Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:23 JST 
Ash Kvetchum
I've heard both sides--the supporting arguments and the dissenting of those writing in multiple threads and across forks of threads--regarding the asking of Mary to pray for us.
Here's why it's strange:
Where is even an approximating equal emphasis on Joseph? He was the male of the chosen family, the man to oversee the newborn Christ.
He too received a visitation from a messenger, announcing--independent of the visitation to Mary.
Why not an equal *or even greater emphasis* on asking Moses?
Someone so holy (meaning set aside for God's purposes) as to have been at the transfiguration; as to have led the Israelites across a parted sea (after having performed other wonders); as to have written five books of scripture; as to have overseen the construction of the ark of the covenant.
Why not *at least an equal emphasis* on David? Scriptually described as "a man after God's own heart"--so much so that it was promised the rule of his line would never end, such that Christ is called the branch from the root of Jesse (David's father). It is only for this promise from God to David that Mary is even considered as it were.
Why such an emphasis instead on "the mother"?
It's because we have
the Father,
the Son,
and so need the...
And that's it. That's the beg.
After a more extreme fashion, the Gnostics instead fill this in with Sophia (the feminine Wisdom). (And they are wrong to do so.)
No, friends, you don't have to run into protestantism's clearly broken arms and kneel into their awkward (i.e. broken) support. You are free to see that the arms that *are holding you* though are also fucked up.
The lack of admittance of this is, in fact, why the myriad fractals of protestantism (and all of its faults) began.-
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:22 JST 
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Ash_Kvetchum The reason the Theotokos is more key-critically central than the others in the Traditional Christian Faith, is because it was through her, specifically, that the Almighty Eternal God received Human Nature. Statements about her, are therefore statements about Him.
-
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:22 JST 
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
This reminds me of how women love to talk about how special it is to be a mother when all you did was let a dude shoot cum in you and push a baby out 9 months later
She carried a child just like billions of females have. The child is what was special and she played no part. This doesnt mean she wasnt a very devout Israelite. She was. Tte gospel of james strongly atrests to this. Even if it wasnt "inspired", it still pretends to record believed history written at the time she lived. But catholics take it far beyond that and bestow special powers on herAlabasterBrick ?☠️ likes this. -
Embed this notice
Deplorable Degenerate (deplorable_degenerate@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:31 JST 
Deplorable Degenerate
This actually gets to the core of another argument that will cause a hellthread. Whether or not Mary sinned.
There's two thoughts there, either all but Christ has sinned and therefore she did- there's also the fact that Mary called Jesus her savior, if she was without sin she wouldn't need a savior- or because she was righteous enough to be chosen for the task of baring the Christ child that she wasn't just exceptionally pure but totally pure. -
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:31 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
She 100% sinned. To state otherwise borders on harresy and i have never seen a catholic priest claim she was without sin that i am aware of AlabasterBrick ?☠️ likes this. -
Embed this notice
chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:32 JST 
chud
It's more fundamental. We certainly believe Mary, being specially chosen in a way that differs from the others you mentioned, holds a special place. Moses disobeyed God and was punished, etc. Mary was bestowed with an ongoing grace prior even to Christ's conception, in a way that is unique to her. She held Him within her womb. But that doesn't get to the heart of why this is a futile discussion.
Abandoning the practice because someone thinks they have a better way of thinking about things just isn't how we work. It's the same with the other saints.
We aren't going to stop changing what we've been doing for the entire recorded history of the Church, any more than we are going to add some new books to Scripture, or take some out. Someone can point out that a particular church father or two thought Mary was vain or sinful, just like someone can say that a particular church father denied the canonicity of Revelation. But the overwhelming opinion of the saints, and the councils we rely on, give us no reason to reconsider either position. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:34:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
This doesn't touch the more broad topic of asking the dead to intercede.
(inb4 "It's asking the living to intercede. They're not dead." I'm not arguing their state with that statement. You know what a woman is; you know what I mean by dead.)
I almost find the broader topic unnecessary to address because--of all the dead--Mary is the go-to GOAT, the frequent, the common, the mentioned, the Hail Mary.
I would go so far as to say the broader idea is held fervently primarily for the sake of being able to ask Mary to intercede. -
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:51 JST
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum Obviously, making anyone else believe this is far above and beyond my paygrade. But I do so believe, unreservedly.
