In spite of America being a protestant nation, and in spite of the earnestness and good intentions of protestants, many of their doctrines are by definition, erroneous. They disagree with the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches - the only two out of 30,000 denominations that trace directly back to the Apostles.
Please consider getting a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. It is an excellent and informative guide to our Catholic faith.
Mary was conceived without sin, and did not commit sin during her life. If I’m not mistaken, even the Protestant reformers defended this position, and also rejected the idea that Mary lost her virginity and bore other children. The idea that Mary was a sinner is fairly recent in Christianity, and is definitely erroneous and unbiblical. And also the idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters, some even teach that Mary was remarried after Joseph died.
As people with friends who come from that part of the world know, calling someone a brother or sister does not always mean a person with the same mother and/or father… it can also refer to a relative.
I also don’t think Jesus is going to be too happy with those people who reject the Marian dogmas. Think of how upset just a normal human being gets when you insult his mother or spread false ideas about her… and then remember that you’re talking about the mother of God! :eek:
And he was born by a new birth, since inviolate virginity, without experiencing desire, provided the material of the flesh. There was taken from the mother of the Lord nature but not sin; nor, because in the Lord Jesus Christ born from the womb of the Virgin the generation is a marvellous one, is his nature for this reason unlike ours.
Pope Leo explains that well. That’s not to say that I believe that Mary had sinned, but even if she had, it would not have affected the Incarnation.
Since Mary was told about her Son before His Incarnation, and did not reject Him, this stands as evidence (if not “proof”) of her sinless nature. Rather than reject Him, she declared herself to be the handmaid (or bond slave) of that same child.
The devil used two sinless human natures to achieve the fall from grace. God used two sinless human natures to restore mankind to Him. Simple. Why does man try to complicate it?
Agreed; Mary was a faithful Jewish woman who no doubt was obedient to her Creator since she was a child. She already knew God. She did not reject God, nor was she in rivalry with Him, rather she was a faithful Jew as were her ancestors. Jesus said, to His Jewish contemporaries, that if they had known the Father they would also know Him, because He and the Father were one. Mary knew the Father and she also therefore knew Jesus and did not reject him.
I don’t see where a need for her to be completely, 100% sinless comes in.
Mary was conceived in the natural order but without original sin. Since she was the chosen one of God to be his Sons mother, she had protection from the angels but still, was allowed to be tempted as we all are.
Since she did not have the stain of original sin in her soul, the ‘pleasures of the world’ were likely repugnant to her so she was able to ignore any temptations that were allowed to come her way. Her whole heart, soul and mind pined for the adoration of her creator. To suggest that she some how was inclined to reject her son is to totally miss the mystical nature, desires and purpose of our Blessed Mother.
Rivals? I do not understand the notion of rivals. Were they competing for followers? Obviously means you have a conclusion that you believe that others would agree with. I have no notion where this that you say is obvious is reasoned from
I really don’t care what any Calvinist thinks of sin.
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN Catechim
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
“Sin is a revolutionary act in which the sinner seeks to depose God from His throne… and seeks to usurp the rightful authority of the cosmic Lord.” (Sproul, R.C. Ethics and the Christian, 1989).
According to this Cavlinist who is fallible says that it is an act. What about thoughts? What about imagination? What about desire? It is a sin to get drunk. Am I trying to depose God from his throne when I drink or am I trying to get drunk?
The Christian Research Institute describes sin this way: “sin is the barrier between you and a satisfying relationship with God. Just as light and dark cannot exist together, neither can God and sin.”
Sin is a barrier between a satisfying relationship with God. This means you can have a relationship that may not be satisfying. Who decides whether it is satisfying or not?
How can a sinful Mary carry a sinless child? How can light (Jesus) and darkness (sinful Mary) co-exist?
Do you expect any Catholic to answer this based on the presumption that Mary is sinful?
Was Mary ever able to have a relationship with her own Son (before the age of 33) if she was corrupted by sin?
According to the Chritian Research Council, Calvinists, Yes. It may not have been satisfying but she could have had one.