Could Mary have sinned?

[Mannyfit75]

Half right. Your church says so but Scripture does not support it in the least.

Scripture does support it. Luke 1:28, “Hail, full of grace.” This greeting tells Mary that she has been bestowed with grace from God. In the ancient Judaism, titles have meanings. This goes deep.

The English translation, “Hail, Full of Grace,” or “Hail, Favored One,” is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, “χαίρε, κεχαριτωμένη” (chaire kecharitomene), a phrase which can most literally be translated: “Rejoice, you who have been graced”. The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb “to grace” in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel’s salutation does not refer to the Incarnation of Christ in Mary’s womb, as he proceeds to say: “thou shalt conceive in thy womb…” (Luke 1:31).

The Church Fathers, almost from the beginning of Church History, found further Scriptural evidence by comparing the figure of Eve to the figure of Mary. St. Justin Martyr said that Mary was a kind of New Eve, “in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 100) Tertullian argued in the same manner, saying, “As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.” (On the Flesh of Christ, 17) St. Irenaeus declared that Mary became “the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race,” because “what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” (Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 22, 4) St. Jerome coined the phrase, “Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary,” (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21). In addition “Blessed shall be the fruit of thy womb” is a reward for obedience to God by keeping the commandments.[Neutrality disputed — See talk page][3]

Scripture verses sometimes used to show her Immaculate Conception (other than Luke 1:28) are

“And you shall make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood And you shall gild it with pure gold, you shall gild it within and without; and you shall make for it golden wreaths twisted round about.” (Exodus 25:10-11 Brenton LXX)

“So I made an ark of boards of incorruptible wood, and I hewed tables of stone like the first, and I went up to the mountain, and the two tables were in my hand.” (Deuteronomy 10:3 Brenton LXX)

 

[justasking4]

I’m not surprise about your objection. Peter warn about doctrine that is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Peter for the most part is First among the Apostles. Anyways, I’m going to quote 2 Peter 2:1

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring destructive heresies, and even denying the Master who bought them, bringing themselves upon themselves swift destruction.

Well, I don’t see how these Early Christian Greek Fathers deny the Master, whom we know is Jesus Christ.

Gregory Thaumaturgus didn’t denied his Master. Look what he wrote.

O purest one, O purest virgin,
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man’s common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold.

Gregory told of Mary giving birth to the Holy One, namely Jesus Christ. I don’t see how he denied the Master.

Or this Hymn:

Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):

Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):

Hail, our desirable gladness;
Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
Hail, O name that breates out sweetness;
Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
Hail, most venerable memory;
Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.

Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;

Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.

Well, I don’t see how these Greek Fathers denied the Master? False doctrine is anything that denies Jesus Christ as God and the promised Messiah. That is false doctrine. 2 Peter 1:2 doesn’t even come close to what these Eastern Greek Fathers of the Church has said about Mary.

Your correct they did not deny Christ. However that is not the only thing Peter warns about. He also warns about “destructive heresies” which would cover a wide range of things.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Your correct they did not deny Christ. However that is not the only thing Peter warns about. He also warns about “destructive heresies” which would cover a wide range of things.

How is Mary being sinless destructive? For me as a Catholic, Mary’s sinless only show that if we, Christian cooperated to God’s grace, we too can live sinless lives. That’s saving not destructive. She is a model that we ought to follow. You need to stop condemning our belief on Mary’s sinlessness.

I hardly think Mary’s sinlessness is a heresy. The Early Church never condemned Mary’s sinlessness in the Councils. They have often refer to her as the New Ark, the New Eve, the incorruptible wood. Pure and Immaculate.

Why do you might say the Church has been consistent on Mary. Well, its simple really. The source of Mary being sinlessness is God.

In salvation history, God promised mankind a messiah. See Genesis 3:15. From this promise, his divine word would be born of a virgin Issiah 7:14 and his name shall be called Emmanuel, God is with us. In the OT, there are types or Biblical typology that hid NT figures. The Tablet of the Ten Commandments is the Written Word of God, this prefigures the Word made flesh. The Ark carried the Written Word of God. Not only did this Ark carry the Ten Commandment tablets. The Ark also carried the Aaron’s rod, and Mana.

The rod represent the eternal priesthood, the manna is food for the heaven, and tablet the word of God. In the NT, Mary is the Ark. For the first 9 months of Jesus life, he lived inside Mary. Jesus is the eternal priest, Jesus is the living bread, and he is the Word made flesh. Mary becomes literally the living tabernacle of God.

