessing of the eldest Son was given to Jacob; while the Father lived, only, a short period -- Esau served Jacob.

cf: Joshua 24:4 -- consequence of Jacob's sin;
Deute 23:7-8 Esau was NOT banned from the promised land.
2Samu 8:14 Edom allowed David to have a military presence in their land.
2King 3:9 allies.
1King 9:26; 11:17

The hating of Esau is not his damnation; but merely his rank next to his brother Jacob. It isn't until the nation Edom (with reason, for what Israel did to them) murdered Israel, that God punishes them completely.

Note also my point Concerning community sin: St. John 1:8 is in the plural; NOT the singular. Even John does not single out every individual regarding the committing of sin -- but he does prove that there is no basis for a racist position of the sinless vs. the sinner nations or church.

There are a handful of passages that I would point you to, in order that you become very familiar with them; They are routinely used in discussions about original sin;

Psalm 50/51 -- [ Going into the purpose, this is a psalm of David .. when Nathan the prophet ... about Bathsheba. ]

RKV.

"Have mercy on me O' God, as you are ever rich in mercy, ..."
...
" For indeed, I was born into sin; Guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me."

What the psalm shows is that the parent can damage the child. Original sin is transmitted by Propagation (reproduction.)
Note, the mother is considered the point of weakness.

The passage is tied by a unique Greek word to a passage about Jacob; The passage in Genesis is overlooked in apologetics; Viz: Genesis 30:37-40;
In that passage, notice two things -- Jacob is purposely (and succeeding) in damaging the sheep -- and it is again the mother who is susceptible to damage vv. 38.

Another place to see this idea clearly of the parent(s) sin damaging the child, also look here:

1Cori 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

St. Augustine, in railing against the Pelagian heresy doesn't appear to grasp the significance of this issue completely -- and I attribute this to him not having enough time to study it before his work was made public. However, NOT all sheep were damaged by Jacob's effect upon the mother.

St. Augustine is the one, however, who records that the Churches -- ALL of them, east and west, shared a Tradition; this Tradition is possibly the strongest proof to the idea of the EFFECT of original sin on infants. All churches East and West at the time of Augustine, included an Exorcism in their Baptism of infants. It is Tradition, and not Scripture -- which proves infants are in danger of hell through the power of the Devil.

See also: Genesis 6:2 and 6:5; Sons of God is sometimes used of the demons. The passage may refer to rulers taking women, or to the pollution of sexual union by sin and demons. It is a double meaning passage.

Personally, I believe in Original Sin -- because the church Teaches it.
I don't allow that Someone outside the Church, use a scripture alone argument -- and demand that I accept original sin from Scripture without solid proof. If the Church is the source of the Doctrine, it can't be argued that the Church is wrong concerning an exception; PERIOD.

Without going into detail, until you ask, actually read these passages and think about what they actually say; be a lawyer, and consider the words *CAREFULLY* and what groups are being addressed; compare and contrast them.

Roman 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: { P s a l m 14 : 1-3, 52 :... } -- but it is the Fool, not all people...
Roman 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: { P s a l m 5 : 9 }
Roman 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: { P s a l m 10 : 7 }
Roman 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed {innocent} blood: { P r o v e 1 : 16 }
Roman 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: { I s a i a 59 : 7 - 8 }
Roman 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Roman 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. { P s a l m 36 : 1 }

Best wishes.
Your brother in Christ,
--Andrew.
Ok, I've read this twice and I'm not following. Could you explain it again, maybe a little simpler for this simple mind
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jul 7, '12, 4:22 pm
Huiou Theou's Avatar
Huiou Theou Huiou Theou is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2004
Posts: 2,159
Religion: Catholic; eg: under the Pope -- love of Maronite rite too.
Default Re: Mary and Romans 5:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorKnight View Post
Ok, I've read this twice and I'm not following. Could you explain it again, maybe a little simpler for this simple mind
Sure; but I mostly brought up those passages so that you could become familiar with them. As familiarity causes you to think about your faith, questions will arise -- and these are major "hotpoints" in discussions with non-Catholic faiths.

How about an outline...