-
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:51 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
>inherited Human Nature from His literal flesh-and-blood mother
I do not believe this.AlabasterBrick ?☠️ likes this. -
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:52 JST
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum Jesus Christ, being the literal Son Of God, possessing Divine Nature for all eternity, inherited Human Nature from His literal flesh-and-blood mother, at a specific time and place in history.
-
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:52 JST
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum In other words, God became Incarnate, specifically by means of this otherwise-impossible inheritance.
-
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:53 JST
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum Sure, but God didn’t receive His Human Nature from any of them.
-
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:53 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
What does this even mean. God didnt receive anything from Mary. God cannot recieve something from His creation. -
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:54 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
>Only she can truly and accurately be described as the literal portal through which God entered the world and human history.
This is not correct. God walked the earth in many other forms, some very human. He met with Abraham and wrestled with Jacob. Jesus was a particular manifestation he took for a particular purpose, to fulfill a particular prophecy pertaining to the salvation of Israelites who had been cut off. -
Embed this notice
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️ (kingofwhiteamerica@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Jun-2025 18:38:55 JST
☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️
@Ash_Kvetchum This, of course, puts her in a unique position relative to all the others, and anyone else that ever lived. For example, it was uniquely through her that the hitherto (and thereafter) “impossible” happened. The Uncontainable, Uncircumscribable God, was literally contained and circumscribed, in the flesh. Only she can truly and accurately be described as the literal portal through which God entered the world and human history. Given this utterly unique position, it is nigh-impossible to say too many good things about her. Even if it “could have been someone else”, it wasn’t. It was her, uniquely and specifically. Sure; maybe Salvation could have happened differently - but it did not. So, we’ve simply continued according to this Traditional understanding we’ve received. While not herself Uncreated - and there is no confusion here; she is a Created being, indeed - no-one else actually was this conduit, in the Economy of Salvation.
-
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:22 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
>The Merchants of Lion sent my expeditionary force the Cups of Tree to found the new outpost Sandburn -
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:23 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
Youve been playing too much path of exile. Its leaking into your shitposts -
Embed this notice
Deplorable Degenerate (deplorable_degenerate@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:23 JST
Deplorable Degenerate
Never played it.
But I recently got back into Dwarf Fortress. The Merchants of Lion sent my expeditionary force the Cups of Tree to found the new outpost Sandburn.
I forgot how retarded this shit was, I love it. -
Embed this notice
Deplorable Degenerate (deplorable_degenerate@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:25 JST
Deplorable Degenerate
I am Lord of all Forks, the chaos bringer and sharpener of irons without laying my own whetstone to them.
I am the protogenesis of the Theotokos question in this hell thread, to both my amusement and dismay.
I am... kind of an asshole. -
Embed this notice
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits (xenophon@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:26 JST
Sturmführer Xeno Fish Biscuits
Dear lord i'm not scrolling up. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:26 JST
Ash Kvetchum
LMAO
😤 Stay in your fork
🤣
Man, I felt the same way about the conversation you and the others were having over there.
It was good to see in your all's fork that people were trying at talking, too -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:28 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I think anyone would agree that there are claims not explicit in the text of scripture but that can (and should) be extrapolated. For example, in the four testimonies Christ doesn't say explicitly the exact words "I am God"--and atheists think that's a trump. But we know that we can extrapolate from "before Abraham was, I AM" and other statements He gives, and we know that God had previously said He would come and gather His sheep scattered, that He would be the good shepherd--and many more points in scripture that clearly support and necessitate that Christ is God. We can extrapolate clearly to the conclusion. And then more conclusions from there, sure.
So it isn't automatically false when someone states something not explicitly stated in scripture, we see--but there must be the basis in scripture *and* it must not contradict other passages of scripture (unless one also claims the specific passage contradicting is a later addition that doesn't belong or was corrupted, whether purposefully or by accident).
No where does scripture explicitly say that Mary was sinless, and no where in scripture is there a passage that implicitly necessitates that she was sinless. It does however say in scripture that none were righteous, that all were fallen, and it does say that the Israelites--and Mary was an Israelite--were condemned to death by the law, as the Bride had been adulterous. These--which are in scripture--would contradict Mary being sinless.
