Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

[JeffreyGerard]

gladtobe:

Well. first of all Jesus never sinned because his divinity resided within him. …
I believe Jesus was like us in all ways and that includes being a little boy who gets into mischief. Many religious authors have written Jesus didn’t really become aware of his divinity until he grew older and was led by the spirit. One gnostic writer said Jesus got angry at another boy and caused him to fall off a roof and the fall killed the boy. But Jesus brought him back to life. Those are just apocrypha stories though. But I believe Jesus went through all the experiences of being human as we do. But even though he was tempted by sin, he overcame the desire of sin.

If they are apocrypha, then why mention them?

And how could God, who as perfect judgment and zero
tendency to sin, be just like us and get into mischief?
I don’t understand.

Children get into mischief because they have original sin
and a distorted free will.

JeffreyGerard

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sin, however, is a consequence of original sin.

Not for Adam and Eve it wasn’t. Which is significant, because Mary, full of grace, the New Eve said “yes” to God’s will, while Eve, also having been created holy, also sinless, said “no” to God’s will.

Mary could only sin if she had a disposition to sin, which she did not.

Mary could have sinned. She didn’t need original sin to be disposed to sin, as Eve proved.

Adam and Eve were created with original justice, with preternatural and supernatural gifts (e.g., sanctifying grace), in addition to their natural gifts. They sinned. Concupiscience does indeed make mastering sin very difficult. Cain had it, yet God told him that he must master sin. Do you think God would have told him that if there was no possible way of achieving it? I don’t.

Jesus told the harlot to “Go, and sin no more.” It is difficult, but possible, with the grace of God.

According to Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Mary was free from all motions of concupiscience (just like Eve). One sinned. One didn’t. This is why Mary is said by the early church fathers to have untied the knot that Eve tied. Yet, the grace that Mary was filled with was not irresistible grace. She could have, just as Eve did, sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For one to not sin, one must be divine.

I disagree. There was a time when Adam and Eve were sinless. They were not divine. The angels in heaven (as opposed to the fallen angels) have never sinned. They are not divine. Infants have not sinned (personal sin), and they are not divine. Your assertion above is unconvincing and unsupported by either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When Jesus as a boy misbehaved, I’m sure she grew angry at him and punished him for his misbehavior as all Mothers do.

Rubbish.

For Jesus to have “misbehaved” means that he did not honor his Mother and Father, which is a sin. Jesus did no sin. Your theology has many inconsistenciess.

Mary did indeed need a savior. But one can be saved in two ways: 1) the savior pulls us out of the pit of sin after already haven fallen into it, and 2) the savior prevents us from falling into the pit of sin to begin with. Mary was saved by the Lord in the second way.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If Mary was without sin, then she would have had no need to go up to the temple to make an offering for sins.

Mary was an obedient and faithful Jew, as was Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John. Did that prove that he needed a baptism of repentence? I don’t think you’ve made a very convincing argument.

All have sinned.

The word “all” (pas in Greek) can have *different *meanings (as it does in English). It can mean literally “every single one” in some places, and it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (Rom 11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in Rom 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5), which clearly cannot be taken literally.

From Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:

Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., “all Jerusalem” in Mt 2:3 and “all the sick” in 4:24. {pp.796-7}

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean “every kind or variety.” {v.1, p.46, under “All”}.

Consider also the following passage:

*"The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good *[Hebrew, *tob] no not one. {Ps 14:2-3; cf. 53:1-3 / Paul cites these in Rom 3:10-12}
Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims I trusted in your steadfast love… {13:5}, which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right… {15:2}. Even two verses later he writes that …God is with the company of the righteous. (!!!) So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance. Such remarks are common to Jewish poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5 refers to a good man (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).

The above is taken from Dave Armstong’s discussion on the word “all” (Gk ‘pas’) in Scripture. You can read more here:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ135.HTM

 

[trevor]

Scott_Lafrance:

She had to. The ark of God’s covenant by its very nature had to be pure.

