Could Mary have sinned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sugar_Ray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sugar_Ray

Guest
In reading the text for this week’s lesson for my Religous Ed class I noticed this “Mary had no inclination to sin”

Does that mean she could never have sinned (if so what about her free will?) or just that she did not have the same level of vulnerability to sin as we have?

If Mary could have sinned how was her state of grace different than the souls in heaven for whom sin is not possible? And what about their free will?

Thank you all in advance. You are tremendous help to me and the kids I’m doing my best to teach.
 
Sugar_Ray said:
In reading the text for this week’s lesson for my Religous Ed class I noticed this “Mary had no inclination to sin”

Does that mean she could never have sinned (if so what about her free will?) or just that she did not have the same level of vulnerability to sin as we have?

If Mary could have sinned how was her state of grace different than the souls in heaven for whom sin is not possible? And what about their free will?

Thank you all in advance. You are tremendous help to me and the kids I’m doing my best to teach.
Click to expand...
“inclination to sin” is one of the effects of original sin. Without original sin would imply that its effects would also not be present. This being said, Original sin and its effects having nothing to do with free will. Her ability response affirmatively or negatively to God’s call remained. Fortunately for us, she said yes.
 
Look at it this way. Adam and Eve were created without Original Sin and yet they still found it in them to disobey God.

Mary could have done the same thing.
 
Sugar_Ray said:
In reading the text for this week’s lesson for my Religous Ed class I noticed this “Mary had no inclination to sin”

Does that mean she could never have sinned (if so what about her free will?) or just that she did not have the same level of vulnerability to sin as we have?

If Mary could have sinned how was her state of grace different than the souls in heaven for whom sin is not possible? And what about their free will?

Thank you all in advance. You are tremendous help to me and the kids I’m doing my best to teach.
Click to expand...
We can speculate about many things. For example, why is such and such the way it is. This might lead us to understanding of something or some condition that is part of reality. Mary had no sin from her immaculate conception, because God protected her from sin. This is what we know. Wondering about couldawoulda here is of no value. It is like wondering whether God would have become incarnate if Adam and Eve never sinned and all was always perfect, or the only reason for the Incarnation was our redemption. It does not matter. Don’t burn brain cells over it. What matters is what is. Think instead about a sinless human creature, the woman, mother of God, unable to repent, God’s most perfect created being, Queen of Heaven, virgin and mother, mediatrix of all grace, the source of our salvation, house of God, tabernacle of the Most High.
 
Romans 3:23 *** For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;***
 
Old_Scholar said:
Romans 3:23 *** For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;***
Click to expand...
Did Jesus sin? Do the mentally handicapped sin?

Or does all mean all?

BTW, have you read Psalm 14, for that is what Paul is quoting. What is the context of Psalm 14?
 
Sugar_Ray said:
In reading the text for this week’s lesson for my Religous Ed class I noticed this “Mary had no inclination to sin”

Does that mean she could never have sinned (if so what about her free will?) or just that she did not have the same level of vulnerability to sin as we have?

If Mary could have sinned how was her state of grace different than the souls in heaven for whom sin is not possible? And what about their free will?

Thank you all in advance. You are tremendous help to me and the kids I’m doing my best to teach.
Click to expand...

Another question: was she tempted ? Jesus was, & so are we: so how she can have spared that I cannot see at all.​

ISTM that any notion of her sinlessness that does not allow her to be tempted, is a non-starter. A BVM who is spared what God Incarnate was not above sharing in, is so remote from human experience as to be inhuman 😦 She was not an angel - she was a human being.

I believe she could have sinned - if she was genuinely a human being, & not an incarnate angel, it’s not clear how else one can answer. How can a creature who cannot sin, need a Saviour ? Yet she had one - just like us. So there must have been something from which she needed to be saved.

This may be difficult dogmatically, but dogma can’t ignore the Biblical data, for these provide the only certain details about her life that are to be had. And to do them justice, we need to think them through in the intellectual categories which gave rise to them - IOW, we have to think Hebraically; not in the categories more familiar to dogmatic theology. The articulation of doctrine comes after that, not instead of it. If the doctrines about her are to be truly Biblical, & not merely to co-incide with its teaching here & there, this can hardly be avoided. Otherwise, the Bible - the NT especially - becomes no more than a peg to hang our own clever thoughts on.