Just as the Ark is pure, so too is Mary. That is why Mary is sinless. Nothing defile can touch God. God made Mary perfect from the moment of her birth. Without any stain of sin, original sin, or personal. This is only possible with God’s grace! That is how she is saved! That is why she called God, My savior!

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3325010]How is Mary being sinless destructive?

I didn’t say it was.

For me as a Catholic, Mary’s sinless only show that if we, Christian cooperated to God’s grace, we too can live sinless lives. That’s saving not destructive. She is a model that we ought to follow. You need to stop condemning our belief on Mary’s sinlessness.

Do you think that all the things that are written and practiced in regards to Mary are good?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I didn’t say it was.

Then what is your problem with Mary being sinless? Other than the fact that you don’t think it is supported by Scripture.

Do you think that all the things that are written and practiced in regards to Mary are good?

As far as Scripture is concern yes. In Scripture she is the Handmaid of the Lord. Elizabeth called her blessed. Jesus also called her blessed when he said, “Blessed is she who hears the word of God and keep it.” Mary live this out. She is the handmaid of the Lord. The faithful daughter of God, the Father. The loving Mother of the Jesus Christ, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3325043]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I didn’t say it was.

Mannyfit75
Then what is your problem with Mary being sinless? Other than the fact that you don’t think it is supported by Scripture.

Were having a theological discussion on it and i don’t see it there in Scripture. If she was sinless then this would have major ramifications for our understanding of the sciptures.

Quote: justasking4
Do you think that all the things that are written and practiced in regards to Mary are good?

Mannyfit75
As far as Scripture is concern yes.

How about those things not in scripture? Things like statutes of her or total dedication to her?

In Scripture she is the Handmaid of the Lord. Elizabeth called her blessed. Jesus also called her blessed when he said, “Blessed is she who hears the word of God and keep it.” Mary live this out. She is the handmaid of the Lord. The faithful daughter of God, the Father. The loving Mother of the Jesus Christ, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Is it right for a catholic to speak of her when the church has not ruled on her being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

 

[guanophore]

Why would that woman be a literal one when prophetic symbolism is used to describe the nation of Israel when speaking of her adornment?

The twelve stars, the sun and the moon are specifically said to refer to Joseph and his 11 brothers with their parents Abraham and Sarah (see Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-10), so perhaps referring to the nation of Israel or God’s people.

This is what is known as a polyvalent image. It has characteristics of many different things at the same time. It is said to refer to the nation of Israel, also to the Church, and to Mary, the Ark of the Covenant.

Furthermore, there are 2 other women mentioned in Revelation, both of whom are symbolic for cities.

-One is the “Harlot of Babylon”, who is specifically stated to be symbolic of a “great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

-The other is the “New Jerusalem”:

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

So even though those 2 women are symbolic for great cities, you want to believe the 3rd is a literal one for some reason?

Although many people do make this literal interpretation, the Church does not mandate it. Any of the interpretations can be supported theologically. There is another thread about this. It really relates more to Mary’s assumption than it does to sinlessness.

 

[Lampo]

Since you are saying this does not apply to everyone, are there other people besides Mary who you believe never sinned? Does your church teach this also?

We also believe John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15).

Could God have created Mary sinless if He wanted?

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). If Mary sinned, wouldn’t that put her on the side of Satan? Wouldn’t that be the exact opposite of the word enmity? This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

Do you believe the Catholic emphasis on Mary’s sinlessness undermines the unique sinlessness of Christ?

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

 

[guanophore]

Actually I have the advantage over those who use sources of authority beyond the Scriptures. Remember, only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant Word of God. Not Sacred Tradition nor the Magisterium. The challenge you have by adhering to these “extra sources” is to try to keep them in harmony with the Scriptures. That cannot be done since it has already been demonstrated that there are contradictions between the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition and Magisterium.

No, ja4, we have no such challenge. Catholics have no need to “keep them in harmony”. This is the work of the HS. We just accept what has been revealed. If you prefer to think you have an advantage because you cannot reconcile them, each to his own!

I don’t need any authority but the Scriptures. The Scriptures are enough to examine doctrines and practices and to see if they truly line up with the Scriptures. All Christians have the responsibility to hold their teachers accountable to the Word of God. I don’t see much of this in catholics that I know here.