It’s just this simple. God abhors sin. Do we think He would come to earth in a vessel of sin? That wouldn’t be consistent with God so Yes, Mary was sinless.

ybiC,
Trevor

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

I love the discussion that’s going on. I really don’t have anything to add, but I do have a frustrating story.
When my sister was at a Catholic grade school, she asked one of the nuns if Mary, being conceived without original sin, was sinless for her entire life. The nun replied, “Well, she was conceived without original sin, but I’m sure she sinned at least once. After all, she’d have been pretty boring otherwise.” Not only is she telling my sister that Mary must have sinned, she’s also giving her the message that sin makes a person more interesting. And this from a nun at a Catholic school. :banghead:

 

[gladtobe]

One poster claims Paul did not mean to say all men are sinners? Yet in the same chapter Paul says none are righteous, no, not one. Now what does this mean ? When one is not righteous does that not mean one is a sinner? If one is righteous, that surely means they are without sin does it not?

                             Also if all men have not sinned since Adam, then Christ did not die for all men. For Christ would have not died for those who were not sinners, now would he? But the bible says Christ is the Savior of **all men**, especially of those that believe. I Tim 4:10.Was Mary a part of mankind or not? Did she have need of a Savior? 

                            One poster says well Adam and Eve were once holy and didn't sin. That's true. But after Adam and Eve's fall, every man, woman and child are born into sin, because they are the offspring of Adam and Eve who did sin. 

                             If Mary was born without a sinful nature, then why didn't Paul make mention of this in Romans chapter three, where he says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He very well knew of Mary. Was Paul absent minded?  The only person he ever stated that knew no sin was Jesus. See II Cor 5:21.

 

[mercygate]

gladtobe:

If Mary was born without a sinful nature, then why didn’t Paul make mention of this in Romans chapter three, where he says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He very well knew of Mary. Was Paul absent minded? The only person he ever stated that knew no sin was Jesus. See II Cor 5:21.

Perhaps you will share with us how your version of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception fits into this picture.

 

[gladtobe]

Actually the dogma was unheard of by the church as a whole until 1854 A.D. I reject the teaching, because it disagrees 100% with scripture and especially Paul’s writing of man’s natural state in Romans chapter 3. Our church upholds tradition and Papal infallibility, but it should subject itself to the testimony of scripture as well. When tradition and scripture disagree, scripture is always correct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Gladtobe, just what Catholic Church do you go to, that rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

Also, please find a source for your assertion that the dogma was “unheard of” until 1854.

 

[Psalm45_9]

gladtobe:

Well. first of all Jesus never sinned because his divinity resided within him. But Mary was a complete human being, flesh and blood, just as we are. If Mary was without sin, then she would have had no need to go up to the temple to make an offering for sins.Lu 1:21-23. As to the mentally impaired I do not know their state. But they are human and all humans do sin either in word, deed or thought. The mentally retarded are incapable of knowing they behaving badly, but they do sin sometimes.

I believe Jesus was like us in all ways and that includes being a little boy who gets into mischief. Many religious authors have written Jesus didn’t really become aware of his divinity until he grew older and was led by the spirit. One gnostic writer said Jesus got angry at another boy and caused him to fall off a roof and the fall killed the boy. But Jesus brought him back to life. Those are just apocrypha stories though. But I believe Jesus went through all the experiences of being human as we do. But even though he was tempted by sin, he overcame the desire of sin.

It was obedience to the Law that caused the Blessed Mother to make the sin offering, the same obediance that had Christ circumcised.

 

[mercygate]

gladtobe:

Actually the dogma was unheard of by the church as a whole until 1854 A.D. I reject the teaching, because it disagrees 100% with scripture and especially Paul’s writing of man’s natural state in Romans chapter 3. Our church upholds tradition and Papal infallibility, but it should subject itself to the testimony of scripture as well. When tradition and scripture disagree, scripture is always correct.

gladtobe – where did you get your theological education? Jack Chick Divinity School?