The reason Mary not being sinless matters (in the context of this conversation, not as a whole) is that the claims the RCC makes about her (that she did not die an earthly death and/or that she chose to set aside her life) are only necessary *if* she were sinless.
And we know from scripture that it *cannot be* that she was sinless, as she was 1) of Adam, 2) an Israelite--meaning of the Bride condemned by the law, as told by God through the prophets as we have received through scripture, regardless of a recieved (man-handled) tradition offering a contradiction that's not scripturally based and is an unnecessary exception.
The reason this matters is that this inflation of Mary's nature is the basis for the inflated emphasis of Mary's role or ability in intercession.
I would point out that the beat of "The Father, the Son, and the... " begs for "Mother", and the RCC puts Mary in that role--not going so far as to make her God-- but "Mother of us all," "sinless," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession."
A typology of Eve seems diluted and inflated, consumed, lost in the sauce, by a member-of-the-Godhead typology given to Mary by the language and claims of Mary's nature the RCC uses ("sinless," "Mother of us," "Queen in Heaven," "closest to God for intercession," etc.). Granted, of course, not quite a Mother that's part of the Godhead, but approaching closer to that than to only the nature, role, and importance explicitly given in scripture or that which can be extrapolated with a scriptural basis.
(just a good animal for your time) -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:29 JST
Ash Kvetchum
🤍 Thank you for the clarifying question, man.
I'm setting aside one larger categorical objection (praying that saints intercede on our behalf)--assuming a stance that that is fine--for the sake of more specifically addressing the quantitative objection: that Mary is given--among those asked to intercede--an emphasis that I think is misplaced.
Hand-in-hand with this quantitative objection though goes the categorical objection of Mary's sinlessness. It's unnecessary for her to have been sinless.
I just now wrote a more full response to Sulla_Felix in this fork, further clarifying, if you want to look there. If you want to respond there or come back here, keeping them separate, either is fine. 🍻 -
Embed this notice
chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:29 JST
chud
I read that - thanks for clarifying! I'll post here so I'm not jumping in your convo.
For me, it's a pair of simple thought processes. We're called to pray for each other > The prayers of the righteous are valuable > The saints are living witnesses = It's okay to pray for saints.
Second, we see that Mary has /some/ special place. Being called κεχαριτωμένη, the contrast in typology to Eve seen with her being called "Woman," her lack of earthly death, the way Christ entrusted her to the Apostle John as an adoptive mother suggesting that she is a spiritual mother who cares for us. So, placing her above the other saints seems fitting.
I think it can be taken too far (just like any good thing; a devotion to icons or a focus on the letter of the law). But our belief that she is sinless is more focused on who she is, rather than our desire to have her intercede for us. I don't know that it would really degrade her place as the greatest of saints if she had sinned. The sinlessness really comes from a combination of how the angel addressed her, the typology she represents, and the traditions that followed in the early church. I'd argue that, even if saintly intercession weren't a thing, the idea of Mary's sinlessness would still be a widely-held and fitting concept. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:31 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.
Talking to Orthobros, friend. 🤷 By "Orthodoxy doesn't go as far," I only leave room because--though every Catholic with whom I've talked about this says that Mary is sinless--some Orthodox (whether it may be according to their tradition or not--whether that's specifically Greek, Russian, or what-have-you) have said instead that Mary was not sinless. If they have stated what is counter to Orthodoxy (or their specific branch), then that bears on their point rather than mine.
>Ephesus 431
Have more care with what I am saying. I haven't claimed anyone *began* calling Mary 'Theotokos' at this council (nor did I limit the scope to one council, and I'll say the reason for that in a second--I understand why you have referred to this one, as it's during this one that there's discussion on specifically continuing or altering the used title for Mary).
What I said is that there was choosing what to call Mary based upon views (which isn't a criticism)--and that is true of both a) those at the council trying to call Mary something new and b) those at the council choosing to continue what they had been calling her.
My point was that there was discussion of Mary (her title and her role) that extended directly from discussion of Christ's nature. (The discussion of Christ's nature need not be *during* the council. Nestorius posited the new title for Mary because of discussions about Christ's nature.)
Some also discuss Mary's nature by extension. (I am not limiting the scope of this to councils. Not all claims about Mary were made in councils. Some are made within sects--even the largest ones.)