Catholics here wonder why you come, ja4. Since you don’t see us holding the teachers accountable, do you feel it is your responsibility to do so? It is lent now, and we are preparing for Easter. Any chance you can just tolerate us, instead of trying to change us into being like yourself?

My problem is not with Christ but with teachers in the church that teach things they should not. It is they who will be held accountable for these doctrines.

It is not appropriate for you to come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics what their teachers “should not teach”. The forum is to answer questions about the faith, not a venue for you to try to pull Catholics away from their faith.

! It seems to me that purgatory should pretty much be empty by now don’t you think if catholics prayed this everyday? If I die, would you pray this for me?

Of course! I know that God wants all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, and it is my prayer that His will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Why should you be excluded?

What do you think of this as a hymn to Mary?

Rejoice and be glad for her,
all you who love her;rejoice with her in joy
all you who mourn over her;
that you may suck and be satisfied with her consoling breasts;
that you may drink deeply with delight from the abundance of her glory.

the LORD says: Behold, I will extend prosperity to her like a river,and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing stream;and you shall suck, you shall be carried upon her hip,and dandled upon her knees.

As one whom his mother comforts,so I will comfort you;you shall be comforted in her.

You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice;your bones shall flourish like the grass;

 

[guanophore]

And also, please don’t tell me it was different for Mary than Christians just because Jesus was physically inside her rather than spiritually. As Jesus Himself said, it’s the spirit that brings life, the flesh profits nothing.

Clearly not. As the centuries have passed, it is more and more clear that God’s plan for Mary in the Kingdom is way way bigger than Theotokos. Her ministry now is huge!

It’s the spirit that brings life, the flesh profits nothing.

You are taking this verse out of context. Jesus was talking about trying to understand what He was saying with the carnal mind. If you try to apply this across the board, then you are also saying that His flesh that He gave for the life of the world profits nothing!

Jesus took His flesh from Mary’s flesh, that is why her flesh needed to be untainted by sin.

 

[guanophore]

Do you also believe that there are others who have lived in history who did not sin at all? Are there others like Mary who chose not to sin?

Do you not believe it is possible for a person to choose not to sin?

These greek fathers are not saying these things based on the scriptures nor on what the word means. This is what Peter warned about in 2 Peter 2:1. This is what happens when you accept traditions that are not supported by the Scriptures.

Yes and no. No, they are not based on the Scriptures, as none of Catholic Teaching is “based” there, but on the Divine Revelation. These hymns represent the belief of the faithful that was passed down from the Apostles. As the centuries have passed, we have more and more clarity about the meaning of Mary’s role in the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

Half right. Your church says so but Scripture does not support it in the least.

There is only one Church, ja4. Making statements like this represents a divisive mentality.

Your correct they did not deny Christ. However that is not the only thing Peter warns about. He also warns about “destructive heresies” which would cover a wide range of things.

How is Mary being without sin destructive to anyone?

I didn’t say it was.

Well, you keep quoting that verse every time we are talking about Marian doctrines, so you must think there is some kind of relationship.

You know them by their fruit, right? What bad fruit is produced by the belief that a Christian can live without sinning by cooperating with God’s grace?

Do you think that all the things that are written and practiced in regards to Mary are good?

I am sure I have only read a small sampling. In my opinion, there are excesses of all kinds in matters of faith. In my part of the country, there are actually people who recreate the passion by having themselves nailed to a cross on good Friday!

 

[Good_Fella]

As for Origen, Hilary and Basil, I have already posted quotes from all of them saying just the opposite of what you claim. Tradition that is not supported by Scripture is false.

Origen, Hilary, and Basil never considered Sacred Tradition as unscriptural as you do. And they never confused Sacred Tradition with human tradition. For they believed as all Catholics do that Sacred Tradition is a medium of divine revelation alongside Scripture. As I pointed out to you in another thread, the Church Fathers held that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. They did not espouse the false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ as Arius and Luther did, and as you do. Observe an instance of Sacred Tradition in motion alongside Scripture with respect to the question of whether Mary could have sinned. You will see that the Catholic Church as a distinct body can be historically traced from apostolic time to the present day. (Luke is the first great Mariologist of the Catholic Church. ) The fullness of divine revelation is mediated by Scripture and Sacred Tradition, deposited in the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church.