A complete account of the Church’s authentic teaching about her cannot rely on one type of theology alone: dogmatics by itself is not enough.

Just my 2d. 🙂
 
Yes, Mary COULD have sinned, in the sense that she had the option to. She was made in the same grace filled state as Eve, and she took the option to sin.

As to Mary’s sinless leading her to not need a Savior like us - its important to note that God was the one who gave her the sinless state.

God Bless

Murph
 
Read the law that pertained to Mary:

Leviticus 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 6) And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7) Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8) And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Luke tells us she gave a sin offering:

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Mary brought two turtledoves, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

Mary was certainly a special person and should be called blessed but to think that she could have gone through life without sin would not be likely. There is no Scriptural basis at all for this.
 
I copied this from a different thread:

According to St. Luke, Mary is “full of grace” and “highly favored.” Lk 1:37. “For with God nothing is impossible.” Mary is the “woman” of Gen. 3:15 whose enmity with Satan and sin is absolute. She is the “ark of the covenant” (Ex. 25:11-21) made not of the purest gold but of the purest flesh to hold the living Word of God.

Catholics rightly understand that In Romans 3:23 St. Paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles alike. There are exceptions that fall outside of Paul’s condemnation, like Jesus, babies, Adam and Eve before the fall, and Mary, the mother of God.

Catholics believe that Mary was saved by the merits of Jesus Christ, just as we all are. However, she was simply saved in a different way. We are freed from original sin at our baptism. Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception by a singular act of God - not for the exhaltation of Mary, but because it pleased God to do so - so that His Son would be born of the purest flesh. Mary did not earn her own salvation. She obtained it through Christ, but in a unique way. And because she was free from the corruption of original sin, she was simply never inclined commit sin, as evidenced by Scriptural references to her obedience to God’s will at the crucifiction of her Son at Calvary - where Jesus Christ made her the mother of all in His Church.
 
Another thought came to mind about rituals and purposes of sacraments:

Jesus was baptized
Baptisms are typically for the death of the old man and the putting on of the new man, as Paul describes in in Galatians, which is Christ

Why was Jesus baptized then?
Looking right after the baptism, Jesus began his work on this earth.

Maybe baptism in Jesus’ case was not for the forgiveness of sins but for the beginning of his holy work

In the same sense, could it be possible that Mary’s brining of Jesus to the temple with two doves was not for her own sin but to present Jesus to Simeon, since that fulfilled the prophecy that Simeon would see the Messiah?

Just a thought on second meanings…

God Bless,

Murph
 
murphdog261 said:
I copied this from a different thread:

According to St. Luke, Mary is “full of grace” and “highly favored.” Lk 1:37. “For with God nothing is impossible.” Mary is the “woman” of Gen. 3:15 whose enmity with Satan and sin is absolute. She is the “ark of the covenant” (Ex. 25:11-21) made not of the purest gold but of the purest flesh to hold the living Word of God.

Catholics rightly understand that In Romans 3:23 St. Paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles alike. There are exceptions that fall outside of Paul’s condemnation, like Jesus, babies, Adam and Eve before the fall, and Mary, the mother of God.

Catholics believe that Mary was saved by the merits of Jesus Christ, just as we all are. However, she was simply saved in a different way. We are freed from original sin at our baptism. Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception by a singular act of God - not for the exhaltation of Mary, but because it pleased God to do so - so that His Son would be born of the purest flesh. Mary did not earn her own salvation. She obtained it through Christ, but in a unique way. And because she was free from the corruption of original sin, she was simply never inclined commit sin, as evidenced by Scriptural references to her obedience to God’s will at the crucifiction of her Son at Calvary - where Jesus Christ made her the mother of all in His Church.
Click to expand...
The woman in Gen 3:15 could also be the nation of Israel just as it could be in Revelations.
Various people have sinned throughout the bible and still were full of grace such as David and Moses.

I understand the teaching relating to her salvation at conception, but there’s no scripture to substantiate this. It’s merely theory. What was the point of the sin offering then in Luke 2:24.

Jesus could not sin for He’s God. Just like I explain to people that Jesus could not be tempted by satan. Satan could tempt Jesus, but Jesus could not be tempted for He knows nothing but good.
 