  • Original sin is not directly taught in the bible. The doctrine of original sin rests on a combination of scriptural evidence and church Tradition. Without Tradition, there are loopholes preventing the complete establishment of the doctrine.
  • Some eastern churches don't believe in the doctrine of Original sin, although they do have legitimate holy orders. The doctrine, itself, doesn't preclude the salvation of Jesus Christ -- but is necessary to safeguard against a certain kind of pride.
  • Most non catholic faiths confuse the idea of Original sin with actual sin; and apply it to Mary incorrectly taking scripture out of context.
  • St. Augustine in his works against Pelagianism -- which is at the heart of the doctrine of Original sin, and also the East-West's early schism -- is the very historian and apologist who collects the scriptural evidence, and the church Tradition. Caution: Augustine worked primarily from the Latin; and certain Greek nuances were missed in his work.
  • Many erroneous views of Original sin, found outside the Catholic church, come from not critically reading Augustine's rhetoric in combination with ignoring the Hebrew background of St. Paul's works -- particularly his purpose in settling a fight rather than teaching a new doctrine; and the *implications* of the passages St. Paul is quoting.
Given this thumbnail sketch, there are a handful of issues to be aware of when doing apologetics; Other people's view of what Original sin is -- are usually not the same as the Catholic Church's view. You might not want to use the word "original sin" until your opponent defines what it means to them in terms of scripture -- and you agree with them.

Several key words used in anti-marian (or anti-anyone) sin arguments are not clarified in scripture. The word "all",for example, means a representative of whatever Group the author had in mind. It COULD mean every single person -- but it does not have to -- and a check of context often shows it isn't even likely. Notice; regarding sin: Jesus being an exception, also allows that other *individuals* are possible. !!!Caution !!! I am not saying the church as a whole ("We") can claim we are without sin, but that individuals may have never transgressed the law.

The word sin itself comes with distinctions; sin (a-martia), transgression (para-basis), and (a-nomia) lawlessness.

amartia simply means to be off the track; or the narrow road. The classic example is the Hebrews in the desert where they "wandered" for 40 years. NOT every single person disobeyed God -- but the whole people was made to wander on account of those who transgressed. These collateral damaged people, though, still sinned in the sense of being off the "straight" path ( but consider -- even God wandered with them... )

Jesus himself, who has no "sin" was made to be "sin" in this sense. He was made to suffer the consequences of missing the mark -- though he didn't miss it himself. If you grasp that, you'll notice that Amartia is an ambigous word -- it is used *both* for those who did the act, and those who didn't. The idea of a ritual un-cleanness, or "sin offering" is another good example of why the word "sin" often doesn't imply personal guilt. These offerings were required for simple mestrual cycles, and touching of blood from anywhere.

Even though we might joke about making a menstrual cycle against the law -- and say something like "Oh Man, That's a SIN that NOBODY should have to go through". BUT -- even so -- it isn't a sin in the sense of an act; it is merely a bodily infirmity that is less than *ideal*. Yet -- absurdly -- note that a menstrual cycle does require a "sin" offering in the Law given by Moses.

Parabasis means to "beside the line" (And I always think of Bugs Bunny drawing one with a stick in the sand.... I DARE you to cross this line..." . To cross the line is iniquity or trans-gression -- the word means that the person made a decision to base their morality on something besides the "moral" line.
They are their own artist...

The final word I'm including -- a-nomia means lawlessnes; against the law. I won't comment on it at this time; as there is too much already; but it is about doing on not doing what is in the law, and the morality of that... obviously.

Now, if you would like to bring up specific passages and ask things like "How does this show...xxx" or "Isn't this proof of ... YYY", etc. We can home in on what is important to you for your discussion with the pastor you've been speaking about.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jul 10, '12, 5:27 pm
PoorKnight PoorKnight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 248
Religion: "Boomerang" Catholic
Default Re: Mary and Hebrews 5:??

Thank you so much for your clarification. A third time through your first post and reading your second post really helped me. Thank you.

I'm in the middle of an 11 page Mary explaination to that radio show host. Maybe I should post it up to be critiqued...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8305Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5071CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4356Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: johnthebaptist2
4035OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3853SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3616Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3264Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3212Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3201Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3069For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Theresa DeSensi



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:59 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.