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

“Most blessed are you among women, ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” {Luke 1:42}

“Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in thy mother.”
Ephraem (c.A.D. 350)

You are all-beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you. You are an enclosed garden my sister, my spouse; an enclosed garden, a fountain sealed.
{Song of Songs 4:7,12}

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

“The serpent never entered that paradise.”
John Damascene (A.D. 645 - 750)

Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which bears the name of the Lord of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.
{2 Samuel 6:2}

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

“Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” {Luke 1:28}

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

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.” {Luke 1:46}

“The 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)

“Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”
{Luke 11:28}

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin did not obey…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary…a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself (“My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.”) and the whole human race…Thus the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

“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 (ante A.D. 749)

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
Pope Pius lX, Apostolic Constitution, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, 8 December 1854

“From this day all generations will call me blessed.” {Luke 1:48}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Were having a theological discussion on it and i don’t see it there in Scripture. If she was sinless then this would have major ramifications for our understanding of the sciptures.

Can you explain this? I asked you this before, if you were to accept the doctrine? How would that change anything? I guess I can’t see what the major ramifications are.

How about those things not in scripture? Things like statutes of her or total dedication to her?

Do you think these are destructive heresies? Do you think they deny the Master?

Is it right for a catholic to speak of her when the church has not ruled on her being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

The scriptures show that she is the spouse of the HS. Everything the Church Teaches and permits is consistent with the scriptures.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

You’re misquoting St John and missing the point: that was about the natural and the supernatural with the Spirit bringing life to those who eat His body and drink His blood: The Real Presence in the Eucharist.

If Moses commanded no one to go near tSinai: “If anyone touches the mountain he must be put to death.” (Exodus 19:12-15)

So, a pile of rock and dirt is sacred but, as the Sermon on the Mount changes and fulfills the Sinai “sermon” of the Ten Commandants, that God-as-fully-man-and-fully God is not???

So Mary can sin and have relations (see verse 15 above in Exodus) with St Joseph???

Your reasoning is illogical: is it infallible teaching in your church?

Robert

It was presented as a statement of truth that the flesh profits nothing, but it is the spirit that brings life. What makes you think you can disqualify it?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is echoed also by Paul.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Therefore, it is your reasoning which is not logical according to the Scriptures.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

We also believe John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15).

Could God have created Mary sinless if He wanted?

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). If Mary sinned, wouldn’t that put her on the side of Satan? Wouldn’t that be the exact opposite of the word enmity? This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

Sure, hostility would be between them. Just like it was between Satan and all others who chose to follow God, like David, Job, and all the other heroes of faith that the world persecuted as mentioned in Hebrews 11 because they were at enmity with Satan and his ways. They weren’t sinless, but Satan was still at enmity with them.

Do you believe the Catholic emphasis on Mary’s sinlessness undermines the unique sinlessness of Christ?

Yes.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

Why is it the Catholic Church believes Mary could have born sinless without her parents being sinless?

And if they believe that mitigating circumstances could cause it, why could those same circumstances not result in Jesus being born sinless without Mary being born sinless?

Especially since her sinlessness is nowhere alluded to in the Bible.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why is it the Catholic Church believes Mary could have born sinless without her parents being sinless?

Gee…maybe because it’s not congenital.

And if they believe that mitigating circumstances could cause it, why could those same circumstances not result in Jesus being born sinless without Mary being born sinless?

You’d really do well to take the advice of Gamaliel in Acts and not argue against the Holy Spirit.

Especially since her sinlessness is nowhere alluded to in the Bible.

Asserted as if that is a fact…the truth is that that is anything but since we have already shown you the scriptural basis for it. If you are incapable of seeing it then that’s your problem.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

And if they believe that mitigating circumstances could cause it [Mary being born sinless], why could those same circumstances not result in Jesus being born sinless without Mary being born sinless?
Church Militant;3325617:

You’d really do well to take the advice of Gamaliel in Acts and not argue against the Holy Spirit.

Which I notice still didn’t answer my question.

I trust you will examine yourself as well to make sure it is not you who is rejecting what the Holy Spirit is telling you.

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

No!!!

Never!!!

Ever!!!

 

[Church_Militant]

Which I notice still didn’t answer my question.

I trust you will examine yourself as well to make sure it is not you who is rejecting what the Holy Spirit is telling you.

Been there and done that …you’d know that if you read My Testimony.