Could Mary have sinned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sugar_Ray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The title of this thread is “Could Mary have sinned”? Not “did she sin”, but “could she have sinned” - that is, was she capable of sin (and chose not to) or was incapable of sin (and had no choice), even given the IC and the Assumption and ever-Virgin dogmas. That is the question at hand.
 
The title of this thread is “Could Mary have sinned”? Not “did she sin”, but “could she have sinned” - that is, was she capable of sin (and chose not to) or was incapable of sin (and had no choice), even given the IC and the Assumption and ever-Virgin dogmas. That is the question at hand.
She never sinned. She was preserved from sin. She had neither original sin or personal sin because of God’s grace. The grace which she received is far greater than what we have. She accepted the grace and decided by her own free will not to sin. Many of the ECF believe this, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church declare Mary as sinless. So to answer the question, could Mary have sinned?

No. She could but decided not to because she is like she said in the Gospel of Luke. “My soul magnify the greatness of the Lord.”
 
The title of this thread is “Could Mary have sinned”? Not “did she sin”, but “could she have sinned” - that is, was she capable of sin (and chose not to) or was incapable of sin (and had no choice), even given the IC and the Assumption and ever-Virgin dogmas. That is the question at hand.
Well, of course, she could have sinned, as in she was capable of sinning.

There’d be no fun in avoiding sin if you weren’t capable of sinning in the first place.

But I thought the context of “could she have sinned” was “isn’t there the possibility that she did sin”. Sorry about the misunderstanding on my part.
 
The title of this thread is “Could Mary have sinned”? Not “did she sin”, but “could she have sinned” - that is, was she capable of sin (and chose not to) or was incapable of sin (and had no choice), even given the IC and the Assumption and ever-Virgin dogmas. That is the question at hand.
Mary could have sinned to the extent that she was human and had the free will to choose to sin - but she was unable to sin. Like Jesus, Mary was born under the law in her humanity, but God created her so that she would be unable to sin and keep the law perfectly.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
{Genesis 3, 15}

The woman is Mary, for her seed is Jesus. The seed of Satan is sin. The enmity between Mary and Satan is the same as the enmity between Jesus and sin. The word enmity appears only once in this verse and it equally applies to both Mary and Jesus. Jesus was unable to sin because of his divine nature, Mary was unable to sin because of her Immaculate Conception. She did not inherit original sin which essentially is the inclination to commit personal sins. Now Eve was created in a state of sanctifying grace, but she was inclined to sin in her freedom. But Mary was spared this inclination, for God had chosen her to conceive and bear His Only-begotten Son. Because Jesus was sinless, Mary also had to be sinless, being his mother. Scripture tells us that it is God who has put enmity between Mary and Satan and thereby his offspring. God created Mary in such an exceptional and priviliged way that she had no proclivity to sin at all. Satan may have tried to tempt her as he did Jesus with his dark options, but he must have failed just the same.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
I think Eve was created with an inclination towards good, as God created her. Adam and Eve did what was wholly irrational and against the way God had made them.

A sane person might, possibly, suddenly and irrationally act on an urge to jump in front of a speeding truck. The mystery of Adam’s fall was he knew exactly what he was doing, in his full, created sanity. He acted against his nature, knowing the consequences for the whole human race. Mary’s case is different in the context of Catholic theology. Could she have repeated the fall?

Augustine discussed three kinds of free will: that of self-motion, that of moral choice, and that of sanctity, the third being the will to always choose good. Pardon the blunt and poor picture of his theology, but if anyone had the grace to ‘always choose good,’ having forsaken sin utterly, Mary fits the picture.

In contrast is what happened to her free will if she lost (rather, never had) the ability to sin. Most of us grow spiritually in our wrestlings, gaining a deeper understanding of God and our dependence on Him than we would otherwise have. Jesus grew; are Catholics saying Mary did not, but was conceived flawless and perfect, that is, fully developed spiritually? What are the implications of this?
 
Old_Scholar said:
justasking4

**You don’t really expect to get answers to your questions do you?

I’ve been asking some of the same questions for quite some time but the answers just don’t come, because they can’t answer them.

