Could Mary have sinned?

[Conservative]

December 8th - perfect timing ! The priest’s sermon today emphasized that the “Immaculate Conception” meant that Our Lady was born without original sin. (Apparently, some misconstrue the meaning to its being conceiving Our Lord immaculately - but this is a different issue and not the meaning behind the above title.)

I’m no “Apologetic” but based on how I understood the priest’s words today, I’d say that Our Lady was special beyond our imagination for a human being. She was to be the vessel that would, in a few years, carry the Son of God…Nothing but perfect would be suitable.

Did she commit even a venial sin? I’m going to say I’d doubt it highly, for, if so, then why would God have permitted such a miracle at Our Lady’s own conception?

Queen Conceived Without Original Sin, Pray for Us !
Conservative

 

[NotWorthy]

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, you have proof in Luke 2 that Mary was a loyal Jewess.

Please don’t read more into that than what it is.

Besides, that us Catholic’s jobs!!!

But to your proof, tell us what you think of the word Kecharitomone.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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.

All certainly would not include Jesus—Jesus was God. He was the only perfect man. All others have sinned. The Scriptures are the Word of God and have to be true. To believe otherwise would mean a non-Chrstian viewpoint.

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.

If you want to say Scripture is not correct, then you destroy traditiion because you are saying Scripture gives you tradition. You can’t have it both ways.

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.

You need to read the Scriptures a little more…

The magisterium of the Catholic Ch8uirch has the authority to interpret scripture because Jesus gave it that authority!

**From where does it get that authority? You say Scripture is not true…

Would you be so kind as to give us the Scripture that says Jesus gave the authority to the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture???**

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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.

Interesting, it says in Luke 2:23 that the firstborn son was to be ransomed back – that is -->our salvation<-- bought from God temporarily by Joseph for two turtledoves?

Now, there is a reference to circumcision a few verses earlier – the de-serpenting of the fertility cult head which Abraham earned for the men by using a foreign woman as a surrogate mama.

So, I gather someone cut Jesus – and he bled – so, I would think that ritually a sin happened. How many turtledoves were offered total?

Were there enough to pay for the sin and the ransom?

See – I don’t notice in Luke that they say the doves were offered for Mary’s sin. But I do notice that they had to offer some for a ransom – cut and paste scripture if you will – but a proof has steps, pieces, and each must be true for the result to be true.

I think you have an argument, but I would like to understand it better.

 

[NotWorthy]

All certainly would not include Jesus—Jesus was God. He was the only perfect man. All others have sinned. The Scriptures are the Word of God and have to be true.

To believe otherwise would mean a non-Chrstian viewpoint.

Jesus was fully God, but Jesus was fully Man. In your words, **To believe otherwise would mean a non-Chrstian viewpoint.

**Also, what of the mentally handicapped. Are they sinners?

 

[shawn34_a]

shawn34, you have proof in Luke 2 that Mary was a loyal Jewess.

Please don’t read more into that than what it is.

Besides, that us Catholic’s jobs!!!

But to your proof, tell us what you think of the word Kecharitomone.

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

There is nowhere in the Bible that says she was sinless! Nowhere! However we do know that following the birth of Christ, the sacrifices were made. One was the atonement sacrifice based on OT teachings in Leviticus.

We do know that Paul specifically states in Romans 3:23 that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This does not mean that she was not in Gods grace. Moses sinned, but still received God’s grace. We know David did too.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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

We look at the Gospel at the full context. We don’t verse per verse and pick and choose which verse really means.

There is nowhere in the Bible that says she was sinless! Nowhere! However we do know that following the birth of Christ, the sacrifices were made. One was the atonement sacrifice based on OT teachings in Leviticus.

Neither does the Scripture say anything that Mary committed actual sin.

This is what we do see about Mary in the Gospel.

“My soul magnify the greatness of the God, my savior.”

“I am the Handmaid of the Lord. Be it Done unto me according to your word.”

“Do whatever he tells you.”

So no she never sinned period. She was the faithful hand maid of the Lord. Jesus even praised his Mother. “Blessed is she who hears the word of God, and keep it.”

We do know that Paul specifically states in Romans 3:23 that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This does not mean that she was not in Gods grace. Moses sinned, but still received God’s grace. We know David did too.

