Could Mary have sinned?

[shawn34_a]

She didn’t sin period. The Church who was granted authority by Jesus Christ declare her to not to sin. The Early Church Father attest to this. Second, the lack of any knowledge of the Mosaic Law only proves that you don’t know much what the sin offering is in to context of the Jewish culture. Jesus himself was not subject to sin, but the offering given to Mary was also for Jesus Christ himself. One can imply that the sin offering was for him as well.
.

The more you argue your point, the more you prove my points.

Regarding the the tumah, “by giving birth to a child” a woman entered the state of uncleanliness. “In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, there were special sacrifices (sin and holocaust [according then to Luke 2:24]) and ceremonies for purification.”

“She didn’t sin period.” You still have not proven that except to say, “the church fathers declared her to not to sin.” Sorry to say that’s not Jesus! Just because someone may be absolved of their sins doesn’t mean that they have not committed a sin, there were only purified and returned to a state of sinlessness. It still doesn’t mean that they hadn’t sin.

No the sin offering could not have been for Jesus, for Jesus is God. Nowhere in Leviticus 12 does it speak of any other person being unclean from this particular state except for the woman. Leviticus 12 (child birth) and 15 (flow of things [both man and woman] other than from child birth) pertain to this.

Try defending your position Biblically without referencing church fathers. The Bible is suppose to be the inspired word of God.

“Because the early church fathers taught it” People taught that the world was flat at one point too. Does that mean that they were correct also?

 

[Church_Militant]

Show me anyplace in the Word of God that shows Mary sinning.

 

[NotWorthy]

The more you argue your point, the more you prove my points.

Regarding the the tumah, “by giving birth to a child” a woman entered the state of uncleanliness. “In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, there were special sacrifices (sin and holocaust [according then to Luke 2:24]) and ceremonies for purification.”

But it doesn’t say she was declared unclean through her sin, but through childbirth.

You continue to use this point to prove nothing.

Compare this with leprosy, another illness that caused uncleanliness. Was someone’s leprosy a result of their sin?

No.

“She didn’t sin period.” You still have not proven that except to say, “the church fathers declared her to not to sin.” Sorry to say that’s not Jesus! Just because someone may be absolved of their sins doesn’t mean that they have not committed a sin, there were only purified and returned to a state of sinlessness. It still doesn’t mean that they hadn’t sin.

But it does show that those closer to the Apostles, and who would be much more familiar with the teachings of the Apostles believed.

Your position more than likely is the tradition of men.

No the sin offering could not have been for Jesus, for Jesus is God. Nowhere in Leviticus 12 does it speak of any other person being unclean from this particular state except for the woman. Leviticus 12 (child birth) and 15 (flow of things [both man and woman] other than from child birth) pertain to this.

Try defending your position Biblically without referencing church fathers. The Bible is suppose to be the inspired word of God.

“Because the early church fathers taught it” People taught that the world was flat at one point too. Does that mean that they were correct also?

Show me where Leviticus teaches that conception is sinful, and then show me where being conceived by the Holy Spirit is sinful, then you may have a point. Other than that…

 

[shawn34_a]

There are several direct parallels between between the Old Testament accounts of the Ark and the account of Mary in the Gospel of Luke:

In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one of the titles by which Mary is addressed is “Ark of the Covenant”.

These passages are not coincidence, shawn. This passages only support the Mary is the type of Ark that carried the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. We know Jesus establish a covenant by his blood. He often called it, “the Blood of the New Covenant.”

The other indiction of Mary sinlessness is that she is full of grace as stated in Luke 1:28. The RSV Bible, the DR Bible, Latin Vulgate also affirms this. The Greek word, kecharitomene when interpreted in the strict sense means the following, “thou who hast been graced.” Most Protestants would prefer to render the original Greek kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than “full of grace.”

