Could Mary have sinned?

[Tomster]

They felt, too, that a more than human purity was necessary in order to approach the Son of God, infinite holiness, not as a sinner or an unfortunate demanding a pardon or cure, but in a most intimate familiarity and, so to speak, on a footing of equality or even superiority. But Jesus had wanted to receive His entire humanity from Mary, with all the attentions His condition as a child required. He had wished to love her as a Mother, to be subject to her, to pass thirty years of His life alone with her. To be worthy of such an intimacy with the God of all purity, was it not necessary that the Blessed Virgin be always exempt from the least stain of sin and even of all imperfections?

Finally, though their personal experience proved to them that such purity was not within the reach of human endeavor, that to possess it exceptional graces were needed, they saw in Mary a completely exceptional creature, FULL OF GRACE.

Most probably they did not thus analyze the different indications of the purity of Mary, but they had least an impression of it, and this sufficed to give them the conviction that in Mary there could be no question of sin.

 

[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.

I have mentioned Mary’s freedom from every voluntary and involuntary imperfection.

In practice, voluntary imperfections are usually venial faults and their absence is the same as the absence of all sin. Freedom from involuntary imperfections is the natural result of the absence of concupiscence and of the help of a superabundant grace. If there never was any concupiscence in Mary, if all was order and harmony in her lower powers, in her intelligence, affections, and will, and if at every moment a marvelous grace upheld her, how could there have been a possibility of such imperfections?

Besides, whether they be voluntary or involuntary imperfections, they are contrary to the idea the faithful have of Mary’s sanctity, convinced as we are that God has made His Mother as perfect as possible. It is under this positive aspect that piety loves to contemplate the Blessed Virgin, caring less to syllogize on what is not to be found in her, than to admire what is actually present in her of whom the Holy Spirit Himself had prophesized: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.” (Canticle of Canticles 4:7)

 

[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.

BTW - The Council of Trent, without formally defining it, did proclaim as a general belief, when it said: “If anyone says that man, after justification can avoid throughout his entire life every sin, even venial, unless it be by a special privilege of God - as the Church believes concerning the Blessed Virgin - let him be anathema.”

As far as I know, there is no expiration date on that proclamation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

shawn34_a, old-scholar.

Please, by the bible alone – prove that Luke 2-22 even applies to Mary specifically. Since catholics “read” more into the bible than protestants, please prove your point without reference to unproven Catholic “opinion” – prove that MARY offered a sin offering for herself, (I won’t even ask for you to prove guilt at this time).

Can you prove even with the aforementioned KJV ‘Her’ is actually Mary and not another femininity? (proof now, not speculation)

Luke 2:22 …they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord )
Luke 2:22 (Greek) και οτε επλησθησαν αι ημεραι του καθαρισμου αυτων κατα τον νομον μωυσεως ανηγαγον αυτον εις ιεροσολυμα παραστησαι τω κυριω

Now, I contend that “her” even in the KJV does not prove a specific single woman, Mary.
But, worse for you, when multiple females are referenced in Greek it is is written → αι <—

A very clear example with even a lame KJV protestant dictionary is:
original.biblebrowser.com/acts/9-39.htm

In Luke 2:22 the exact same PLURAL word is used for “her” as in acts 9-39.
original.biblebrowser.com/luke/2-22.htm
Just for fun, I think the last plural “her” before Luke 2-22 was Luke 2:14:
Hint: it is hidden in the “men of good will”. ανθροπ-ος ευ-δοκι-ας ( ας is womanly! )
or if a more grammatically polished Greek is used, ανθτροπ-οις ευ-δοκ-ι-α (but ειρ is still feminine)
original.biblebrowser.com/luke/2-14.htm

And by coincidence, (good) ευ – is the singular name of “Eve/Wife” ( ευ-αν <sing – plural> ευ-ας ) 2Cori 11:3
original.biblebrowser.com/2_corinthians/11-3.htm

Now, let’s look at those turtledove sacrifices…

Exodu 13:15 … the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, … therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.…
Exodu 34:20 But the firstling of a donkey thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

Interesting how Jesus rides the donkey to Jerusalem for crucifixion. Certainly he is worth more than a donkey.

Levit 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
Levit 5:7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

The lord was wounded for our transgression, he bled for sin.
Who but a lawyer could make him bleed without guilt?
Perhaps you don’t buy the circumcision guilt?

If you hold the natural view of birth, then:
Did Just Joseph, Married Joseph, (original sin laden Joseph?), wound the umbilical cord?
( Check the biology book, who’s umbilical blood is it anyway )

Levit 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping th
ings, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
Levit 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.

One final thought, it’s Adam’s sin – although Eve carried it out, and in any marriage (prefiguing christ) the man is responsible.

Pure unadulturated Irony, all freewill human offerings must die – they cannot be redeemed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Because there is no need to defined this. There are other beliefs in the Catholic Church that have not been defined like Co-Redemptrix of Mary. I believe in it, but I don’t think the Pope should declare it infallible. In our Tradition, we also believe Jesus descended into Hell. Not the hell of the damned, but rather the abode of the dead. The place where good Patriarchs of Hebrew went. The original Greek use is Hades. Like in Scripture, Peter said that Jesus preached to the dead.

