A Question for Protestants

[MariaG]

mozart-250:

Well…I don’t consider myself a Protestant as much as just a Christian…but you would probably consider me one…

I don’t believe in the sinlessness of Mary because I have not been given reason to believe in it…either through Scripture or through evidence that it is apostolic teaching. Outside of a reason to believe otherwise, then the normal reading of Romans 3:23 would be that she falls under it.

However, my more important question is importance…

Is it important that I believe Mary is sinless? I seem to sense to Catholics it is? If so why? If I am wrong what is the impact?

In addition to what Lucy said, there is also the fact that to Catholics, by making less of Mary, it seems to make less of Christ.

Why?

Because all of what Mary was and did was because of who her savoir was. To make less of the teachings of Mary is to make less of Christ.

There is also a gut level reaction. When Christ said to the Apostle John, “This is your mother”, we believe this was more than just asking John to take care of His mother. We believe that Christ was giving all Christians His mother. She is Our Mother also. So when you make less of her, you are hitting us in a gut level emotional way about our mom.

She is your Mother too. But I don’t think nonCatholics Christians understand this in such a emotional way.

Hope that helps.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[valient_Lucy]

mozart-250:

Nope…a baby has not sinned. And I was not trying to use Romans 3:23 as a prooftext against (I realize prooftexting is more difficult than it seems). More in the sense I am looking for a reason to believe Mary is an exception (as babies obviously are).

Basically, Catholics believe that Mary carried the Second Person of the Trinity within her. Think about the Ark of the Covenant, and how the Priests who carried it were given specific instructions on how to carry the Ark, who could carry the Ark, etc. If you’re not familiar with this, check out a good Bible concordenance, either Catholic or Protestant, and read what the Old Testament says about the Ark of the Covenant.
Well, Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. As such, she had to be especially Holy, especially to carry God within her womb for nine months.
I’m sure other people on the forum can give a much better explanation, for the Immaculate Conception, but I hope this helps you understand why Catholics believe God decided to preserve her from sin.

 

[DeFide]

valient Lucy:

…
Well, Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. As such, she had to be especially Holy, especially to carry God within her womb for nine months.
.

Originally posted by RyanL:

Why did they need the ark in the OT? What happened when the ark was present during battles? Mary is fulfillment of what the OT ark pointed to. It was a prefigurement of our Blessed Mother. As great as a shadow is in the OT, what it points to in fulfillment is even greater. The ark was honored and couldn’t even be touched. The ark swayed battles against evil. How much more the fulfillment of this shadow?

Luke shows very clearly how the ark is a shadow of Mary as its fulfillment.

The ark goes to the hill country.
Mary goes to the hill country.

David asks, “who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?”
Elizabeth asks “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The ark stays in the house for three months.
Mary stays in Elizabeth’s house for three months.

David lept for joy at the presnece of the ark.
John the Baptists leaps for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

The ark was housed in a tabernacle overshadowed by the glory cloud.
The angel tells Mary that the power of the Most High will overshadow her.

The ark contained the written Word of God.
Mary contained the Word made flesh.

The ark contained bread from Heaven.
Mary contained true bread from Heaven.

The ark contained the rod of the true priesthood.
Mary contained the true Priest.

Add to that, the ark was built with an emphasis on purity because of what it would hold. What it held - SYMBOLS of Jesus.

Mary held the fulfillment of these symbols - Jesus - so why would there be less emphasis on her purity being that she had the fulfillment of the symbols the ark carried?

Hence, the Immaculate Conception. The Purity of the Ark which contained not a symbol of Jesus but Jesus himself in fulfillment.

Also, the ark could not be touched by man, which points to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, whether or not Mary should be honored, and whether her fulfillment of these shadows is worthy of recognition. If God deemed the ark of the OT worthy of honor and deemed the shadows it represented worthy of recogonition, what kind of reasoning concludes that this should not be the case for the fulfillment and perfection of the ark?

We must also remeber the intercession of the ark was necessary for the battle and victory against evil, AND disaster when the ark wasn’t present. What is the fulfillment of that?

Mary fights evil for us. God put enmity between the serpent and the woman in Genesis and this is exactly what takes place in Revelation 12.