For this conclusion there exists the authority of the Latin Fathers; the Codices of Alexandrinus and Ephrem; the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Bible; and even the writings of Protestants such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Beza.19

The Church, furthermore, asserts that God, immediately after Adam’s fall, cursed Satan and said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head” (Gen. 3, 15). It was by the Virgin Mary’s seed, that is, Jesus Christ, that the kingdom of Satan was demolished. It was not fitting that She, who was to co-operate in the defeat of Satan, should ever be infected by his breath or a slave to his kingdom of sin. The enmity between the Virgin Mary and the serpent placed by God was Her triumph over sin, Her Immaculate Conception.
((Continue))

1. Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Virgin” at the time of the birth of Christ, yes. “Ever Virgin,” scripture points other wise, but that’s in another thread.
2. Yes, many similarities between the old and new testament. Eve fell in the OT, does that mean that Mary fell? (Rhetorical)
3. Stephen, in Acts, was “full of grace,” was he sinless?
4. I have a (1540?) Tyndale and (1388) Wycliffe Bible actually which I believe say “full of grace.”
5. Genesis 3:15 & 3:16. I’m going to the New Advent for this.
   3:15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
   3:16. To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Are we to speculate that the woman mentioned in Gen 3:15 and 3:16 are two different women? If the woman is to bring forth children (more than 1), it could not be Mary for Mary had but 1 child, or did she. Or is Genesis 3:15 referencing Israel as the Woman. Several mentions as Israel as the woman throughout the Bible. What fits better without contradictions?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The more you argue your point, the more you prove my points.

Regarding the the tumah, “by giving birth to a child” a woman entered the state of uncleanliness. “In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, there were special sacrifices (sin and holocaust [according then to Luke 2:24]) and ceremonies for purification.”

“She didn’t sin period.” You still have not proven that except to say, “the church fathers declared her to not to sin.” Sorry to say that’s not Jesus! Just because someone may be absolved of their sins doesn’t mean that they have not committed a sin, there were only purified and returned to a state of sinlessness. It still doesn’t mean that they hadn’t sin.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit declares this to be so. Jesus speaks through his Church, and He has not abandon his Church. I believe what the Church teaches because Jesus gave his Church authority. I don’t think you were granted authority by Jesus Christ himself. God the Father send his son to the World with Authority, and this authority was given to his Apostles, and the Apostles in turn granted this authority to their successors the bishops and Popes of today.

I do not consider you worth of any authority concerning faith matters especially dealing with the Mother of God.

No the sin offering could not have been for Jesus, for Jesus is God. Nowhere in Leviticus 12 does it speak of any other person being unclean from this particular state except for the woman. Leviticus 12 (child birth) and 15 (flow of things [both man and woman] other than from child birth) pertain to this.

Discharge of bodily fluid makes one unclean. Ask a Rabbi about purification rites. I will tell you the purification is meant not just for the mother but the child as well.

Try defending your position Biblically without referencing church fathers. The Bible is suppose to be the inspired word of God.

“Because the early church fathers taught it” People taught that the world was flat at one point too. Does that mean that they were correct also?

The Word of God is Word incarnate. The Word of God is not only the Bible my friend. I do not adhere to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, a doctrine founded on Martin Luther. The Word of God is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the only authority who interpret the authentic Word of God is the Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. A Church who is the Bride of Christ.

Even more so, the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ, whom Jesus is the Head. I do not believe the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth rest solely on Bible Alone. The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church.

Scripture does say that if there is one brother sins against you, that you have to refer to Scripture. In fact, Jesus instruct his Apostles, that is a brother sins against you, you take him to two or three witnesses. If he listens he will gain his brother. If he doesn’t listen to you, or your brother. Have him take it to the Church, if he does not listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a Gentile. Likewise, since the Church declare Mary as sinless, she is. The Church has spoken and this matter is settled.

Second, the purification rites pertains to both mother and child. The purification rites concerning of being unclean. Not sin par say. It is a sin offering but as you can see in the Hebrew context it is a purification rite.

The Bible is not explicit that Mary actually committed sin. The Mosaic Law in Leviticus are purification rituals, which are no longer bound to us Christians. Sin by Christian standard is the breaking of any of the Ten Commandments. Mary did not sin period.