Have you consider reading the entire context of Roman 3:23. You have read the entire Chapter. All doesn’t necessary means all.

Let me point this out.

Matthew 3:4-6

4 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.
5 At that time Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region around the Jordan were going out to him
6 and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. Does “all Judea” mean that every single person in Judea when John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing went to him to get baptized?

If you were to take all have sinned literally, you can also add Jesus Christ as well since he is also True Man.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

There is nowhere in the Bible that says she was sinless! Nowhere!

OK, Shawn. Focus for me, please. Your statement was,

We have proof that there was a sin offering made based on Luke 2.

You are using this as proof that Mary is a sinner. I simply pointed out that you were reading more into the context of the Gospel passage than is there. ALL that passage shows is that Joseph and Mary were loyal Jews.

We do know that Paul specifically states in Romans 3:23 that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This does not mean that she was not in Gods grace.

Did Jesus sin? Or does Paul specifically state that “All, except for our Lord and Savior, have sinned”.

Do the mentally retarded sin? Or does Paul specifically state that “All, except for our Lord and Savior and the mentally retarded, have sinned.”

 

[shawn34_a]

We look at the Gospel at the full context. We don’t verse per verse and pick and choose which verse really means.

Neither does the Scripture say anything that Mary committed actual sin.

This is what we do see about Mary in the Gospel.

“My soul magnify the greatness of the God, my savior.”

“I am the Handmaid of the Lord. Be it Done unto me according to your word.”

And at the time of our baptism, this could be applicable for all. However nothing goes on to say that she was sinless. .

Back to Romans 3:23. Romans 3 was speaking mainly of the Jews and Greeks for whom the written law was given. But there was another law give and that was written in our hearts. This pertained to salvation for all who believe (the key being “believe” and not just lip service). Romans 3:22 clarifies that.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God,
Hebrews 8:10 (speaking of Israel and those under the New Covenant for we are heirs accroding to the promise (Gal 3:29)) I will put my laws in their minds and I will write them upon their hearts. Romans 11 speaks of the gentiles being grafted into the olive tree of Israel and God’s plan for salvation.
Romans 2:!5
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Fact is there’s no proof that Mary was sinless. As others have sinned and still found favor with God, Mary could also. What we do know is that a sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” was made as a sin offering in accordance with the dictate in the law (Luke 2:24). Why? Leviticus 12:6-8 tells us.

Leviticus 12:6-8
“When the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter are fulfilled, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the meeting tent a yearling lamb for a holocaust and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. The priest shall offer them up before the LORD to make atonement for her, and thus she will be clean again after her flow of blood. Such is the law for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl child. If, however, she cannot afford a lamb, she may take two turtledoves or two pigeons (as in Luke 2:24), the one for a holocaust and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for her, and thus she will again be clean.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Fact is there’s no proof that Mary was sinless. As others have sinned and still found favor with God, Mary could also. What we do know is that a sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” was made as a sin offering in accordance with the dictate in the law (Luke 2:24). Why? Leviticus 12:6-8 tells us.

I have taken some study concerning Mosaic Law and listen to some discussion made by Catholic Apologist Tim Staple concerning Leviticus 12:6-8. Under the Mosaic Law any discharge of fluid would make anyone unclean. That is why Leviticus require a woman who gave birth to her first born child must offer purification offering to the Lord. This was the Law prescribe by the Law of Moses. Her obedience to the Law was a norm that all Jews have to obey.

I also like to note that the purification offering would also implied Jesus as well since he did in fact came out of Mary’s womb and we can assumed that he naturally came out of the birth canal.

I am sure most of us have witness a birth of a child. The infant is covered in blood. This would make the child impure and thus under Mosaic Law would need to be purified. The passage in Leviticus does not prove Mary sinned. This was the prescribe Law required by all Jewish mothers, and they were subject to it. Mary did not sin period. If you truly believe all have sinned, they you can include Jesus as well, or call Jesus impure because he was covered in bodily fluid… and such.

 

[justasking4]

If Mary did not sin then why did she die?
We can see that in Romans 5:12 which says:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

and 6:23—For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Doesn’t the church teach Mary died and was assumed into heaven?

