Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

Why hasn’t the church offically affirmed this? i thought the “traditions” said they did.

No, the Sacred Tradition affirms only that she was assumed. No one was present at the time, so we are not really sure how it happened.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The gold did not come for some time later. When the wise men arrive, the child is referred to as a “paidon” (toddler) and they are living in a house. Also, Herod had all the children two years of age and younger slaughtered, as he ascertained the time of birth from the wise men.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say James, Stephen or Andrew sinned?
Since specific sins are not mentioned about many people in the Scripures should we assume they never sinned?

If Sacred Tradition told us that was the case, then we would.
What I am trying to figure out is how you can berighteous and blameless before God and still be a sinner…

Luke 1:5-7

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord **blameless. **7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both
were advanced in years.

According the catechism of the catholic church they to are sinners or born into sin. Here is what it says:
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

It is important to distinguish between original sin and personal sin. Infants cannot commit sin, neither can disabled persons (one has to know it is a sin, and willfully commit the act).

 

[Old_Scholar]

Paul said that “All have sinned” and that included Mary. That’s why Christ came to earth, to save the sinners.

In addition, Mary said: Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Mary had to have sinned to need a saviour.

No Christian would believe that Mary wasn’t blessed. Even though Christ never treated her special. He called her “woman” most of the time and did not show any special respect for her. She was simply the vessel that brought Him to earth in human form but she was a strong supporter and gained more prominence after He was crucified. When she died, however, she just died. There is nothing to indicate she was assumed into heaven. No one has gone to heaven as of yet, except Christ who came down from heaven. That is what Christ taught.

To think that Mary did not sin is merely speculation and assumption. Scripture tells us that all have sinned and it doesn’t exclude Mary or anyone else. Those who believe Mary was sinless are simply believing what they want to. It is not Scriptural and they won’t find it in the writings of the early church fathers of the first couple of centuries either. That is a much later fabrication of the church. Personally I believe Mary was blessed and deserves special recognition, but not the pedestal Catholics want to put her on.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Paul said that “All have sinned” and that included Mary. That’s why Christ came to earth, to save the sinners.

In addition, Mary said: Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Mary had to have sinned to need a saviour.

No she didn’t sin. She was already saved to begin with. The sacrifice of the cross transcends time and space. God preserved her from sin. She has no original sin nor personal sin.

All sin doesn’t always means necessary all. You would have to include infants who aren’t capable of committing personal sin.

No Christian would believe that Mary wasn’t blessed. Even though Christ never treated her special. He called her “woman” most of the time and did not show any special respect for her. She was simply the vessel that brought Him to earth in human form but she was a strong supporter and gained more prominence after He was crucified. When she died, however, she just died. There is nothing to indicate she was assumed into heaven. No one has gone to heaven as of yet, except Christ who came down from heaven. That is what Christ taught.

She was more than a vessel. She was the true Ark of the Covenant. Just like the Ark, Mary is also pure.

To think that Mary did not sin is merely speculation and assumption. Scripture tells us that all have sinned and it doesn’t exclude Mary or anyone else. Those who believe Mary was sinless are simply believing what they want to. It is not Scriptural and they won’t find it in the writings of the early church fathers of the first couple of centuries either. That is a much later fabrication of the church. Personally I believe Mary was blessed and deserves special recognition, but not the pedestal Catholics want to put her on.

This is not speculation. The ECF believed in it, whom they received. It is a part of Divine Revelation. The Church is guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when the Church declare Mary to be without sin. She is without sin. This has been a part of our Living Sacred Tradition. It is Scriptural. To be Scriptural is to be obedient to God’s commandment. Mary live up to those commandments. She did not sin period. God hate sin, and to think he would allow a dirty sinful woman to be the Mother of his Son, would insult the Word of God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where does it say James, Stephen or Andrew sinned?
Since specific sins are not mentioned about many people in the Scripures should we assume they never sinned?

I wasn’t aware their sinfulness was in question. I don’t know if they sinned or not, nor do I care.

But non-denom made the authoritative claim that Mary sinned, maybe a couple of times.

 

[NotWorthy]

According the catechism of the catholic church they to are sinners or born into sin. Here is what it says:
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

This is a nice try, but we are asking for your theology, for you seem to believe that “all” always means “all”.

Do you hold to the doctrine of original sin, or do you believe that “all have sinned” means that all have sinned?

 

[NotWorthy]

Paul said that “All have sinned” and that included Mary. That’s why Christ came to earth, to save the sinners.