I find it odd that a Catholic, like yourself adhere to Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone. Your profile states that you are Catholic. It is very strange indeed that someone who claim to be Catholic professes a heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Virgin” at the time of the birth of Christ, yes. “Ever Virgin,” scripture points other wise, but that’s in another thread.
2. Yes, many similarities between the old and new testament. Eve fell in the OT, does that mean that Mary fell? (Rhetorical)
3. Stephen, in Acts, was “full of grace,” was he sinless?

First of all, Acts 6:8 does not describe St. Stephen as “full of grace” (past-perfect tense). Rather, Stephen is described as “.filled with grace and power was working great wonders and signs among the people.” In other words, it is a simple present tense. More on this in a moment. Secondly, the Greek of Acts 6:8 is dramatically different from the Greek of Luke 1:28, which describes Mary as “full of grace.” In Luke 1:28, Mary is called “Kecharitomenae” --past-perfect tense, and literally translated as “perfectly graced.” In Acts 6:8, Stephen is described as “pleres charitos” --present tense, and literally translated as “filled with grace.” Thirdly, and directly connected to this, is the fact that Luke 1:28’s expression “full of grace” (“gratia plena” in Latin) is a Latinism created by St. Jerome via his Vulgate translation. The Greek itself of Luke 1:28 makes no literal reference to being “full” of anything. Rather, as I said, the Greek term (“Kecharitomenae”) literally means “perfectly graced” or “completed in grace,” and so, from the point of view of the original Greek, there is simply no comparison between Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:3 at all. Fourthly, and as I mentioned above, Luke 1:28’s “Kecharitomenae” is in the past-perfect tense. In this, it is a term exclusive to Luke 1:28, and so exclusive to Mary. No one else in the Bible is described in this way in regard to grace. And this becomes especially striking when we compares it to verses like Ephesians 1:6 and Ephesians 2:8, where Scripture speaks of Baptized Christians as being “graced” (“a charie toson” --past tense), but never “perfectly graced” or “completed in grace” (“kecharitomenae” --past perfect tense). And lastly, the most strinking difference between Acts 6:3 and Luke 1:28 is that, in Luke 1:28, Mary is being called “Kecharitomenae” (that is “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced”) as a proper name! It is amazing how people always overlook that. Unlike Stephen in Acts 6:8, who is merely being described as “filled with grace and power” (and merely at a given moment), Mary is being called - and not only called - but hailed by an angel as “Full of grace” / “Perfectly graced.” And we all know the importance of names in Scripture, right? So, “Kecharitomenae” describes Mary’s very nature because it is presented as her name: “Chaire, Kecharitomenae” —literally: “Hail, Full of grace.” And this is the very same term (“chaire” --“hail”) that the soldiers use to mock Jesus in John 19:3 (“Hail, King of the Jews”). In other words, a term reserved for royalty. And so, here, an angel --a supposedly superior being --is addressing this Galilean maiden with the words, “Hail, Full of grace.” Very powerful stuff; and St. Alfonso Liguori was right to boast about it (albeit, as he does, in a very “flowery” and poetic way).

1. I have a (1540?) Tyndale and (1388) Wycliffe Bible actually which I believe say “full of grace.”

1. Genesis 3:15 & 3:16. I’m going to the New Advent for this.
   3:15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
   3:16. To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Are we to speculate that the woman mentioned in Gen 3:15 and 3:16 are two different women? If the woman is to bring forth children (more than 1), it could not be Mary for Mary had but 1 child, or did she. Or is Genesis 3:15 referencing Israel as the Woman. Several mentions as Israel as the woman throughout the Bible. What fits better without contradictions?

Genesis 3:15 is consider by theologian as Proto-Evangelium, or first Gospel because this Gospel speaks of the seed coming from Eve that will eventually crush the serpent, Satan. The seed is Jesus. The woman who gave birth to the seed is Mary.

Mary had one child and no other. Genesis 3:16 pertains to Eve alone while Genesis 3:15 pertains to both Eve, and the Mother of Promised Messiah. Through our baptism we have been made brother and sisters in Christ. We are adapted sons and daughters of God. Jesus is our spiritual brother, and Mary is our spiritual Mother.

 

[NotWorthy]

1. Yes, many similarities between the old and new testament. Eve fell in the OT, does that mean that Mary fell? (Rhetorical)

To understand Typology is to understand the fallacy of this rhetorical question.

