Posted                          

quote:

---

Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: How are you using the word, "forgery," Komensky?

-Digory

---

Faked. It is not what it claims to be.

K.

---

Does this affect your view of half of the Pauline letters which are most likely not written by Paul? Or even the Gospel of Matthew, which has been suggested to have not been written by the disciple Matthew?

It's very hard to prove this sort of thing, and even once we believe we have, it doesn't negate everything found in such books, obviously.

-Digory [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It sounds like the good Doctor's theological acuity was having a day off, Mudfrog. I'm not aware of any catholic teaching that Mary "possessed" grace "in her own right", and I'd be surprised and disturbed to hear of such a teaching.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did a search engine search on 'Hail Mary full of grace' and came up with a sermon from a priest that said Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception. I also saw that this is the official teaching of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Mary has full of grace in her own being. The reason for all this is given that Mary had to be sinless from the moment of conception in order to be the Mother of God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Yes, this is the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is only necessary if you accept the doctrine of Original Sin. If you don't, then the Immaculate Conception becomes irrelevant. As the RC church does accept original sin, then it makes perfect sense for it to also adopt the IC.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny thing is, what with the usual evangelical line that God can't bear sin and can't possibly be in the presence of it (always makes me think of Superman and Kryptonite, but I digress), I'd have thought evangelicals would have been all for this sort of idea.

---

That's a great point I've never thought of. Very interesting indeed!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Yes, this is the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is only necessary if you accept the doctrine of Original Sin. If you don't, then the Immaculate Conception becomes irrelevant. As the RC church does accept original sin, then it makes perfect sense for it to also adopt the IC.

---

I would dispute that this makes perfect sense. Like someone else pointed out earlier, if a miracle is possible at Mary's conception that would have made her free from the line of passed original sin, there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why this miracle could not have simply occurred at Jesus' birth instead.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I did a search engine search on 'Hail Mary full of grace' and came up with a sermon from a priest that said Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception. I also saw that this is the official teaching of the Church. Mary has full of grace in her own being.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax. Don't get me wrong, I am not one who denies Mary's special place (I don't think she is, as I heard one preacher describe her, 'just another typical Jewish mother').

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To me, if she was 'full of grace', it would heavily imply that she has been given grace - which in turn would mean that she needed grace because of her sin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace: You're a cessationist then? I ask because you seem to admit no possible source of doctrine outside the canon. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
The short answer is that the Reformers were firm believers in sola scriptura, so anything which you couldn't find in Scripture could not be considered as binding doctrine. I don't want to start a tangent about the validity of this doctrine (but maybe it's inevitable), but this is how Evangelical Protestants see it. If it ain't in Scripture, there's absolutely no obligation to believe it.

---

Making your answer slightly longer, I could mentioned that Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Anyone claiming to be a Calvinist today?

---

quote:

---

Besides, as David speaks in the name of the whole Church, whatever he says concerning himself behoved to be fulfilled in the supreme Head. It is, therefore, not surprising to find the Evangelists applying this passage to Christ, (John 2:17.)

---

quote:

---

8I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother's sons.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Not necessarily. In this context I am arguing that if you are going to admit sources from outside the cannon as authentic then those sources ought to be tested. In the case of much of kerfuffle surrounding Mary, much of the source material has been shown to be unreliable or even forged. While I can imagine a situation where sources ouside the cannon could be very useful, I cannot imagine a situation where outright forgeries are celebrated. I'm sorry if I hadn't made that distinction clear.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
But this puts us back to GreyFace's question: will you only accept writings, forgery or not, if they are backed up in the canon? Or are you really willing to "test" them as you say, which involves the process of searching out whether or not they are clearly contradicted by the canon, by tradition, or by experience?

-Digory [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means.

---

I don't think so. As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
I'm intrigued by why people think that a sinless mother is necessary anyway?

Surely the point about the incarnation is that God himself comes down into his creation in the middle of all the mess and muck? That being in the express likeness of God, he did not think equality with God a thing to be grasped, but instead made himself nothing? Even if he had been born of a sinless mother, the depth of the Lord's descent from his position in glory is astonishing. To me the great beauty of the incarnation is in the humility of the Son, in his willingless to lay aside his home in glory <gets distracted by the lovely hymn>

Maybe there's a link to the caganer article on the front page at the mo? It strikes me that people are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that a supremely holy God could wind up in the middle of all the mess and the reality of human existence, and not float around in an angel-protected holy-bubble. But that surely is the point?

Red x

---

I'm with you, girlfriend.

Frankly all these ruminations about sin coming through Adam only, about how many degrees of separation God needs to be away from normal humanity to incarnate gets me thinking how distant the ethereal, mythic Theotokos seems from the mom who argued with her son at the wedding in Cana or tried to entice him away from the synagogue where he was embarrassing the family. I'm reminded of the nit-picky discussions of a bunch of twelveth century scholastics.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means.