The reason I left the scope as wide as "councils" rather than naming Ephesus is because these conversations carry from one council to the next, by extensions--even questions not within a previous council, but arising after a previous council, often due to points from a previous council, leading to topics in the next. (Example: We could talk about how the view of Apollinaris addressed long before Ephesus affected the view (like a guard rail) of Nestorius and so affected the topic at Ephesus.) Both views--Apollinaris and Nestorius--were about Christ's nature--and it did lead to discussions about Mary.
All of that aside, remember that the larger (original) point of the post is that there is an overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and addressing why that is the case--not whether she in the flesh bore Christ in the flesh (as everyone in this thread agrees she did), and not on whether she should be called Theotokos (as the title and the concept--as far as her having born Christ--isn't the concern). -
Embed this notice
chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:31 JST
chud
Weird, the Orthodox you've spoken to may be referring to the idea that she is still subject to the fallen nature of humanity (though not any personal sin), or they may be poorly catechized. Or their churches have been lying to me 😅
Re: Ephesus you said she was "named" and I thought you meant the Council gave her a title, rather than affirming something that had been in use before. No prob.
Obviously there are heretical sects like the Palmarians or various South American "Catholic" groups that take Mary veneration too far. But the apostolic churches all uniformly orient their worship exclusively toward God, and Mary is not the focus of the liturgy/Mass.
When you say "overemphasize" do you mean that there's a fundamental problem with how the church views/allows a veneration of Mary, which leads to some people focusing more on her than God? Or that individuals are performing an acceptable practice and taking it too far? You say things like "overemphasize" but it also sounds like your objections may be more categorical than quantitative, and I don't want to strawman you. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:32 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>the questions the Council was trying to solve
Which would be... ?
They weren't addressing Christ's nature?--through the centuries, through these councils, extending the conversation from Christ's nature to Mary's part in forming or not forming that nature (as well as discussing which natures)? And then naming Mary in accordance with the stance they held?
And then--later, as Catholicism took the conversation, though not Orthodoxy--extending from Christ's nature to Mary's part in Christ's nature to even Mary's nature?
Yes.
(Examples are above / in parallel forks. Catholics referring to the CCC, quoting about Mary's "sinless" nature.)
This is how it came to be that we have Catholicism saying Mary was sinless--with Orthodoxy not going that full extent.
The reason you and I are not having the same conversation is that your goal is--what exactly? Where are you addressing a point I've pressed? I'm not arguing against the idea Mary gave birth to Him. I'm not arguing against the truth that it was through Mary that God came in the flesh as a man, born by the flesh of a human mother.
My OP is about the overemphasis on asking Mary to intercede and from where that stems. (For some, in the conversation above, the emphasis is due to their stance that Mary was without sin or preserved from temptation.)
For the Orthodox, some would argue that it's her role as His mother and/or (depending on the particular Orthodox branch) her role as the one who bore Him.
And this still does not address the comparative overemphasis (over examples of other figures in scripture I presented) on asking Mary specifically to intercede.
Engage in the topic 🍻 Or go. Whichever suits you. -
Embed this notice
chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:32 JST
chud
Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.
Ephesus 431 was answering some questions about Christ's nature, somewhat indirectly. The council determined it was inappropriate to deny the title of Theotokos to Mary. Nestorius preferred the title Christotokos and had some limited reservations about the title Theotokos. The council didn't name her that, it upheld that it was heretical to deny her that title, which was already in use. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>pretty exotic theology
Which part(s)?
>And the reason for that was not because the Fathers were trying to have a conversation about Mary, but because they were trying to think through questions about Jesus.
Yes. (💀) This just saying back to me what I said:
"The conceptual misunderstanding, an itch, that needed scratched that led to the idea/solution of a sinless Mary is the wrestling with how Christ would be sinless if born through a fallen human--the same state that results in other humans being in sin." -
Embed this notice
Sulla (sulla_felix@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:33 JST 
Sulla
@Ash_Kvetchum @Deplorable_Degenerate @chud @monsterislandcolonizer > Yes. (💀) This just saying back to me what I said:
>"The conceptual misunderstanding, an itch, that needed scratched that led to the idea/solution of a sinless Mary is the wrestling with how Christ would be sinless if born through a fallen human--the same state that results in other humans being in sin."