If the Roman Catholic Church really gave us the Bible, then why did it get it so wrong? Specifically rejecting James and Hebrews and then later accepting it? Isn’t the church infallible? This proves it is not!

The Orthodox Church also claims to be the only true church and also claims to have given us the Bible but it rejected Revelation and then later accepted it. Infallible??? The church also accepted several books as Scripture and then later rejected them. So much for infallibility and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

The RCC claims to have given the church the Bible in 397 AD, yet many different versions of it were still being accepted and circulated long after. Why? Isn’t the church infallible?

And if the RCC gave us the Bible, then why didn’t it get it right the first time. It added the apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Just a popularity contest, the same way they elect a pope.

Both the RCC and The Orthodox claim to have given us the Bible and if they did, why are the Bibles different?

If Catholics are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do they know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the RCC, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, as they all three teach that the organization alone can interpret Scripture correctly, to exclude individuals?

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why did He provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D.?

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Biblical proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic Church? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession, then this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of that succession.

How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?

If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the RCC question this tradition even to this day?

Ask them to name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, else it can’t be true.

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the RCC and Orthodox Churches are two denominations that use this method, yet are not in agreement on doctrine? Does this prove that both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

If *Sola Scriptura ***cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use Sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the RCC and the Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are also divided?

Ask Roman Catholics these questions and see how many answers you get. I’m betting you get ignored…
Naturally, you will be ignored if you ask questions that do not belong to the topic of this thread. :rolleyes:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
 
You’re right of course, and I apologize for getting off topic.

But I would like to ask a question concerning whether Mary could have sinned.

On what basis does the Roman Catholic Church make that claim? It isn’t in Scripture and I can’t find it in the first two hundred years of the writings of the early church fathers, so where did the idea come from? Is it just what someone thought would be nice to say about Mary?

As we do not know what Mary had done all her life until the angel appeared to tell her about Christ, what would make us believe that she was without sin until that time? Is it merely speculation?

From Scripture, it would seem she was just a true little Jewish girl, betrothed by her father no doubt to marry Joseph until the angel came. There is nothing about her early life anywhere; either the Bible or other historical documents.

I certainly believe Mary was special and blessed as well as greatly honored to bear Christ, but all this other stuff is pure speculation. There is absolutely no basis for those beliefs. If there is, then why not tell us all what it is…
 
The title of this thread is “Could Mary have sinned”? Not “did she sin”, but “could she have sinned” - that is, was she capable of sin (and chose not to) or was incapable of sin (and had no choice), even given the IC and the Assumption and ever-Virgin dogmas. That is the question at hand.
She never sinned. She was preserved from sin. She had neither original sin or personal sin because of God’s grace. The grace which she received is far greater than what we have. She accepted the grace and decided by her own free will not to sin. Many of the ECF believe this, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church declare Mary as sinless. So to answer the question, could Mary have sinned?

No. She could but decided not to because she is like she said in the Gospel of Luke. “My soul magnify the greatness of the Lord.”
Respectfully, Manny, She could have sinned means the answer to the question would be Yes. Just grammer;) , but your answer confused me at first.

Yes, she could but decided not to…

As you know, Mary never lost her free will, so she COULD have sinned if she had chosen to. She didn’t, but could have.

God Bless,
Maria
…just a pest here to provide entertainment.😃
:bounce: :rotfl:You said it, not me;) :rotfl: :bounce:
 
Respectfully, Manny, She could have sinned means the answer to the question would be Yes. Just grammer;) , but your answer confused me at first.

Yes, she could but decided not to…

As you know, Mary never lost her free will, so she COULD have sinned if she had chosen to. She didn’t, but could have.

God Bless,
Maria
And you know all this because…?
 
Respectfully, Manny, She could have sinned means the answer to the question would be Yes. Just grammer;) , but your answer confused me at first.

Yes, she could but decided not to…

As you know, Mary never lost her free will, so she COULD have sinned if she had chosen to. She didn’t, but could have.

God Bless,
Maria
I was very careful this time when I wrote that and made sure it was grammarically correct. Anyways, she could have sin but she didn’t. Like every Catholic here repeated stated.
 