This was formally defined by any dogma but has been implied by several writings of the Councils, and ECF.

Jesus died because the prophets of the OT foretold of his death and resurrection, and he was doing the will of the Father, but his own. “Not my will, Father, but yours be done.”

You do realize that this is speculation?

The belief in God is also speculation. That is why we have faith. This is faith my brother not speculation. If you claim this is speculation, then an atheist has a right to tell you that believing in God is just speculation as well.

 

[shawn34_a]

shawn34_a, old-scholar.

Please, by the bible alone – prove that Luke 2-22 even applies to Mary specifically. Since catholics “read” more into the bible than protestants, please prove your point without reference to unproven Catholic “opinion” – prove that MARY offered a sin offering for herself, (I won’t even ask for you to prove guilt at this time).

Can you prove even with the aforementioned KJV ‘Her’ is actually Mary and not another femininity? (proof now, not speculation)
.

Well we know we have a pronoun of her in Luke 2:22. That being the case, we look for the last masculine noun female mentioned which is Mary in 2:19. It rediculous to continue considering 2:16 mentions Mary, Joseph, and baby in a manger. No other Mary is mentioned to have just given birth where her purification period was us. The greek word for her according to KJV is autos. Running a quarry of the word, each time it comes back in the singular.

All the Leviticus references you gave did not pertain to child birth uncleanliness. Leviticus 12 covers that. Someone touching uncleanness pertaining to menstrual blood is different and thus specifically mentioned. It does talk about the purification period if a man lies with a woman during that period, garments, and various others. But Lev 12 deals with child birth. And in Lev 12, only the mother requires a purification period and a sacrifice to be made.

 

[Church_Militant]

But nowhere in the Word of God does it ever call childbirth a sin.

In fact, Genesis plainly tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply, which can’t be done without childbirth.

So it’s pretty clear that nowhere does the Word of God indict the Blessed Virgin with sin.

 

[joseph_virgen]

No. Does the phrase genetic engineering mean anything to you. God is the master of it. In trying to teach this truth the church tells us that Mary was protected from sin during her conception so she would not pass it to her son.

Adding streangth to this is the language in the bible in which Gabriel states:“Do not be afraid, Mary, for God has been gacious to you; you will concieve and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

It does not state: " for God is gracious gracious to you", it states; “for God has been gracious”, meaning that a preexisting condition already was in place. That sin had absolutely no hold on her.

 

[AndyF]

Sugar Ray:

I wonder that myself.

I can see venial sins.

I can see a little girl on occasion sticking her tongue out at another, or even frowning on occasion, or stomping her foot to the ground and sternly folding her arms in a second of annoyance at a chore she is requested to do(my 5 year old granddaughter0). I can see her thoughtfully eyeing that new dress the rich man’s daughter is wearing,etc

Let’s take a different perspective for the point of argument. Let’s say 12 to 24 people in her community, including a Rabbi or two have seen this girl raised to young adulthood. Now this girl never, and I mean never does anything wrong. Would that be noticeable? Would a certain veiling need to be done to the intellects around her that would prevent that from occuring.?
Wouldn’t she be the talk of the town and the draw of attention.?

What of satan and his expectation that scripture be fullfilled through a redeemer one day, and he even knows the town. Here’s a being on the watch for a sinless girl. What of natural accidents that could happen “just in case she is the one”?

I say so what, she’s still Jesus’s Mother and Queen of Heaven. Naturally provoked venial sins on the low scale of severity I don’t see has a problem…

AndyF

 

[Tomster]

Sugar Ray:

I wonder that myself.

I can see venial sins.

I can see a little girl on occasion sticking her tongue out at another, or even frowning on occasion, or stomping her foot to the ground and sternly folding her arms in a second of annoyance at a chore she is requested to do(my 5 year old granddaughter0). I can see her thoughtfully eyeing that new dress the rich man’s daughter is wearing,etc

Let’s take a different perspective for the point of argument. Let’s say 12 to 24 people in her community, including a Rabbi or two have seen this girl raised to young adulthood. Now this girl never, and I mean never does anything wrong. Would that be noticeable? Would a certain veiling need to be done to the intellects around her that would prevent that from occuring.?
Wouldn’t she be the talk of the town and the draw of attention.?

What of satan and his expectation that scripture be fullfilled through a redeemer one day, and he even knows the town. Here’s a being on the watch for a sinless girl. What of natural accidents that could happen “just in case she is the one”?

I say so what, she’s still Jesus’s Mother and Queen of Heaven. Naturally provoked venial sins on the low scale of severity I don’t see has a problem…

AndyF

Sorry Andy. See post #63.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Shawn 34_A

I don’t want to confuse others, so I will be very clear.

The dictionary headword αυτος will show up for many different pronouns with different meanings. ( The KJV dictionary expects you to know stuff like this – which makes it hard for the average person to sort it out – which is why I said the KJV dictionary was lame. )

You are right, masculine αυτος is important.