Furthermore, as St. Louis DeMonfort related in “The Secret Of The Rosary”, the demons fear Mary because she defeats them. Unblblical? Hardly. The OT has several shadows that point to this.

The Bible shows instances of a woman destroying evil rulers in the OT:

Judges 4:21: Then Jael Heber’s wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

So, we indeed have a woman delivering a fatal blow to the head of an evil rulere. Look what happens after that:

Judges 5:24: Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.

The woman who delivers the fatal blow to the evil head is called blessed above women.

More:

Judges 9:53: And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech?s head, and all to brake his skull.

Here we have a woman literally crushing the head of evil.

This is an OT foreshadowing - the verse in Genesis begining to be played out - not final because the devil isn’t crushed, but a foreshadowing as prefigures of evil receive fatal blows to the head. This is God’s Word being fulfilled.

If this sounds strange, consider that in Genesis, the enmity is personal between the woman who gives birth to Jesus and the devil. Jesus, her offspring is at war with the devil’s offspring.

THIS TAKES NOTHING FROM JESUS, but just offers consideration of what the verse in Genesis actually says, and how its played out in scripture. Scripture clearly shows women as prefigures delivering fatal blows to the head of prefigured evil, and scripture clearly shows direct enmity between the woman and the devil and the devil at war with her.

If the shadows of Mary were needed, interceded, destroyed evil, and were honored, what does this point to? We NEED Mary.

If they needed the ark, then we need Mary. The Bible shows us this very clearly. Never forget that not only did good things happen when the ark was present, but also disaster when there was no ark present. Don’t leave Mary out of your life.

 

[ScottH]

ICXCNIKA:

If you are a Protestant Christian, this question is for you.

When I talk with Protestants about the sinlessness of Mary I meet with resistence.

Can you please tell me, what is the problem with Mary being sinless? Why do you (if you do) have a problem with it?

Thank you.

This was the toughest pill to swallow for me as I started to become Roman Catholic from Protestant.

Its hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint why. The easy answer is because its usually the first thing protestant parents teach their kids to keep them in their current denomination and away from Roman Catholicism.

“They worship Mary as a goddess, and worship inanimate objects. They believe a lie.”

That was almost verbatim from what I remember as a kid.

So, ICXCNIKA, since it was the earliest thing we were taught to fear and avoid, its generally the toughest wall to fall, even when good evidence to the contrary is presented. People who raised us, loved us, nurtured us…who taught us to walk, also taught us that Roman Catholicism fell away from God a long time ago.

We trust the “messenger” of that message because they fed us, put a roof over our heads. The “hand that rocks the cradle” being what it is. We hear it again later from some of our pastors, sunday school teachers, you name it.

So the thing is… when you are programmed since a single digit age to view Mary as merely a “decent” vessel chosen by God who’s just a virgin with not much else ascribed to her (other than being the carrier of our Lord)… it kinda sticks, because its kind of **repeated. **

Its not a wall that tumbles easily.

Notions about Mary are most often used as tools to keep us away from you folks.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[mozart-250]

Hmm…whenever I read the Ark of the Covenant, it always read to me as a Type of Christ. But then again, most “Type of” stuff goes over my head when I read the Bible if I am to be perfectly honest. I am just not smart enough to read Leviticus and just get the symbolism.

And whenever I have read Jesus telling the apostle John this is your mother, well it always read to me like the son taking care of His mother. But then again deeper meanings in Scripture also just go over my head.

What I don’t understand though is the issue of importance. If I limit my belief in Mary to that which I know that I can be comfortable defending in Scripture, how is that evil?

The Catholic might argue that their beliefs concerning Mary does not necessarily detract from Jesus, and I would be inclined to accept it. However, I would argue that the opposite is also true.
If my Christian focus is on Jesus, how does that detract from Mary.

I guess I mean to say I have a hard time seeing Jesus and Mary as competing persona in the kingdom of heaven. I also have a hard time envisioning Mary as getting an attitude towards us whose focus is more on her beloved son.