Because I have studied scripture, the early Church Fathers and been enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Well since Scripture doesn’t say anything about it and the early church fathers don’t give any writings describing how she accomplished this magical feat, I suppose you received it directly from the Holy Spirit???
 
Well since Scripture doesn’t say anything about it and the early church fathers don’t give any writings describing how she accomplished this magical feat, I suppose you received it directly from the Holy Spirit???
The Scripture and the Early Church describe the obedience of Mary not her disobedience. Show me in Scripture where Mary is disobedient to God’s will?

I can show you from Scripture where Mary is compared to the Ark:

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
 
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
 
From the Early Church Fathers:

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).
 
in reply to OP:

She could have, but didn’t.

Basically as has been stated, she, despite her graces and strength of spirit, was still human, when Gabriel came to her she could have said ‘no’ if she had a mind to, but of her own volition and love of God and also from being struck by the fear of the LORD (which, let’s face it, is enough to make anyone giddy), she said ‘yes’.

Isn’t that cool? She, out of her own free will, said yes!
 
Well since Scripture doesn’t say anything about it and the early church fathers don’t give any writings describing how she accomplished this magical feat, I suppose you received it directly from the Holy Spirit???
Magical feat by Mary?

Until you can comprehend that this is about a miraculous work of GOD and nothing magical at all, you will never understand.

But Manny has more patience on this than I to AGAIN post the tremendous amount of scripture on this subject.

I will repost a key point that seems to have been missed by you.

Miracle from God, no magic involved.
 
I think Eve was created with an inclination towards good, as God created her. Adam and Eve did what was wholly irrational and against the way God had made them.

The mystery of Adam’s fall was he knew exactly what he was doing, in his full, created sanity. He acted against his nature, knowing the consequences for the whole human race. Mary’s case is different in the context of Catholic theology. Could she have repeated the fall ?
I think we both agree that Adam and Eve were created not only good but in a state of friendship with God and in harmony with themselves and their environment. Adam and Eve were constituted in an original state of “holiness and justice” (Cf. Council of Trent). As long as they remained in an intimate relationship with God, they would not have to suffer and die.

“God created man neither mortal nor immortal, but susceptible to both conditions. Thus, if he were to incline himself toward those things that have to do with immortality, having kept the commandment of God, he would receive his reward of immortality from God and become God by grace. But if, on the other hand, he would incline himself toward those things that are related to death, having disobeyed God, he himself would be the cause of his own death. For God created man free and the master of his own will.” {Theophilus of Antioch}

Adam and Eve were in a state in which they could freely incline themselves to either obey God’s commandments or disobey them. Their goodness and friendship with God would last only as long as they inclined themselves to the divine will. Their original state of holiness and justice would be forfeited once they preferred themselves to God and by that very act scorned him. Indeed, by inclining themselves over and against God, against the necessities of their creaturely status and thus against their own good, Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace. The worst thing they did was attempt to be like God, but in a perverted way, not in the manner like Jesus proposed. Adam and Eve tried to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” {St. Maximus the Confessor}. As a result, we are now under the authority of death, our minds are darkened, and so “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” {Genesis 8, 21}. This is the unfortunate lot of us who have inherited original sin. Neither Jesus (the Son of Man) nor Mary contracted this terrible stain on the human soul. Here we may disagree, but this is the point I am trying to make. Mary could not have inclined her will against God because she was created in such a way that she would never want to - not unlike the Son of Man, who also had a human free will. There was never any “evil imagination” in her heart from the time she was born. Free from the effects of original sin, the mother of our Lord could not even sin in her thoughts or entertain sinful acts in her mind. She was not that kind of human being to begin with because of her Immaculate Conception. Luke understood this, possibly by having met Mary, who discovered much about herself through the revelations personally granted her by her divine Son, and so he wrote:

“My soul magnifies the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
{Luke 1, 46}