---

I don't think so. As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax.

---

Er, what do you mean by forged documents? The first part of the Ave is straight out of the gospel greeting of the angel to her. The last bit 'Holy Mary, Mother of God, prayer for us sinners now and at the hour of our death' is just a request for prayers.

---

quote:

---

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From GB Caird (DD Oxon), one time principal of Mansfield College Oxford. (Grinfield lecturer in the Septuagint, Member of the Apocrypha Translation Panel of the NEB and an official Observer at the Second Vatican Council):

"The Latin Vulgate version of Gabriel's salutation to Mary - 'Hail Mary, full of grace' - has contributed to the veneration paid to Mary by her devotees, on the ground that she is able to dispense to others from the plenitude of grace which she in her own right possesses. The Greek, however, does not admit to any such interpretation. Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Luke 1:27-28
27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

---

quote:

---

Luke 1:39-42
39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
lol, it's all well to say the KJV is a lousy translation... but that was the only English translation available for a long time...

Apart from the 'full of grace', those verses match the English prayer word to word.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Digory, thanks for this. Yes, what you are saying makes some sense. Part of PM is consistant with Biblical writing, so one might, therefore, at least consider the rest of its contents. However, it is the very fact that it is forged that raises (my) suspicions. Much of the Hitler Diaries made sense too, but once everyone knew they were fakes, the contents were forgotten, which is what should have happened to PM.

---

Whoa careful now. Mentioning Hitler around these parts can make you lose all credibility in a heartbeat!

Seriously, though, you are taking something with an obvious negative moral value (Hitler's diaries) which, upon the discovery of its falsehood, served no more purpose to anyone and comparing it with a mysterious extra-biblical apocryphal writing with no real moral value either way. Fine, throw out forgeries from WWII but let's not throw anything out from the first few centuries because we know so little from that time period! Anything, even forgeries, must be examined and tested.

To which you say:

quote:

---

As for the tests, you are probably on the right track; do they jibe with the rest of Christian experience, but I reject (at least in part) tradition. Because, in this case, the tradition is not based on sound source materials and some of the rest of it does not jibe with the rest of the NT. For what it is worth, PM is far from the wierdest book amongst apochrypha.

---

First, let me say that I do not like the word "jibe." It just sounds weird.

Second, you obviously accept the canon of scripture. On what basis? Which Protestant council was it that decided on the canon? How many council members do you think believed in Mary's ever virgin state? How do you reconcile this?

quote:

---

I am trying to be open minded about the idea non-canonical books, but I see no scriptural basis for doing so.

---

You must see the irony of this statement? Ten points if you can laugh at yourself a little for this one.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I would have thought that the Bible would take precedence over non-Biblical texts.

---

quote:

---

I think it is some of the more outrageous claims made for Mary that scare most Protestants. The situation is a real pity, because Mary is such a good example for us to follow. But say that in my church and you'll likely be show to the church across the road.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From GB Caird (DD Oxon), one time principal of Mansfield College Oxford. (Grinfield lecturer in the Septuagint, Member of the Apocrypha Translation Panel of the NEB and an official Observer at the Second Vatican Council):

"The Latin Vulgate version of Gabriel's salutation to Mary - 'Hail Mary, full of grace' - has contributed to the veneration paid to Mary by her devotees, on the ground that she is able to dispense to others from the plenitude of grace which she in her own right possesses. The Greek, however, does not admit to any such interpretation. Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."


That, written by a scholar, is roughly whjat I have been saying: that Mary's grace was a gift given, not a thing possessed by nature and certainly not bestowed on others. She is not sinless, but a sinner upon whom God's favour rested.

---

quote:

---

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The Latin word "gratia" gives us (via Old French) the English word grace. The semantic range of the Latin word is wide and can include favour, regard, friendship, kindness and service.

The word "plena" is where things get really interesting. In Latin it can mean full, filled, stout, plump, and copious. It gives us the English word plenitude. Applied to a woman, "plena" can also mean pregnant, i.e. a filled womb.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

Which Protestant council was it that decided on the canon? How many council members do you think believed in Mary's ever virgin state? How do you reconcile this?

---

It was simply The Church (you must know this – are you goading me?) It doesn't matter how many members felt that she was, the point is that she wasn't forever a virgin, according to the Bible anyway. At this point I would like to draw attention that this assertion should not detract from Mary's special place ('generations shall call me blessed'). Father R. Cantalamessa points out that it was Mary who had her Pentecost first – she recieved the Holy Spirit (not for the first time in the BIble, OK, but it was still a special case) before the disciples.

quote:

---

I am trying to be open minded about the idea non-canonical books, but I see no scriptural basis for doing so.

---

You must see the irony of this statement? Ten points if you can laugh at yourself a little for this one.


Ten points for me!

quote:

---

Furthermore, I would have thought that the Bible would take precedence over non-Biblical texts.

