Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Shall we now also be Arians

Ironically, your epistemology is exactly that of the Arians. The Arians held to a “Scripture only” view, and would not accept the authentic interpretation of the Catholic Church. St. Athanasius refuted the Arians by upholding the authentic interpretation of Scritpure given by the apostolical men of the Church. The Arians, like you, remained unconvinced. So, St. Athanasius asserted that the testimony of the apostolical men of the Church and the witness of the ecumencal council was sufficient to refute their heresy.

I say that like the Arians, your private view of Scripture is contary to the apostolical men of the Church and the witness of the ecumanical council [of Trent]. As such, your epistemology reveals your heresy to faithful Catholics, and is consequently unconvincing.

does not scripture also clearly say, that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God?

Yes, but it does not mean what you think it means. Paul was not speaking of original sin, but of personal sin. As such, there are obvious exceptions, like infants and children. Paul means “all kinds of men” (Gk “pas”) have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles, not “each and every human” has sinned. Jesus was a man, and did not sin. Mary too was sinless, although she was merely human and not divine. So are all the children an exception to what Paul asserts. Paul is quoting from the Old Testament. Have you read the passages he is quoting from? He says that none is righteous, just as the OT passage states. But the OT passage then goes on to list men WHO ARE RIGHTEOUS according to Scripture. Obviously, your understanding that this means “absolutely none” is mistaken, as it contradicts Scripture.

But she was still just human and she had need of a Savior. Please try to tone down the harsh remarks. Thank you.

I agree that she was human and she did indeed need a Savior. Her Savior saved her from every stain of sin at her conception. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. Scripture does not place limits upon when Christ’s grace can be gifted to us.

Sorry if the word “heresy” bothers you. But it is meant factually, not uncharitably. Heresy is not a nice word because heresy is not a nice thing. Faithful Catholics won’t stand by and let you spread heresy in our midst without admonishment. If you thought otherwise, you were sorely mistaken. It also seems to me it has been unquestionably proven that you deny Catholic dogma, which is heresy, and incurs automatic excommunication. Again, this is fact, not meant to be uncharitable. It is quite charitable to point out the truth, which you have obviously denied.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Compare the following Scripture…

No one is good but God alone. {Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17}

According to you, then, we should conclude that absolutely no one is good, right? However, this would be a faulty interpretation. Observe,

The good person brings good things out of a good treasure… {Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45, 7:17-20, 22:10}

If absolutely no one is good, then who are these “good persons” that Matthew refers to?

 

[john_doran]

gladtobe:

Does the church have the authority to contradict what is already written in scripture? Or should it uphold what scripture says?

and then you say this:

gladtobe:

There is only one flaw in your reasoning. Both Paul and Peter journeyed to Rome. So the Roman Christians would have known about Mary through Peter’s ministry.After all Mary, was the Mother of God incarnate. Also, I am sure the Christians in Rome were told of the Son of God’s incarnation as well as his death, burial and resurrection.

where exactly is any of this written in scripture? do you see what you’re doing here? you’re engaging in reasoning about scripture, using non-scriptural historical facts. you are INTERPRETING scripture.

and yet, when confronted here with the same kind of reasoning concerning use of the word “all” in certain passages of scripture, you refuse to engage the reasoning itself and instead simply keep repeating “but that’s not what scripture says”, over and over and over.

which makes absolutely no sense. at all.

it seems to me that you should (1) come out and explicitly embrace your inconsistency, at which point the conversation is over, (2) frankly admit the relative weakness of your position, or (3) actually demonstrate the weakness in those arguments you are currently just ignoring.

 

[ThornGenX]

I believe that she did lead a sinless life. I pray that someday I can give a really good explainations to defend this belief. Right now I say that I am standing firm with the church’s teachings and traditions and that I know this belief to be correct in my heart, soul and mind.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger, in his NRSV commentary describes what is meant by “all are guilty” (Rom 3:9-20)

All are guilty. Jew and Greek , despite the former’s advantages, they stand on the same ground, under the power of sin.
Metzger interprets “pas” in this passage to mean “all kinds” This interpretation ought to be clear from the context of the OT versus that Paul is referencing.