 

[MariaG]

mozart-250:

What I don’t understand though is the issue of importance. If I limit my belief in Mary to that which I know that I can be comfortable defending in Scripture, how is that evil?

It is not evil nor does the Catholic Church teach it is evil.

But do consider that sometimes God asks us to step out of our comfort zone.

The Catholic might argue that their beliefs concerning Mary does not necessarily detract from Jesus, and I would be inclined to accept it. However, I would argue that the opposite is also true.
If my Christian focus is on Jesus, how does that detract from Mary.

Not only do Catholics argue that our beliefs about Mary do not detract from Jesus, but in fact they add to Christ. All the teachings of Mary first rest on understanding how awesome and Holy Christ is. Learning about Mary helps us to focus on Christ. If you are focusing on Mary, your focus is on the wrong place.

I guess I mean to say I have a hard time seeing Jesus and Mary as competing persona in the kingdom of heaven. I also have a hard time envisioning Mary as getting an attitude towards us whose focus is more on her beloved son

Well, you would be on the right track then as far as Catholic Christians are concerned. Jesus and Mary are not competing persona in heaven and the Catholic Church does not teach or imply that.

Nor does the Church teach that Mary would get a attitude with those who focus on Christ.

Respectfully, your understanding of Catholic teaching is still flawed.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mozart-250]

MariaG:

Respectfully, your understanding of Catholic teaching is still flawed.

You probably are used to “not Catholics” attacking Mary and that is not my motivation at all.

I actually think I understand it fairly well for a “not Catholic”

• Virgin at the time of birth of Christ (I concur)
• Mother of God (I concur)
• Virgin thereafter
• Sinless…but she still needed Christ as redeemer who saved her from commiting sin in the first place
• She ascended bodily into heaven
• You can pray to her
• She works on behalf of Christians in strange and wonderful ways that probably you could describe better than myself.
• All this but she is not deity. You do not worship her as you God in three persons. Properly understood she enhances your relationship with Christ.

Do I understand this fairly well for a “not Catholic”

Now you are probably used to people like me agreeing on point 1 and disagreement on the rest of these points and concluding that Catholics worship Mary. That is NOT what I am saying or asking.

I might have asked my questions poorly so let me rephrase.

(1) Can one be a “good Catholic” and NOT pray to Mary.
(2) Can one be a “good Catholic” and have doubts about some of the points above
(3) Can one be a “good Catholic” and be neutral about some of the points above (neither personally embracing or rejecting)

These questions on importance are what I am not clear on.

 

[MariaG]

mozart-250:

You probably are used to “not Catholics” attacking Mary and that is not my motivation at all.

I actually think I understand it fairly well for a “not Catholic”

• Virgin at the time of birth of Christ (I concur)
• Mother of God (I concur)
• Virgin thereafter
• Sinless…but she still needed Christ as redeemer who saved her from commiting sin in the first place
• She ascended bodily into heaven
• You can pray to her
• She works on behalf of Christians in strange and wonderful ways that probably you could describe better than myself.
• All this but she is not deity. You do not worship her as you God in three persons. Properly understood she enhances your relationship with Christ.

Do I understand this fairly well for a “not Catholic”

Now you are probably used to people like me agreeing on point 1 and disagreement on the rest of these points and concluding that Catholics worship Mary. That is NOT what I am saying or asking.

I might have asked my questions poorly so let me rephrase.

(1) Can one be a “good Catholic” and NOT pray to Mary.
(2) Can one be a “good Catholic” and have doubts about some of the points above
(3) Can one be a “good Catholic” and be neutral about some of the points above (neither personally embracing or rejecting)

These questions on importance are what I am not clear on.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

And actually, I meant your understanding was still flawed not because of the points you listed but because you felt that Mary detracts from Jesus and that Mary might “get an attitude”.

But yes, you seem to have a good “head knowledge” of the “basics”, but as a revert, I have to say, it took me several years to truly understand how Mary enhances my relationship with Christ.

For example: I was not comfortable praying the Rosary for a long time. While I understood the explanation, I was not able to give honor to Mary without it feeling like worship. Because of this, it would have been completely wrong for me to honor Mary since it could not be separated in the way I felt from worship that God alone can have.