The Magnificat may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate, according to scholars. Of the many themes contained in this canticle, two stand out in light of our discussion: the reversal of human fortunes, and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. In other words, this canticle acknowledges the undoing of the Fall, which starts with Mary through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross. We find the first prophecy pertaining to our salvation at the time immediately after the Fall, and this prophecy appears to reveal to us that Mary was restored to perfect friendship with God - the original state of holiness and justice - from the first moment of her conception before the rest of us who live and die in Christ. The ‘hypostasis’ of Mary’s soul to be immortal was guaranteed by the wisdom and power of Almighty God:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
{Genesis 3, 15}

All of us who have sinned have repeated the Fall, but by a true spirit of repentance and a firm desire of amendment, we can undo the consequences of our own descent. The same applies to Mary if she would have sinned, for she was in need of redemption just like the rest of us. Yet she won her salvation the moment she was immaculately conceived. It would be a different matter if Jesus had given in to the temptations of the devil. For our salvation comes from Christ alone. He was never in any need of redemption, for the “Word was with God” before he became flesh.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
I think we both agree that Adam and Eve were created not only good but in a state of friendship with God and in harmony with themselves and their environment. Adam and Eve were constituted in an original state of “holiness and justice” (Cf. Council of Trent). As long as they remained in an intimate relationship with God, they would not have to suffer and die.

“God created man neither mortal nor immortal, but susceptible to both conditions. Thus, if he were to incline himself toward those things that have to do with immortality, having kept the commandment of God, he would receive his reward of immortality from God and become God by grace. But if, on the other hand, he would incline himself toward those things that are related to death, having disobeyed God, he himself would be the cause of his own death. For God created man free and the master of his own will.” {Theophilus of Antioch}

Adam and Eve were in a state in which they could freely incline themselves to either obey God’s commandments or disobey them. Their goodness and friendship with God would last only as long as they inclined themselves to the divine will. Their original state of holiness and justice would be forfeited once they preferred themselves to God and by that very act scorned him. Indeed, by inclining themselves over and against God, against the necessities of their creaturely status and thus against their own good, Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace. The worst thing they did was attempt to be like God, but in a perverted way, not in the manner like Jesus proposed. Adam and Eve tried to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” {St. Maximus the Confessor}. As a result, we are now under the authority of death, our minds are darkened, and so “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” {Genesis 8, 21}. This is the unfortunate lot of us who have inherited original sin. Neither Jesus (the Son of Man) nor Mary contracted this terrible stain on the human soul. Here we may disagree, but this is the point I am trying to make. Mary could not have inclined her will against God because she was created in such a way that she would never want to - not unlike the Son of Man, who also had a human free will. There was never any “evil imagination” in her heart from the time she was born. Free from the effects of original sin, the mother of our Lord could not even sin in her thoughts or entertain sinful acts in her mind. She was not that kind of human being to begin with because of her Immaculate Conception. Luke understood this, possibly by having met Mary, who discovered much about herself through the revelations personally granted her by her divine Son, and so he wrote:

“My soul magnifies the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”
{Luke 1, 46}

The Magnificat may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate, according to scholars. Of the many themes contained in this canticle, two stand out in light of our discussion: the reversal of human fortunes, and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. In other words, this canticle acknowledges the undoing of the Fall, which starts with Mary through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross. We find the first prophecy pertaining to our salvation at the time immediately after the Fall, and this prophecy appears to reveal to us that Mary was restored to perfect friendship with God - the original state of holiness and justice - from the first moment of her conception before the rest of us who live and die in Christ. The ‘hypostasis’ of Mary’s soul to be immortal was guaranteed by the wisdom and power of Almighty God:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
{Genesis 3, 15}

All of us who have sinned have repeated the Fall, but by a true spirit of repentance and a firm desire of amendment, we can undo the consequences of our own descent. The same applies to Mary if she would have sinned, for she was in need of redemption just like the rest of us. Yet she won her salvation the moment she was immaculately conceived. It would be a different matter if Jesus had given in to the temptations of the devil. For our salvation comes from Christ alone. He was never in any need of redemption, for the “Word was with God” before he became flesh.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
Are you saying Mary was born without a sin nature i.e. original sin?

If it is Mary who is at complete emnity with Satan, did she also somehow resist the temptations of the devil throughout her entire life as Jesus did? If so, do you have any examples of how she did so or was helped in resisting the devil?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top