 

[Mannyfit75]

If Mary did not sin then why did she die?
We can see that in Romans 5:12 which says:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

and 6:23—For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Doesn’t the church teach Mary died and was assumed into heaven?

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.

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.

 

[Tomster]

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.

The universal belief of the Catholic Church is that Mary never committed a single sin, either mortal or venial, nor any voluntary imperfection, such as resisting an inspiration of grace in a nonobligatory matter, nor even any involuntary imperfection, such as acting without reflection, the first movements of impatience or vanity which occur before we advert to them and which we immediately disown.

This actual impeccability in Mary was due to the combined action of three factors.

First, there was the freedom from concupiscence, in virtue of which she did not have the temptations which are the cause of most of our sins.

But this alone would not have been sufficient: for the angels though by nature free from all concupiscence revolted against God and our first parents disobeyed God before having experienced the law of sin under which we all groan. An abuse of free will which is not determined by an evident good is all that is needed to offend God. If Mary therefore always remained pure from every stain, she still had to have other helps: the constant thought of God and very special graces.

We sin when we lose sight of God; the saints in heaven are no longer able to sin since they see God face to face. Mary did not contemplate God as do the saints, nevertheless she always lived in His presence. If even ordinary saints were able toward the end of their lives to be almost constantly aware of God, as we read of several of them, there is no difficulty in believing that Mary was always possessed by the thought of God. This thought prevented her from finding any pleasure in anything whatsoever outside of Him.

continued

 

[Tomster]

Mary was, moreover, endowed with very speacial graces. God filled her soul with a superabundance of light and strength which actually rendered her incapable of ever committing the least imperfection.

Every sin is the result of an error, the thought of finding good or happiness where it is not. The graces of light made Mary see that true good and true happiness can be found only in God.

Even when we know that the error is an error, we act upon it, because of the fickle character of our will. The graces of strength gave Mary’s will an absolute and unshakable direction toward the good. Grace, then, is evidently the most important factor, and it raises the purity of Mary’s soul incomparably above that of man in the state of innocence, or that of the most sublime angel before his admission to the Beatific Vision.

 

[shawn34_a]

Mary did not sin period. If you truly believe all have sinned, they you can include Jesus as well, or call Jesus impure because he was covered in bodily fluid… and such.

1. Fact is you don’t know if she did in fact sin. We only know what the Bible teaches. We know for a fact that a sin offering and holocaust offering in the form of either a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons was made.
2. Jesus is God so I think that dispells that.
3. Leviticus 12 deals with the birth of children, not menstuation which Lev 15 pertains too. Following birth, a women is unclean as she was during her menstrual pertaining to herself and the time for purification. The difference between the two lies in its effect towards others. Lev 12 makes zero mention to those coming in contact with birth fluids thus we cannot just presume that they would be unclean. But we do know that in both cases a sin and holocaust offering are required.
4. Since we don’t know, why create a theology based on a sinless Mary that cannot be proven?

 

[shawn34_a]

Mary was, moreover, endowed with very speacial graces. God filled her soul with a superabundance of light and strength which actually rendered her incapable of ever committing the least imperfection.
.

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.

 

[shawn34_a]

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.
.

People really miss the whole point of Jesus’ message. Death of the spirit is what is meant. Everyone has two bodies, a natural body and a spiritual body. Jesus’ ministry pertained to saving our spiritual bodies so not to be eternally separated from God.

As I mentioned earlier that Enoch walked with God all his life. He never experienced a physical death. Does this make him God or sinless? No.

Whether Mary died or was assumed, who knows. Does it matter or impact the meaning of the Gospels. No. Fact is the gospels would still have the same meaning whether Mary was ever mentioned or not.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. Fact is you don’t know if she did in fact sin. We only know what the Bible teaches. We know for a fact that a sin offering and holocaust offering in the form of either a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons was made.

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.

1. Jesus is God so I think that dispells that.

The mere fact that Jesus is God, only proves that Mary had to be sinless. For nothing unclean can touch the God. The Ark was the dwelling place of God and anyone who touched it died. The reverence of the Hebrew people of the Ark is showing their honor to the Ark.