1. Stephen, in Acts, was “full of grace,” was he sinless?

Two different words, with two different tenses, does not make a good analogy.

1. I have a (1540?) Tyndale and (1388) Wycliffe Bible actually which I believe say “full of grace.”

And that proves? What does the Greek say of the two words?

1. Genesis 3:15 & 3:16. I’m going to the New Advent for this.
   3:15. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
   3:16. To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Are we to speculate that the woman mentioned in Gen 3:15 and 3:16 are two different women? If the woman is to bring forth children (more than 1), it could not be Mary for Mary had but 1 child, or did she. Or is Genesis 3:15 referencing Israel as the Woman. Several mentions as Israel as the woman throughout the Bible. What fits better without contradictions?

I know!!! Bring up Jesus’ brothers? Who are they? And please don’t say James and Joses, etc… that’s been disproven countless times.

Of course, another answer could easily be the woman in Revelation. Remember the dragon went off to do battle with her children… and who are those children? The ones that follow Christ (paraphrasing)

 

[shawn34_a]

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit declares this to be so.

I do not consider you worth of any authority concerning faith matters especially dealing with the Mother of God.

Discharge of bodily fluid makes one unclean. Ask a Rabbi about purification rites. I will tell you the purification is meant not just for the mother but the child as well.

The Word of God is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the only authority who interpret the authentic Word of God is the Church. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. A Church who is the Bride of Christ.

The Bible is not explicit that Mary actually committed sin. The Mosaic Law in Leviticus are purification rituals, which are no longer bound to us Christians. Sin by Christian standard is the breaking of any of the Ten Commandments. Mary did not sin period.

I find it odd that a Catholic, like yourself adhere to Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone. Your profile states that you are Catholic. It is very strange indeed that someone who claim to be Catholic professes a heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.

1. So why is it not in the canon? If the church fathers were so moved by the Holy Spirit to include it, I’m sure it would have been done.
2. The Bible is the sacred word of God. I do believe in tradition to help put things in perspective as related to the times.
3. Mikvah: Its main uses nowadays are by Jewish women to achieve ritual purity after menstruation or childbirth, by Jewish men to achieve ritual purity, as part of a traditional procedure for conversion to Judaism, and for utensils used for food.

Didn’t see children in that list. Hummmmm Sorry

The Bible is not explicit that Mary actually committed sin. Amen! You admit it. But we do know definitely that a sacrifice was made pertaining to her impurity following the birth of Christ in the form of the two turtle doves or two pigeons, one (pigeor or turtle dove) representing a sin offering and the other (pigeon or turtle dove) a holocaust offering (Lev 12). To deny this is to deny the very word of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. So why is it not in the canon? If the church fathers were so moved by the Holy Spirit to include it, I’m sure it would have been done.
2. The Bible is the sacred word of God. I do believe in tradition to help put things in perspective as related to the times.

The Church have never affirmed the sinlessness of Mary in Council in the early centuries. They have believe that Mary remain sinless. The Church in 1856 (I’m not sure the exact date) declare that Mary was Immaculate Conceived based on the Traditions of the Church.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the Word of God. They are not separated.

1. Mikvah: Its main uses nowadays are by Jewish women to achieve ritual purity after menstruation or childbirth, by Jewish men to achieve ritual purity, as part of a traditional procedure for conversion to Judaism, and for utensils used for food.

It is still used today by Jews but not to us Christians. We are not bound by Mosaic Law. We are bound by the moral law established by Jesus Christ’s Church.

Didn’t see children in that list. Hummmmm Sorry

What list are you refering to?

The Bible is not explicit that Mary actually committed sin. Amen! You admit it. But we do know definitely that a sacrifice was made pertaining to her impurity following the birth of Christ in the form of the two turtle doves or two pigeons, one (pigeor or turtle dove) representing a sin offering and the other (pigeon or turtle dove) a holocaust offering (Lev 12). To deny this is to deny the very word of God.