“There is no one who is righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10)

He’s recalling what is asserted in Ps 14:1-2:

1

Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good, no, not one. Can one literally exclude every human being from being described as “good” or “righteous” or “seeking after God?” This doesn’t seem likely, as the same Psalm asserts that “God is with the company of the righteous.” Hmmmm… someone, in fact a “company” of persons are righteous, right? There are some who are innocent, right? Otherwise this verse make no sense: “they murder the innocent.” (Psalm 10:8)

The Psalmist is obviously lamenting widespread sinfulness in a familiar yet idomatic Hebrew way, but is not asserting that absolutely no one is innocent or righteous before the Lord, for that would contradict Scripture, which asserts that Noah and Abraham and many others were indeed righteous.

The Psalmist himsef tells of “Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up a reproach against their neighbors” (Ps 15:2-3).

Psalm 112 refers to those whose “righteousness endures forever” which by your interpretation is impossible, because "no one who does good, no, not one" is supposed to be taken literally as meaning absolutely no one. Yet this interpretation makes nonsense of other passages of Scripture, like “***Asa did what was good and right in the sight of the Lord his God.” ***(2 Chr 14:2).

So, it is clear to faithful Catholics that your understanding of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans if not infallible, and is quite flawed given the context of the rest of Scripture and Tradition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “As in Adam *all *die, so in Christ *all *will be made alive” {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

(from Dave Armstrong, ibid.)
“Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death” (Heb 11:5)

And Paul asserts, “***Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all ***die” (1 Cor 15:51)

 

[gladtobe]

Dave

        Well. what can I say to a man that believes only some men are sinners and not all?  I maintain that Christ died for sinners and that was the whole world of sinners. If you want to believe Christ died for some sinners than that is your privilege. But I'm not going to but into it.

        I am aware of Dave Armstrong. I was not aware that he now believes only part of mankind are now sinners? That's news to me. Sounds like he has jumped over to the Calvinist side, where Christ only died for the elect.James White will love hearing that.

        What is really humorous is this. If all mankind are not sinners, but only some and Christ only died for those some, then how do you know for sure that Christ really died for you?

 

[km112482]

All I can say is I believe that married did lead a sinless life, but if you are having trouble understanding or believing that then read this article from the cahtolic answers library.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

I read it and it helped me understand alot that I didnt understand before.

Kerri

 

[km112482]

In regard to where someone states that “Mary was human and still needed a savoir”… here is what I was taught and have read up on about that situation.

Mary too required a savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject ot the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way-by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. she too has been saved from the pit, from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied ot her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Chatechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC492). she has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
This comes from the website that I listed above in my first post!

Kerri

 

[gladtobe]

Thanks, the 3 church fathers quotes from itsjustdave really left a deep impression on me. Especially the part that Mary did not have the stain of sin. That turned the tide for me.

 

[Exporter]

gladtobe, see the Gospel of St. Luke 1:26 -38. Especially verse 28. The Archangel would not lie, Gabriel was sent by God to speak to Mary. I believe thaat Gabriel told the truth.He saaid,“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed at thou among women”.

Grace is that which is given by God, and Mary was FULL OF IT. She was not 90% full of grace, she was full of grace. That means there was no room in Mary for sin. Remember that Mary was concieved without sin, not even Original Sin.That’s the beginning of it. We wouldn’t expect God to allow His Only Son to live 9 months in a sinful woman. She was special from her Immaculate Conception.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

gladtobe:

Well. what can I say to a man that believes only some men are sinners and not all?

Hmmmm… you have obviously misunderstood me.