No. Not at all. That was nothing to do with he questions the Council was trying to solve when they said Mary is the Theotokos. We're not even having the same conversation here. -
Embed this notice
Sulla (sulla_felix@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:35 JST
Sulla
@Ash_Kvetchum @Deplorable_Degenerate @chud @monsterislandcolonizer That is, uh, some pretty exotic theology there, friend.
Look, I think the place to start is not your own freestylin' theological speculations, but with the definitive Councils of the early Church. Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. Not the contributor of the fleshly part of the Incarnate God, not the mother of the human nature of Jesus, none of that. She is the Mother of God.
And the reason for that was not because the Fathers were trying to have a conversation about Mary, but because they were trying to think through questions about Jesus. Mother of God is, ultimately, a Christological statement.
So, start there and see where it takes you. If you wind up in a place where you've convinced yourself that the woman bearing the title, Mother of God, is not really that big of a deal, well, you made some error. Check your work. -
Embed this notice
Sulla (sulla_felix@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:36 JST
Sulla
@monsterislandcolonizer @chud @Deplorable_Degenerate @Ash_Kvetchum > If Mary was sinless then her death would have been a perfect sacrifice as much as Christ's was, and the death of Christ would have been unnecessary or redundant.
Oh, no friend. That's not how it works. At all. You are thinking of a model where man needs some sinless person to sacrifice & that would fix the problem of fallen creation. I have to point out: that is missing the entire concept of the Incarnation. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:36 JST
Ash Kvetchum
(In the green text below, I'm not quoting the comment immediately above. I'm quoting the points within this fork of the thread that were in response to my OP as well as the responses to those, in one place, responding to them all.)
>Mary was bestowed with an ongoing grace prior even to Christ's conception, in a way that is unique to her. She held Him within her womb.
>Mary was either preserved from temptation in a particular way or simply chose not to sin
Every Israelite was in sin. "There is none righteous, not one... except Mary. I swear on my mama."
The conceptual misunderstanding, an itch, that needed scratched that led to the idea/solution of a sinless Mary is the wrestling with how Christ would be sinless if born through a fallen human--the same state that results in other humans being in sin.
(The answer: It wasn't the same state--not because Mary was sinless or in some special grace, but because Christ is a second Adam in that he has no father by the Spirit but God. He is descended by flesh from Adam, but not descended by Spirit from Adam. He is rather by the Spirit the ancestor of Adam, as He is God, who gave His Spirit to Adam. That is why He is the true vine and we are the branches.)
It's unnecessary for Mary to be sinless, let alone inconsistent.
Let alone insufficient, really, if we were to trace that, too.
>If Mary was sinless then her death would have been a perfect sacrifice as much as Christ's was
The reason that Christ's death is the sufficient sacrifice is that only the death of the Husband (God) releases the adulterous Bride (all Israelites, living or dead, regardless of whether they were of Judea or whether they were the much greater number elsewhere--even the greater number of Israelites: those having been removed from the congregation so long ago (and their descendants) that they no longer knew/remembered themselves as Israelites) from the vow (the law). With the death of the Husband, the adulterous Bride is released.
Mary dying (i.e. not the Husband), whether sinless or not, would not satisfy this. -
Embed this notice
chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:38 JST
chud
For Catholics (and all Orthodox I've spoken to, but I won't presume to speak for them - we have different views on the fallen state of man/original sin/etc.), it's essentially the latter. She's the new Eve - pure by nature, but capable of sin. Whereas Eve chose to sin, Mary was either preserved from temptation in a particular way or simply chose not to sin. Some of this typology can be seen in Mary being called Woman. I've never heard a compelling case that she sinned or had children other than Jesus, but I agree, it'll just turn into a hellthread where one side says "you are adding to the Bible" and the other says "if you don't agree with us you don't even have a Bible" -
Embed this notice
Bloodytailspike (monsterislandcolonizer@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:41:38 JST 
Bloodytailspike
@chud @Deplorable_Degenerate @Ash_Kvetchum If Mary was sinless then her death would have been a perfect sacrifice as much as Christ's was, and the death of Christ would have been unnecessary or redundant. -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 27-Jun-2025 18:47:09 JST 
?? Humpleupagus ??
Serious question though. If the wall over there how can you see it over here? It must be here-there.
-
Embed this notice
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the