It is impurity but this sin offering for her purification because she was to consecrate her first born son to the Lord in accordance with Leviticus 12. This sin offering was an act of obedience to Mosaic Law, not the act of sin ie, adultery, etc. I am not denying the Word of God. Jesus himself did not need to be baptized by John, but see fit that this would be fitting to the Father. Obedience to the Law of Moses is very clear here. Neither Jesus nor Mary were bound by the Purification rites. They were bound to obey them. As a Jewish woman, Mary is required to adhere to the sin offering. She is without sin period.

 

[shawn34_a]

To understand Typology is to understand the fallacy of this rhetorical question.

Two different words, with two different tenses, does not make a good analogy.

And that proves? What does the Greek say of the two words?

I know!!! Bring up Jesus’ brothers? Who are they? And please don’t say James and Joses, etc… that’s been disproven countless times.

Of course, another answer could easily be the woman in Revelation. Remember the dragon went off to do battle with her children… and who are those children? The ones that follow Christ (paraphrasing)

1. What does this prove? I was agreeing with you in what the Bibles say based on having check the scriptures.
2. No, we have not disproven whether or not Jesus has brothers. You just want to believe that he did not have brothers to validate the “ever virgin” position. (different thread)
3. Is the woman in 3:15 and 3:16 Israel or Mary? 3:16 specifically states “children,” not child. (3:16 in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children) So which is it? We could probably agree that it’s the same woman in Revelation. We’ll move on from there. You can’t just look at some of the text, you have to look at it all.

 

[shawn34_a]

Mary had one child and no other. Genesis 3:16 pertains to Eve alone while Genesis 3:15 pertains to both Eve, and the Mother of Promised Messiah. Through our baptism we have been made brother and sisters in Christ. We are adapted sons and daughters of God. Jesus is our spiritual brother, and Mary is our spiritual Mother.

Yes, through baptism we are made brother and sisters in Christ for the head (Christ) has one body.

Lets try to get on the same page here. What Bible(s) interpretation are you using for your Greek interpretation?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, through baptism we are made brother and sisters in Christ for the head (Christ) has one body.

Lets try to get on the same page here. What Bible(s) interpretation are you using for your Greek interpretation?

I use the St. Ignatius Catholic Bible RSV-2nd Edition. Most of the words I wrote here is paraphrasing.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3092640]The Church has not officially affirm that Mary died. It is in our Eastern Tradition that Mary did die before her assumption into heaven. The wages of sin is death. Though, Jesus himself died. Does that make him a sinner? No.

Why hasn’t the church offically affirmed this? i thought the “traditions” said they did.
Secondly, Jesus died because he allowed it. If He had not done so we have no reason to think He would have died since He never commited a sin.

Mary wanted to die like her son, but not in the same manner as her son. According to some of our traditions, Mary desire that she die so she can be with her son, Jesus Christ. She willing accept her faith, and she did die. Jesus, did not see fit that his mother should be subject to decay. So Jesus raised his mother from the dead and took her body and soul into heaven by assuming her up into the heavens.

You do realize that this is speculation?

 

[shawn34_a]

I use the St. Ignatius Catholic Bible RSV-2nd Edition. Most of the words I wrote here is paraphrasing.

St. Ignatius Layola (1st superior general of the Jesuits) I presume this revision is after? I have a Jerusalem for my Catholic edition.

 

[Mannyfit75]

St. Ignatius Layola (1st superior general of the Jesuits) I presume this revision is after? I have a Jerusalem for my Catholic edition.

Nope, not that. It is called the St. Ignatius Catholic Revised Standard Catholic 2nd Edition. I do not have St. Ignatius of Layola. This Bible was the works of both Catholic Biblical Scholars and Protestant Biblical Scholars.

Here is a link on some background of the Revised Standard Vision Catholic Bible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

 

[NotWorthy]

1. What does this prove? I was agreeing with you in what the Bibles say based on having check the scriptures.

It proves nothing, but neither can it be done to dis-prove. You’re rhetorical statement was Eve fell, so did Mary? I was simply pointing out that in Typology, the NT reveals the fulfillment of those types. So, since Eve fell, does not in any way imply that Mary sinned, just as Adam’s fall does not predict any failure by Jesus.