αυτ-ος ( N:him as a subject ) αυτ-οι ( plural version him-them as subject )
αυτ-ου ( G: of-him/it )
αυτ-ῳ ( D: to him/it )
αυτ-oν ( A:him as a predicate ) αυτ-ους ( plural version him-them as pred. )

Notice words starting with αυτ are pronouns – so you are right, αυτ-ος – is him ( and him is inclusive sometimes of her, but it is RARELY FEMALE ):

Here’s a list of the endings of αυτ-.
Some endings are duplicates, because some words are less gender specific. the order is

Gender: -subject -of -to -predicate --Plural–> -subject -of -to -predicate

HIM: -ος -oυ -ῳ -ον --Plural–> -οι -ων -οις -ους
—IT: -ο -οu -ῳ -ον --Plural–> -α -ων -αις -α
HER: -η -ης -ῃ -ην --Plural–> -αι -ων -αις -ας

eg: So the proper words to refer to a single female are:
αυτη, αυτης, αυτῃ, αυτην.
None of which are used in Luke 2-22. QED for the simple.

But the KJV is not really wrong – look:
In luke 2-22 there are THREE explicit pronouns:

αι = the / her / who / which and DEFINITELY PLURAL
αυτ-ων = they/them all genders just like in English and PLURAL.
αυτ-ον him/it but only one.

KJV again:
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;

The last “him” is implied by the verb and isn’t a pronoun.

Literally, Luke 2:22 reads:
and when accomplished her-them days of-the purification of-THEM(αυτ-ων) according to-the law of-Moses (μοσεως) [they] brought HIM(αυτ-οv) into Jerusalem to-present [HIM] to-the Lord

original.biblebrowser.com/luke/2-22.htm

“Her” is right before the word for days. Look for “αι ημερ-αι” in the text – “her days”. When you put your mouse over the word αι and wait – it pops up with a tag saying “… her … definite article”
Which is lame. But if you look at the end, it DOES tell you αι is PLURAL. The verb accomplished is also PLURAL – they accomplished. There are multiple characters being purified not just a single woman.

So why are you insisting that it refer BACK to a singular person, Mary? The other example I gave clearly refers to “those women” WHOM were there. Check out acts 9-39 again, use the mouse over the Greek words.

I point out the cleanliness law for Joseph on the simple premise that there is an alternate reason turtledoves and pigeons could be offered ( I don’t have to prove it was the reason, just that it could be). If a man accidentally touches a dead animal, rat, or human refuse, etc the law applies. ( They did come from a stable after all, and a dead rodent or bird in the saddle bags happens! )

Joseph could be guilty unknowingly and have to offer the exact same sacrifice as Mary would for impurity. You must show that ONLY the one sacrifice is possible by scripture alone, or else you are grasping at traditions.

The gospel writer might not have even known how it happened – it doesn’t matter when using scripture alone. God didn’t give enough information to prove your point.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

One other note, we do know that a gift of Gold was given to Jesus, and it is odd that they do not buy a lamb to pay for Mary’s purification which is the preferred sacrificial animal IF you have the money.

Now, Catholic tradition may rule that out – but does the bible?
And if you can’t show it – it’s a cheap argument.
How do you know the eldest (inheriting) descendant of King David had no money based on the bible?

 

[fdmilkis]

**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???**

Certainly

Matthew 16:
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’

Yes that includes things like interpreting Scripture

 

[HailMary]

Certainly

Matthew 16:
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

What translation is that?

 

[fdmilkis]

www.Catholic.org/bible

New Jerusalem Bible

 

[NonDenom]

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.

Mary did sin, maybe only a few times, but she most certainly did sin. All have sinned except God.

 

[Church_Militant]

Mary did sin, maybe only a few times, but she most certainly did sin. All have sinned except God.

Show me a scripture that specifically says that Mary sinned.

Does all mean “all”? All of the mentally deficient or infants? I don’t think that is what it means at all.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mary did sin, maybe only a few times, but she most certainly did sin. All have sinned except God.

Where does it say this in Scripture?

 

[AndyF]

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.

Unless it was traditional. Jews were very strict on tradition.

Another example. Jesus told John the Baptist, “Let it be this way for now”. Jesus was the exception to requiring baptism.

AndyF

 

[NonDenom]

Show me a scripture that specifically says that Mary sinned.

Does all mean “all”? All of the mentally deficient or infants? I don’t think that is what it means at all.

Hi CM
Show me in Scripture where it says *specifically *that Mary never sinned. As for the mentally deficient or infants, they have sinned, they just don’t have capability to know that it’s wrong or understand what they are doing. I have 4 children and my mother works with the mentally handicapped and they have on occasion gotten very angry (which is a sin) they just don’t understand. God will not hold them accountable. There was a case here where I live when a mentally handicap young man accidentally killed a baby, he was hugging it and suffocated the baby to death. It was very sad but I don’t think God will judge that man the same way he will you or I.