Provenient grace, when it is applied in time prior to the sending of the Holy Spirit after the Ascension.

I just don’t see any theological basis for this statement at all - but rather, a conclusion developed from the idea that the “flesh” is inherently evil.

There is nothing to suggest that Christ had to be born of a sinful human. The fact that God chose to enter this world through the womb of a woman is indeed a great mystery, but one with many theological underpinings - the implications of which, combined with sacred scripture, have led the Church to understand that Mary was spared from original sin at conception through Christ’s saving grace “in time” (David, you’ll need to help me with the technical term) before Christ’s “historical” death and resurrection so that Christ would enter the world through a womb uncorrupted/unstained by original sin.

“Had any man been sinless, then THEY would suffice to be used of God to take on the sins of the world.”

Umm… no. The mere absence of sin doesn’t mean that we have the almighty capabilities of an All-Powerful God. Indeed, God lowered Himself to our humanity in order that we might be saved, but it still takes a God to save us. For sure, a man of sin would not be worthy to take away other’s sins, but a mere man without sin cannot bear the weight of sin - only the Man-God can.

I know, I shouldn’t keep going when Tammy has finished her posting, but some things I cannot let go.

Good point. I suppose the fundamental issue is authority. It just took a little while to get there.

Enjoyed it.

God Bless

You go in too many directions for me. Had I no children to tend to I would love to continue, but my vocation calls me above all things.

I have enjoyed the debate and wish I could continue. My suggestion is to try and keep it simple with those who post differing views on this site so that it maybe easier to come to the end of a thought before going on to others.

PAX

Me too.

Anything less would make Jesus flesh and God. Man is not just flesh, he is sinful flesh.

There are several ways to understand the term “sinful flesh.” However, it seems to me the way you are interpreting leads to the logical consequence that God creates evil which is not possible.

This is what I mean. God creates everything so everything that exists in a positive sense is from God and must be good. The flesh is good, it is not sinful or evil. Then what is evil and sin? It must be a privation of some good. Sin and evil are moral and not ontological (i.e. they do not have a positive existence). What is “sinful flesh” then? It is flesh deprived of the grace it was created with and for. It is good but it lacks something it need to be what it was created for. It lacks grace in its natural state. It must be elevated. Thus, neither Jesus or Mary had “sinful flesh.” Mary was “full of grace.” Both experienced temptation but having the necessary grace they did not experience it in the same way we do. Their appetites and emotions were subordinated to their wills to they did not experience the conflicts we can sometimes experience. However, the conflicts are not universal, one person can be drawn at times to chocolate and fight with himself because he knows he ought not, another person decides against it and experiences no interior conflict because he has trained himself better in this regard. However, to the more fundamental issue:

It is the Bible first and above all things.

This might take a little time to think about, but what authority did you rely upon to know to trust the Bible and know what books belong in the Bible? A related issue you may be waiting to get to but also how do you know that the way you understand what you read in the Bible is what the real meaning is?

One more:

Mary, OTOH, had no divinity by which to overcome sin.

Ah, but she did and does. She is kecharitomine (i.e. perfected by grace). St. Peter, speaking of grace, says that we are partakers in the divine nature. The East and more and more the West, call sanctifying grace man’s “divinization.” This does not mean that man stops being man, but that he becomes truly what man was meant to be when infused and perfected in grace (as the Bible says that Mary was). Of course, this is hard to get from a term that in reading English translations has many different renderings, and without an understanding of the Greek language, the historical and cultural backgrounds, the early Church’s teaching on grace that fills out and draws together all of the various biblical passages which refer to it, etc.

Please forgive me for not addressing everything as my time is limited. I am stealing some time from cleaning the kitchen before family devotions so I will make this quick.

I also need to let you know that your post numbered 17 is not forgotten, but will take time to address.

As for your comment about Lutherans referring back to the BoC about our doctrine of a “sinless” Mary. I whole heartily disagree. You see coming from the Catholic church I first read the Bible to find out what I believed. I did not see in the Bible that May was sinless. Yes, she was blessed, but in order for God to be fully man, He had to come from a real sinful human. Anything less would make Jesus flesh and God. Man is not just flesh, he is sinful flesh. Jesus took on the form of a man, a real man. A man who fought against temptations as we do. Only because of His divinity, could he overcome all sin. Mary, OTOH, had no divinity by which to overcome sin. She was in the leagues of the great Prophets, she was a means of grace by which God used her to accomplish His plan of salvation.

Just as an animal is not a man, it’s sacrifice will not suffice for the sins of the world. Neither would a Jesus who was not 100% man and 100% God suffice. Had any man been sinless, then THEY would suffice to be used of God to take on the sins of the world. But there was none. So God Himself had to take on the form of a man in order to do this for His people. God does not contradict Himself when He says through-out Scripture that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.Rom 3:23

So my answer to you is not that I look to the BoC first, but that the BoC adequetly represents what I have found in the Bible.

It is the Bible first and above all things.

Tammy - I didn’t see your post before I posted mine. Having read it, I would modify mine to say that both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture provide compelling evidence that Mary was conceived without original sin and never in fact did sin. Of course, if the Augsburg Confessions is the source of one’s tradition for interpreting Scripture you would not find it as compelling. However, if you were open to looking at the wider Christian tradition beginning with the very early Church I think you just might find it compelling as well.

Should I link you to some articles discussing Kecharitomine, and Mary as the anti-type of the Ark of the Covenant?

I might also ask that if it had been due to sin that Mary asked Jesus to do something before its time then would he not also have been complicit in this sin by acceding to her request?

I also enjoy the discussion. I’m glad that all have sufficiently deep epidermal layering to discuss the differences without experiencing offense.