---

Certainly, but how do you judge the things that the canon doesn't speak to? Anything not mentioned in the canon is false?

No, but things not in the Bible can be false.

quote:

---

I think it is some of the more outrageous claims made for Mary that scare most Protestants. The situation is a real pity, because Mary is such a good example for us to follow. But say that in my church and you'll likely be show to the church across the road.

---

Yes, sadly it's become quite the dividing issue, no? Perhaps your church and the church across the road would do well to come together for some unity building exercises? You seem like a great candidate to head that up, so why not go for it?

-Digory

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Most people are very excited by these things, but it is not without difficulties. Despite the divisions, I still think of The Church (how ever wide-eyed that may seem). There is a wall between the two churches, I have suggested that it is torn down.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Mary was born immaculate - without sin - why did she own God as her Saviour (see the magificant)? And why did she go with Joseph to the Temple where she made 2 sacrifices - one, a sacrifice of a pigeon (because she couldn't afford a lamb) as a burnt offering, and another pigeon as a sin offering?
Luke 2 v 24

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Mmmm.. I agree to an extent. I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

So Christ did not die for Mary then

Romans 5 v 8

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

So Christ did not die for Mary then

Romans 5 v 8

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

---

I didn't know Paul had addressed that letter to Mary or Mary's church or something. In fact, I'm pretty sure she'd been dead for a few years by the time he wrote Romans around 50.

Don't make the Christian mistake of assuming that just because something is in the Bible, you can pluck it out and use it to apply specifically to any old situation. Paul wrote this specifically to a specific group of people for a specific purpose. The fact that we now use it to compare it to ourselves, because we are similar to Paul's church friends, does not necessitate that everyone who ever lived need be.

All of that being said, I'm not even sure if people believe that Christ died for Mary or not.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus , for He will save His people from their sins."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Sorry I caused you offence in quoting from Romans.

Perhaps I should have used a more seasonal text instead and asked is Mary one of His people?

Matthew 1 v 21

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Sorry I caused you offence in quoting from Romans.

Perhaps I should have used a more seasonal text instead and asked is Mary one of His people?

Matthew 1 v 21

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

---

---

Honestly, Dobbo, you caused no offense in quoting Romans, just like you have now caused no offense in making the same mistake with Matthew.


Jesus saves any of his people who need saving. Whether or not Mary needed saving, I have no idea.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

If I have five children, and three of them are at a basketball game, and I say to my friend, "Well, I must go and pick up my children from the basketball game," do I mean that the other two are not my children?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
The idea is that Our Lady received the grace of baptism, the washing away of her sin, at her conception. Christ saved His mother before he was even born.

There's a book on the Franciscan tradition (in one of the series that has titles like "The Fransciscan Tradition", "The Byzantine Tradition", "The Carmelite Tradition" (are you getting the idea?) that has a section devoted to Duns Scotus' understanding of the Immaculate Conception, and it struck a lot of chords for me.

There's an article in the latest "Walsingham Review" by one of the brethren at Mirfield on the Immaculate Conception called "The Immaculate Conception: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it good news?" which is quite good. Mudfrog, I recommend that you read your copy! ( ) Or, perhaps, I could e-mail them and ask if I might post it on here?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

We declare, pronounce and define that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God,in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, and that this doctrine was revealed by God,and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful

---

Ineffabilus Deus

I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me

--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
So Christ did not die for Mary then?
Is Mary one of His people?

These are not glib questions - they approach the question of was Mary sinless from a different direction that is all. I think for that reason alone these questions are worthy of an answer by someone who believes Mary was sinless.

No one felt it was wrong of Mudfrog to ask the does Mary need a Saviour if she had no sin and how does that sit with Luke 1 v 47.

So what is so wrong with my question - all I am trying to do is explore the understanding from another perspective.

quote:

---

If I have five children, and three of them are at a basketball game, and I say to my friend, "Well, I must go and pick up my children from the basketball game," do I mean that the other two are not my children?

---

The questions I am asking are a follow up question to Mudfrogs especially after Mousethief's response

To use your analogy

- so if your friend asked are you going to pick up all your children how would one respond.

It is going to a question of clarification that is all. Just as a solicitor would cross examine a witness, using different questions to try and get to the truth - but he would do it much better than I.

---

First off--I've never been offended by you on this thread, Dobbo. I suppose I gave off some sort of bad signal as though I was mad or upset, but I assure you, I am not.

All I am arguing is that you are lifting a sentence out of text and using it to make a point that the text simply does not make. If a friend asked me if I'm going to pick up all of my children, I would answer accordingly. However, the text you quoted doesn't say this, it just says that Jesus will save his people.

So to answer your question, Mary is one of Jesus' people, yes IMO, by nature of her humanity. Feel free to cross-examine all you like, of course! But expect myself (and others) to point out faulty lines of reasoning and deductions. Consider it our "objections," if you will.

-Digory

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?

---