I eventually asked Christ to help me better understand and honor His mother in a way that would be pleasing to Him.

I found that the Rosary, is actually so Christ centered, that it truly does help me to worship Him more fully. I pray that God will Grant you the same understanding.

And just a note:

• You can pray to her

As long as you use the word pray in the older meaning. Today, most people see pray as something you do to God alone.

But pray also has an older use and meaning that can mean to ask fervently. In other words, women could “pray” to their husband for things, Children could “pray” to their parents. It is this meaning of pray Catholic Christians mean when they say we “pray” to Mary. I personally, as a revert, only say “ask Mary to pray for us” since the other way causes too much confusion in non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians for that matter.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JSmitty2005]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

I disagree with your answers to 2 & 3. This is how the Church defines heresy (CCC 2089):

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.”
Many of the points that mozart raises are certainly doctrines and some even dogmas. As for question #1, a Catholic doesn’t have to pray to Mary, but why not? Not doing so would be indicative of doubt concerning her intercessory power which would be heresy. Finally, if someone doubts the last proposition that mozart raised, then they would have ventured into apostasy.

 

[mozart-250]

I thought I might get both answers to this question.

I actually am thinking about becoming Catholic; but am trying to think of showstopper issues; issues which would be a signal to me not to go there. If I can’t have private doubt about an issue, then that is a showstopper to me.

Now to be consistent, I would imagine that a good number of Catholics should leave the Catholic church also. In fact I might ask…if private doubt is a condition for being Catholic, who here has never had any private doubt on any matter of the Catholic faith? Raise your hands please. And this does not even get to the Catholics who practice birth control, disagree with the Church’s position on artificial contraception or vote pro-choice (which I am not…avidly pro-life BTW and will be till my dying breath).

If any of this applies to anybody, Catholic and not-Catholic, do I correctly read that you are a heretic? And might I not remind everyone that Scripture teaches to reject a heretic after first and second warning (Titus 3:10). And the early church it seems to me practiced this quite literally (not to mention the period of time where heretics were burnt at the stake)

BTW Maria…I probably worded it wrong if you got the impression I felt Mary necessarily detracts from Christ or got an attitude. I think I was trying to say something else and didn’t convey it properly.

 

[DeFide]

mozart-250:

I thought I might get both answers to this question.

I actually am thinking about becoming Catholic; but am trying to think of showstopper issues; issues which would be a signal to me not to go there. If I can’t have private doubt about an issue, then that is a showstopper to me.

Now to be consistent, I would imagine that a good number of Catholics should leave the Catholic church also. In fact I might ask…if private doubt is a condition for being Catholic, who here has never had any private doubt on any matter of the Catholic faith? Raise your hands please. And this does not even get to the Catholics who practice birth control, disagree with the Church’s position on artificial contraception or vote pro-choice (which I am not…avidly pro-life BTW and will be till my dying breath).
…
.

You may be confusing “difficulties” with “doubts”. 10,000 Difficulties do not amount to one doubt. It’s important to keep in mind the difference. The existence of mystery is a condition of humanity’s limited scope of vision and not reason for despair.

If you accept the Church’s authority, understanding its divine origin and protection, then having a difficulty does not imply that you reject authoritative teaching.

If a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

This article, surprisingly, has a good summary of how to properly form one’s conscience as a Catholic:

envoymagazine.com/familyplanning.htm

(search the page for “conscience”)

 

[mozart-250]

DeFide:

If a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.

OK…now I am even more confused.

I don’t have a clue what the second half of the sentence (following the but) means.

And I sense black/white thinking while reality suggests there are shades of grey. Meaning:

Given any point of doctrinal issue
Black: We wholeheartedly oppose and advocate against
White: We wholeheartedly support and advocate for

10-20 years ago I was Black on the Catholic Church. The whore of Babylon man. Now I find I don’t know as much as I did then.