If you call yourself Catholic and post on a Catholic apologetics forum, you really MUST state the Catholic case as the Catholic Church teaches it. If you choose to state a personal view, then make it clear that it is your own private interpretation.

State facts that can be verified, and do not make absurd statements like “the dogma [of the Immaculate Conception] was unheard of by the church as a whole until 1854 A.D.” Such an assertion is irresponsible, confusing and simply untrue.

Non-Catholics come here. They have a right to expect that Catholic apologists will state the Catholic position with clarity.

 

[gladtobe]

Then perhaps you can supply us with some historical statements made by the pre 5th century church fathers that Mary indeed was born without sin. Would you please supply two or three clear statements? I never found any?

 

[mercygate]

gladtobe:

Then perhaps you can supply us with some historical statements made by the pre 5th century church fathers that Mary indeed was born without sin. Would you please supply two or three clear statements? I never found any?

Pre-5th Century? Your statement was “the dogma was unheard of by the church as a whole until 1854 A.D.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sorry, dear, YOU made the assertion and it’s up to YOU to find the proof of your assertion. Source, please, that the dogma was “unheard of” prior to 1854, that was your claim. Not prior to “5th century Church fathers”. Come on, we’re waiting.

I believe I and others have asked you this before: Just WHAT Catholic Church do you belong to, which denies the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

Just what kind of “Catholic” education did you have, that you appear to be so ignorant of the Church’s teachings on this point and many others?

Just where do you get your “authority” to speak about your rejection of Catholicism and yet assert your identity as a Catholic?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Mercy. . .

Perhaps you and I could do a duet of “Tea for Two”?
Or “We’ve got trouble, right here in River City”?

Hold the fort for me. . .I’ve got to get home and cook some fish.

See you later!

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Searching around on the Catholic Answers web site, I found this within a minute.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

For the full article, catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Also,

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (*Nisibene Hymns *27:8 [A.D. **361

]).

(emphasis added)
There are more quotes by early Church Fathers at catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp, but I think a quote by even one disproves the idea that the Immaculate Conception was “unheard of” before 1854 or before the 5th century

 

[MariaG]

posted by gladtobe

Then perhaps you can supply us with some historical statements made by the pre 5th century church fathers that Mary indeed was born without sin. Would you please supply two or three clear statements? I never found any?

Try reading this

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

or this

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Frankly, you sound like a protestant, but your profile says Catholic. The immaculate conception is not something a Catholic can in good conscience dissent from. Since both of these tracts, easily found on the site of our host Catholic Answers contains quotes from the Church Fathers, where exactly have you been looking?

 

[Exporter]

gladtobe:

Well. first of all Jesus never sinned because his divinity resided within him. But Mary was a complete human being, flesh and blood, just as we are. If Mary was without sin, then she would have had no need to go up to the temple to make an offering for sins.Lu 1:21-23. As to the mentally impaired I do not know their state. But they are human and all humans do sin either in word, deed or thought. The mentally retarded are incapable of knowing they behaving badly, but they do sin sometimes.

I believe Jesus was like us in all ways and that includes being a little boy who gets into mischief. Many religious authors have written Jesus didn’t really become aware of his divinity until he grew older and was led by the spirit. One gnostic writer said Jesus got angry at another boy and caused him to fall off a roof and the fall killed the boy. But Jesus brought him back to life. Those are just apocrypha stories though. But I believe Jesus went through all the experiences of being human as we do. But even though he was tempted by sin, he overcame the desire of sin.

---

Look at what you wrote, I highlighted it blue. Sure she went to the Temple AFTER she gave birth. She was following Jewish Religious Rituals. All Jewish women made a small sacrifice after child birth. SHE DIDN’T GO TO THE TEMPLE FOR ACTUAL SIN.IT WAS A RITUAL. She was obeying her God in the Temple.