Likewise, Mary whom became the Living Tabernacle of the Word of God had to be preserved from sin. The fact that God abhor sin I hardly think he would allow a sinful woman to become the mother of His Only Begotten Son.

1. Leviticus 12 deals with the birth of children, not menstuation which Lev 15 pertains too. Following birth, a women is unclean as she was during her menstrual pertaining to herself and the time for purification. The difference between the two lies in its effect towards others. Lev 12 makes zero mention to those coming in contact with birth fluids thus we cannot just presume that they would be unclean. But we do know that in both cases a sin and holocaust offering are required.

There are other passages that implied that discharge of bodily fluid makes one unclean. The Mosaic Law concerning leprosy is one see Leviticus 13, the man who discharge semen is unclean.

The account in Leviticus and other purification is commonly know as Tumah. Tum’ah is a state of ritual impurity in Halakha (Jewish law). A person or item which contracts tum’ah is said to be tamei, or “impure.”

Tum’ah can be received in the following manners:

1 By contact with dead body i.e. “Tum’at met,” which, in addition to the body itself, includes significant parts of a body, soil in which the body decomposed, and others.

2 By coming in contact with certain animals, including some insects and lizards (enumerated in Leviticus, Chapter 11, verses 29 - 32).

3 By contact with certain bodily fluids i.e. niddah, zav/zavah[1] (See Leviticus Chapter 15)

4 By giving birth to a child (the period of tumah is 40 days for a boy and 80 for a girl).

5 By being present in a building or roofed structure containing a dead body. (tumat ohel)

1. By contact with a primary source of tumah or an object that has been in contact with a primary source of tumah.
2. By contracting ‘tzarat,’ commonly mistranslated as leprosy - see Leviticus, chapter 13 verse 46.

1. Since we don’t know, why create a theology based on a sinless Mary that cannot be proven?

Because this is one of the revealed Truth. The Early Church Fathers taught it. Plus it is foretold in the foreshadowing of the NT in the OT.

Biblical typology implies the comparison between the Ark of the Old Covenant, and Mary, Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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

The words of Ex. 40:34-38, referring to the cloud of the Lord’s presence “covering” the tent of the Ark are echoed in Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:35: “…the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.”
David greets the Ark in fearful awe with the words “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam.6:9); Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
In 2 Samuel 6:10-12 the ark is sent to the hill country of Judea and stays at the household of Obededom for three months; similary, Mary journeys to Elizabeth’s house and stays there three months.
Just as David danced in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:14), the babe in Elizabeth’s womb (John the Baptist) dances in the presence of God’s Shekhinah in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:41).
Additionally, in Revelation, St. John, immediately after seeing the Ark in heaven, sees the woman “clothed with the sun” who bears the Child who will rule the world (Revelation 11:19-12:5).

This teaching is found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. A sermon attributed to St. Athanasius addresses the Blessed Virgin thus: “O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head.” St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary). [1]]

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))

 

[Mannyfit75]

That God should have created the Virgin Mary in a state of holiness as He had formed Eve and the angels is also befitting the honour of God: of the Father, whose daughter She is; of the Son, whose mother She is; and of the Holy Spirit, who, in the incarnation, took the Virgin Mary to be His spouse. Further, as the “new Eve” and mother of the new Adam, the Virgin Mary cannot appropriately be anything less than the original Eve; on the contrary, as Christ excelled Adam, so the Virgin Mary (though to a lesser degree) should excel Eve. Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church has consistently and universally proclaimed the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary:

"Our most holy, immaculate, and most glorious Lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary."21

"It was meet that the God of all purity should spring from the greatest purity, from the most pure bosom."22

"Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity…my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate."23

"With the exception therefore of the Holy Virgin Mary, with regard to whom, when sin is in question, I cannot, out of respect of Our Lord, permit of any discussion."24

“By virtue of the richness of the grace of the beloved Son, by reason of the redemptive merits of him who willed to become her Son, Mary was preserved from the inheritance of original sin. In this way, from the first moment of her conception - which is to say of her existence - she belonged to Christ, sharing in salvific and sanctifying grace and in the love which has its beginning in the ‘Beloved’, the Son of the Eternal Father…”

“The ‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’ The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her 'in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”