Old_Scholar said:
Read the law that pertained to Mary:

Leviticus 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 6) And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7) Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8) And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Luke tells us she gave a sin offering:

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Mary brought two turtledoves, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

Mary was certainly a special person and should be called blessed but to think that she could have gone through life without sin would not be likely. There is no Scriptural basis at all for this.
Click to expand...
What does the sin offering have to do with Mary. It just shows she was a loyal Jewess. As you showed, after giving birth, she’s declared unclean (which doesn’t mean she sinned, does it?).
 
This is copied from this site: cin.org/mateo/presentation-offering.html

In Luke 2:24, Mary makes the sin-offering commanded in Leviticus 12:6-8. (The context is verses 1-8.) She did this, not because she was guilty of moral failing in having conceived and borne a child, but because she and Joseph were faithful observers of the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:23,24,39). They did what the Law commanded.

Temple sin-offerings never implied moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. This is very evident, not only from Leviticus 12:1-8, but even more from Leviticus 15, where involuntary emissions, menstruation, hemorrhaging, and sexual intercourse produce ritual uncleanness, some of which requires the making of sin-offerings.

Leviticus clearly distinguishes sin-offerings (which did not imply moral guilt) from guilt offerings (which did imply actual sinfulness). The former are discussed in 6:17-23, the latter in 7:1-6. The distinction is reaffirmed in 7:7 and in Ezekiel 40:39.

In Ezekiel 43:18-27, directions are given for purifying the altar and making atonement for it. Verses 19, 21, 22 and 25 call for sin-offerings on behalf of the altar. Of course, an altar can be ritually unclean, but it cannot be guilty of moral guilt. Yet “sin” offering was made for it!

An example of guilt-offering being made to atone for actual moral failures is found in Ezra 10:10,19. The people’s sin was in taking foreign wives in violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:3). For this, they were truly guilty.

I hope this helps.

Murph
 
We have proof that there was a sin offering made based on Luke 2. What proof is there that Mary was without sin? Do not present a theological reason, but scriptual proof. Anyone can devise a theory to substantiate a position.
 
shawn34_a said:
We have proof that there was a sin offering made based on Luke 2. What proof is there that Mary was without sin? Do not present a theological reason, but scriptual proof. Anyone can devise a theory to substantiate a position.
Click to expand...
The Blessed Virgin Mary observed this Law not because She believed Herself to be defiled by giving birth to Christ, but to give an example of humility and obedience by fulfilling all outward observances. For Our Lady was not subject to this particular law by virtue of what God Himself had laid down in prefacing it: “If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days…” (v. 2 [Douai]). The conception and birth of Christ was not due to the reception of male seed but rather to the power of the Holy Spirit. In no way can it be claimed that in conceiving, bearing and delivering Christ Our Lady was made “unclean.” In fact, the opposite would have occurred, that is, She would have received an augmentation of grace. Also, by presenting Herself and Her Son in the Temple Our Lady was avoiding any future excuse of His enemies to calumniate Christ after the beginning of His public mission.
 
Jesus was perfect yet consented to Baptism–that is no different than Mary offering a sin offering.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Jesus was perfect yet consented to Baptism–that is no different than Mary offering a sin offering.
Click to expand...
The offering was also for the infant as well since the infant from his birth would also be covered in blood which would make him unclean.
 
It is really easy to “make up” about anything you want to about Jesus and those times. But unless you have Scriptural authority as back up then there is no reality to what you may claim. Just to speculate is not enough to establish a doctrine on.

Suppose we actually used Scripture and them made an assumption such as:

The woman being stoned. Jesus asked that the one without sin should cast the first stone. Of course no one could. Then was said: John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Now could we take from that Scripture and say that the woman in the story was free from sin for the rest of her life? Could we say she was sinless forever more?

Of course not, because we are told that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

It is the nature of man to sin and none was free from sin except Jesus Christ, our Lord. That should not be questioned as it is a basic fact of Scripture. To try and make up other stories about anyone or say what you hope or wish happened is a little disingenuous.
 
I agree that Jesus was free from sin, too but if you literalistically read the verse that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” then All would include Jesus.

That isn’t true and literalistic exegesis of the scripture isn’t true eithe.

And sola scriptura isn’t true either because Paul commands in scripture to uphold the traditions that he had given them.

And how anyone wants to interpret the scriptures doesn’t mean a hill of breabns either because Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth–he didn’t say that the Holy Spirit would lead all chritians into all truth.

The magisterium of the Catholic Ch8uirch has the authority to interpret scripture because Jesus gave it that authority!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top