Since Jesus was Fully Man, why isn’t He lumped into the category of “All”?

In addition, Mary said: Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Please re-read Manny’s analogy of the mud-pit to understand how Jesus is Mary’s Savior. I think it’s on page 6.

 

[justasking4]

I wasn’t aware their sinfulness was in question. I don’t know if they sinned or not, nor do I care.

But non-denom made the authoritative claim that Mary sinned, maybe a couple of times.

The reason i brought this up is to use the same kind reasoning used to justify Mary as being sinless because no sin of hers was mentioned. This same method when applied to others leads to the same conclusions as for Mary.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3118441]This is a nice try, but we are asking for your theology, for you seem to believe that “all” always means “all”.

That is correct.

Do you hold to the doctrine of original sin, or do you believe that “all have sinned” means that all have sinned?

Romans 5:12 is one of the clearest statements on this. There is no getting around all men need salvation which means all are sinners.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3118451]Since Jesus was Fully Man, why isn’t He lumped into the category of “All”?

Because He is unique in His birth and nature i.e. God-man.

Please re-read Manny’s analogy of the mud-pit to understand how Jesus is Mary’s Savior. I think it’s on page 6.

The problem is that analogies are not “proofs” but illustrations of what might have happened. The fact is there are no facts to support that Mary was somehow kept from sinning.

 

[NotWorthy]

The reason i brought this up is to use the same kind reasoning used to justify Mary as being sinless because no sin of hers was mentioned. This same method when applied to others leads to the same conclusions as for Mary.

fExcept that none of the others have been hailed with the term “Kecharitomone”. Stephen was graced, but it looked like it was an instananeous event.

From what I understand of Kecharitomone, it speaks of the past and future of being graced.

Of course, none of the others are taught as being the Ark of the New Covenant since the Church’s infancy. The Ark of the Covenant, as you are well aware, was made of the purest materials. Catholics teach that Mary was made just as pure.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is correct.

Romans 5:12 is one of the clearest statements on this. There is no getting around all men need salvation which means all are sinners.

No, that is incorrect, for what sin does a baby knowingly commit.

You say all men are sinners. Jesus was fully Man, was he not?

 

[NotWorthy]

The problem is that analogies are not “proofs” but illustrations of what might have happened. The fact is there are no facts to support that Mary was somehow kept from sinning.

Other than the FACT that Jesus gave the Church the authority to teach this.

It’s Scriptural, you see!!!

 

[EphelDuath]

Judith 13:20. “And the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory.”

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3118626]Other than the FACT that Jesus gave the Church the authority to teach this.

The only authority any church has is from Christ is to teach the truth. No church has the authority to teach anything it wants and claim its true if there is no evidence for it.

It’s Scriptural, you see!!!

Not so. There is not one verse in Scripture that even comes close to saying she was without sin.

 

[justasking4]

Judith 13:20. “And the Lord hath not suffered me his handmaid to be defiled, but hath brought me back to you without pollution of sin, rejoicing for his victory.”

What is the context for this?

 

[EphelDuath]

Because He is unique in His birth and nature i.e. God-man.

Mary is also unique because she’s the Ark of the New Covenant and the Gate of Heaven. Allow me to quote Scripture Catholic:

First, if all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well.

Second, Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary’s sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud pudddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ’s redemption.

Third, not “all have sinned,” because babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin).

Fourth, the word “all” in Rom 3:23 in Greek is pantes. It is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says “all” (pantes), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. This means that when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, he really means “many.”

scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html#allhavesinned

 

[EphelDuath]

What is the context for this?

It’s a foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary. Read the Book of Judith, and then compare the events that happen to the life of the Mother of God, and then the prophecies in Revelation 12.

newadvent.org/bible/jth000.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

The only authority any church has is from Christ is to teach the truth. No church has the authority to teach anything it wants and claim its true if there is no evidence for it.

The only authority Christ gave is to the Catholic Church. No other church has any Christ-given authority.

The specific authority that Christ gave was to “bind and to loose”.

With that being said, no, the Church can not make things up out of thin air, and thank God that hasn’t happened. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to teach the Truth, and still does so today.

Not so. There is not one verse in Scripture that even comes close to saying she was without sin.

You are so very correct.

It must be sad to be stuck in this “Sola-Versura” trap for where does Scripture say that all Truths are to be found in single verses? The Bible is NOT a Catechism, or else it would read like Leviticus.

JA4, you have been shown time and time again that Catholics are not saddled with these incorrect chains, but that we came to know the truth of Mary by reading the Bible as a whole.