But anyway some shades of grey might be (on any given point of docrine)

• You still reject and advocate against a given belief, but am open to the possibility you might be wrong.
• You still do not believe, but are open to such an extent that
  you have stopped advocating your disbelief. However in good conscience you can not join a church that holds this belief
• You submit: You have come to a point where you are willing in good conscience to join a church that believes contrary to what you believe on that point. In submission to those whom God has placed over you, you just let it go. However, in your heart you have not embraced the belief. You’re just not there yet.
• You tentatively embrace the belief in principle but not all details.
• You embrace the belief but have difficulties in believing.

There are issues of where you are on this scale and also the direction you are going in.

In my current church in respects to its beliefs/doctrines I range from I submit to I wholeheartedly support. If I had to be at a level above submit in order to join any Christian Church, I would be churchless.

 

[MariaG]

JSmitty2005:

I disagree with your answers to 2 & 3. This is how the Church defines heresy (CCC 2089):

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."Many of the points that mozart raises are certainly doctrines and some even dogmas. As for question #1, a Catholic doesn’t have to pray to Mary, but why not? Not doing so would be indicative of doubt concerning her intercessory power which would be heresy. Finally, if someone doubts the last proposition that mozart raised, then they would have ventured into apostasy.

**Obstinate **being the defining word.

A person does not have to have complete and 100% certainty. Doubt is a natural process that is part of faith building.

According to my understanding based on the catechism

2088The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.​

A person can doubt teachings about Mary as long as they continue to try to learn why the Church is right. Obstinate doubt would be someone who refuses to try to conform their conscience to the teachings of the Church.

Clearly one needs to keep working to prevent involuntary doubt from leading to spiritual blindness by delibrately cultivating it. But one can have doubt or difficulties as long as they continue to acknowledge that the Church is right, and praying for understanding.

Maybe this would be defined as difficulties according to DeFide’s article? Have to read it.

originally posted by** mozart-250**

1. Can one be a “good Catholic” and NOT pray to Mary.
   (2) Can one be a “good Catholic” and have doubts about some of the points above
   (3) Can one be a “good Catholic” and be neutral about some of the points above (neither personally embracing or rejecting)

 

[DeFide]

mozart-250:

OK…now I am even more confused.

I don’t have a clue what the second half of the sentence (following the but) means.

And I sense black/white thinking while reality suggests there are shades of grey. Meaning:

Given any point of doctrinal issue
Black: We wholeheartedly oppose and advocate against
White: We wholeheartedly support and advocate for

10-20 years ago I was Black on the Catholic Church. The whore of Babylon man. Now I find I don’t know as much as I did then.

But anyway some shades of grey might be (on any given point of docrine)

• You still reject and advocate against a given belief, but am open to the possibility you might be wrong.
• You still do not believe, but are open to such an extent that
  you have stopped advocating your disbelief. However in good conscience you can not join a church that holds this belief
• You submit: You have come to a point where you are willing in good conscience to join a church that believes contrary to what you believe on that point. In submission to those whom God has placed over you, you just let it go. However, in your heart you have not embraced the belief. You’re just not there yet.
• You tentatively embrace the belief in principle but not all details.
• You embrace the belief but have difficulties in believing.

There are issues of where you are on this scale and also the direction you are going in.

In my current church in respects to its beliefs/doctrines I range from I submit to I wholeheartedly support. If I had to be at a level above submit in order to join any Christian Church, I would be churchless.

Sorry, I shouldn’t have assumed you know about venial vs. mortal sin. If a Catholic left the Church out of some negligence on his part he would only be responsible for that slight negligence, and not for rejecting Christ’s Church as if he knew what he was doing (which would be a mortal sin, damning the person who willfully rejects God).

To answer the second part concisely: Take your time, prayerfully. Do not join the Catholic Church until you realize that you need to in obedience to God. Do not ever put yourself in a state of disobedience to your conscience. However, even at this stage, you are responsible for informing your conscience.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

God is patient and knows your heart. You can only be held responsible for what you know and acting on that knowledge as best as you can.

 

[MariaG]

mozart-250:

OK…now I am even more confused.

I don’t have a clue what the second half of the sentence (following the but) means.

And I sense black/white thinking while reality suggests there are shades of grey. Meaning:

Given any point of doctrinal issue
Black: We wholeheartedly oppose and advocate against
White: We wholeheartedly support and advocate for

10-20 years ago I was Black on the Catholic Church. The whore of Babylon man. Now I find I don’t know as much as I did then.