1. No, we have not disproven whether or not Jesus has brothers. You just want to believe that he did not have brothers to validate the “ever virgin” position. (different thread)

You can start that thread, but please have better proof than James and Joses, etc. That’s been dis-proven by showing that they are the progeny of other Mary’s.

1. Is the woman in 3:15 and 3:16 Israel or Mary? 3:16 specifically states “children,” not child. (3:16 in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children) So which is it? We could probably agree that it’s the same woman in Revelation. We’ll move on from there. You can’t just look at some of the text, you have to look at it all.

Shawn? The woman in Revelation is Mary and Israel. No problem there. Just as the child in Isaiah 7:14 is both the son born in the Isaiah, as well as Jesus. Multiple fulfillments, Shawn.

 

[Good_Fella]

Read the law that pertained to Mary:

Leviticus 12:5

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us: "As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to his Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in humility; for ‘God giveth grace to the humble,’ so it is written in James 4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, not subject to the Law (but born under the law: Gal 4,4), wished nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the Law, in order to give an example of humilty and obedience; and in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His Mother also to fulfill the prescriptions of the Law, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject.

"Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfill the observance of purification, not because she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law (“the days of [Mary’s] purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses”: Luke 2,22). Thus the Evangelist says pointedly that her purification ‘according to the law’ were accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself.

"Moses seems to have chosen his words (Aquinas is answering an objection which refers to Leviticus 12, 2-4.) in order to exclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child ‘without receiving seed’. It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfill that precept (Jesus having cleansed her), but fulfilled the observance of purification on her own accord, as stated above.

“The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they foreshadowed this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal (physical as opposed to spiritual) purification, from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity…But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified.” [Summa Theologica lll, 37, 4]

The rite of Purification of the Old Dispensation did not serve to address an imputation of sin on the soul. Mary’s Immaculate Conception and perpetual sinlessness have no connection with this Mosaic practice. The old rites cleansed people of physical impurities to allow them to participate in divine worship:

“The blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their ‘flesh’ is cleansed.” (Hebrews 9,13)

The Church has traditionally held and implicitly defined in dogma that Mary gave birth to Jesus without any violation of her physical virginity, so there was no need for Mary to undergo the rite of Purification after giving birth to Jesus. Our Lord did not defile her flesh, having been born in a miraculous manner. But in humble obedience to the will of God, prescribed by Mosaic Law, and not unlike her divine Son who willingly submitted to the sacrament of Baptism in the Jordan river to please his heavenly Father, Mary underwent the rite of Purification.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

Why was Jesus baptized if he had no sin?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s true! Catholics do read more into things hence the reason for all the theology not backed by scripture.

I guess what I’m curious to know is why you accept the Scriptural record to begin with?

 

[Tomster]

Your speculating. There’s no proof of her incapability to sin. Only one person was incapable of sin, Jesus and He is God.

Enoch was said to have walked in the presense of God all his life. Was he sinless? The point could be argued more effectively that he was sinless.

The first Christians certainly had an impression, if not clear picture, of Mary’s complete interior purity.

First of all, they saw no fault in any part of the life of the Blessed Virgin. With the exception of St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist, all the others whom the Gospel reveals to us a having lived in intimacy with Jesus, show some failing at one or the other moment of their existence. In the Mother of Jesus, there was not even the slightest imperfection. When even the most deserving forget themselves for an instant, she alone remains unshakably faithful. Zachary the just doubted the word of the angel and was punished for it; Mary believed and was rewarded for her faith by the fulfillment of the divine promises. The Apostles fled at the arrest of Jesus, and their leader denied his Master; but Mary remained standing at the foot of the cross. It is true that John was also there, but even the beloved disciple himself fled temporarily. And Jesus had formerly been obliged to say to say to him as to his brother, “You do not know of what manner of spirit you are.” (Luke 9:55)

Moreover, the first believers knew that, on account of her Son, the purity of Mary’s body had been consecrated by a perfectly unique miracle. And the miraculous purity of her body was in their eyes only a means and a sign of athe greater and, if it need be, still more miraculous purity of her soul.

continued