But anyway some shades of grey might be (on any given point of docrine)

• You still reject and advocate against a given belief, but am open to the possibility you might be wrong.
• You still do not believe, but are open to such an extent that
  you have stopped advocating your disbelief. However in good conscience you can not join a church that holds this belief
• You submit: You have come to a point where you are willing in good conscience to join a church that believes contrary to what you believe on that point. In submission to those whom God has placed over you, you just let it go. However, in your heart you have not embraced the belief. You’re just not there yet.
• You tentatively embrace the belief in principle but not all details.
• You embrace the belief but have difficulties in believing.

There are issues of where you are on this scale and also the direction you are going in.

In my current church in respects to its beliefs/doctrines I range from I submit to I wholeheartedly support. If I had to be at a level above submit in order to join any Christian Church, I would be churchless.

My answer to you that others disagreed with, I think I left out one key point that helps to explain my answers and why, in my opinion, my answer stands as correct.

I believe the Catholic Church is right.

That is my starting point. (Actually, my starting point was in a Bible alone Church, I believe in the promises of the Bible. Pillar and foundation of truth. Lead you to all truth. etc.)

I start there. The Church is right, I acknowledge the church is right, I have doubts (difficulties?) but I am working to conform my conscience to the dictates of the Church because I know Christ loved me enough to not leave me adrift.

I have the answer, the Catholic Church teaches all truth. I know the answer is right. I just don’t understand WHY it is right on a particular issue.

I call that doubts. I call trying to answer the doubts my faith walk.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[valient_Lucy]

mozart-250:

• She ascended bodily into heaven

Actually, Mary was assumed to Heaven. Christ ascended to Heaven. The difference is that Christ ascended to Heaven, but God took Mary up to Heaven. She didn’t do it by her own power. She couldn’t.

 

[valient_Lucy]

mozart-250:

The Catholic might argue that their beliefs concerning Mary does not necessarily detract from Jesus, and I would be inclined to accept it. However, I would argue that the opposite is also true.
If my Christian focus is on Jesus, how does that detract from Mary.

It doesn’t.

mozart-250:

I guess I mean to say I have a hard time seeing Jesus and Mary as competing persona in the kingdom of heaven. I also have a hard time envisioning Mary as getting an attitude towards us whose focus is more on her beloved son.

You’re much closer to the Catholic position than you realize. Mary doesn’t get angry when we focus on Christ. She wants us to love and serve Him with abandon. However, we believe that Mary wants to help us in our walk with God.
God gives us the Body of Christ, other believers, to help us to love and serve God. Talking to other Christians, asking them for advice and prayers, do not distract us in our walk with God. Rather, they enhance it.
In the same way, Catholics believe that asking Mary to pray for us, and honoring her as God’s greatest creation, does not at all detract from our relationship with God. Rather, Mary wants to help us in our walk with God.
In short, the more we love, and depend on, Christ, the more we love, and depend on, other Christians, including Mary.
And the more we love, and depend on, other Christians, including Mary, the more we love and depend on Christ.
You’re absolutly right. It’s not an either-or proposition.

 

[dulcissima]

When I was a Protestant, I don’t think I had a problem with the idea that Mary was sinless, although, I didn’t necessarily believe that she was.

When I became Catholic, I took it on faith that she was.

I have been reading St John of the Cross lately, and he writes about how as the soul grows closer to God, it suffers greatly, because any sins and impurity in the soul must be purged, through fire, in order to find union with God.

While praying the rosary, and meditating on the transfiguration, I thought about how the apostles were face down and trembling when they had a close encounter with God. They were not worthy. They felt the pains of their sins.

Think about how close and intimate an encounter with God that Mary must have had. If she had even so much as one blemish of sin upon her soul, she would not have been able to get that close to God as to conceive His Son.

Adam and Eve were born without the stain of original sin. In the garden, they had a close and open relationship with God. However, once they tasted the forbidden fruit, they hid themselves from God.

Mary must have been free from the stain of this sin, if she was able have such an intimate union with God that she became the mother of His Son.