If by sin, you mean personal formal sin, then there have been many who have lived and died before committing personal sin, as infants and children cannot commit personal formal sin because their actions lack the necessary voluntary character.

According to St.Thomas Aquinas,

If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, … then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether. (Summa Theologica, IIa, 76, 3)

Perhaps the following will help you to better understand Catholic doctrine:

"The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin." (Pius IX, *Ineffabilis, *1854).

Notice that Mary did not save herself, nor was she divine. Catholicism never asserted such a thing. Instead, Catholicism asserts that Mary was saved by the Grace of Christ alone. She was kept from original sin and personal sin by the grace of the one Lord and Savior of all humantiy, Jesus Christ.

Moreover, “***No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin” ***(Council of Trent, D 833).

The obvious context of the above statement from Trent is with regard to personal sin, sins that only those who have attained the use of reason can commit. Justified infants and children, and others whose faculties for reason are impaired, cannot commit personal sin. If justified infants and children die before they attain the age of reason, they die without personal sin. They are described as sinners in view of the sins they would have committed, and in view of the original sin that was remitted at baptism. If they are saved, they are saved only by the grace of Christ.

Was Jesus a sinner? No, even though he had a human nature, it was hypostically united to a Divine nature, therefore he never lacked justification.

Was Mary a sinner? No, even though she had a human nature and not a divine nature, she was protected from sin by the grace of Jesus Christ, in view of her role as Mother of God. She was regenerated with sanctifying grace, just like every other Christian, except that her regeneration happened, by Divine providence, when she was conceived. It could have happened later, but it was most fitting that the Mother of God be free from every stain of sin.

Can humans be sanctified before birth? Yes. According to Jer. 1:5: “Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.” And of John the Baptist, Luke 1:15 says*: “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.*”

Given the above passages, it ought not to be inconcievable to the faithful that God would choose a special privilege for His Son’s Mother, Mary, such that she was sanctified at the very moment of her conception. Yet, Mary’s sanctification was just as reliant upon the grace of Christ as was John the Baptist’s sanctification, which also occured before birth. All of humanity needs a savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ.

I do believe that all are sinners, but not in the same sense that you undertand it. That in no way means that all humanity, each and every individual person have personally sinned (infants, children, Jesus, and Mary are exceptions), or that each and every person was created with the stain of original sin (Adam and Eve are exceptions, as well as the new Adam, Jesus, and the new Eve, Mary). If Paul can assert that “all have died” while at the same time asserting that “We will not all die,” then obviously there are other ways to interpret “all” apart from the sense that means “absolutely everyone.”

 

[Angainor]

Church Militant:

Could The Blessed Virgin have lived a sinless life?

My answer is a mixture.

Yes, she could have lived a sinless life (any of us could).

No, she didn’t live a sinless life, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

Yes, of course it matters that Mary has fallen short, each of us matter in the eyes of God.

No, it does not matter to God’s plan for salvation that Mary fell short. Jesus remained sinless.

 

[Church_Militant]

Angainor:

My answer is a mixture.

Yes, she could have lived a sinless life (any of us could).

No, she didn’t live a sinless life, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

Yes, of course it matters that Mary has fallen short, each of us matter in the eyes of God.

No, it does not matter to God’s plan for salvation that Mary fell short. Jesus remained sinless.

Angainor my friend,
I agree with you on # 1…
I question your answer on # 2, because it is factually inaccurate. Is a newborn a sinner under that Pauline “all”? Is a mentally incapacitated person included in that “all”?
as to # 3…consider this:
Perhaps non-Catholics make much less of it than they really should have. Mary’s salvation was unique in that the sacrifice of Christ was applied to her at her conception due to the foreknowlege of God in knowing both her selection by Him and her resultant “fiat”. Therefore her salvation was preemptive and being greeted by Gabriel as “full of grace” (a unique and singular title in all of history!) she was preserved from the stain of “actual” sin, which we are all clearly called to as well.

I have to agree in principle on point # 4…though I would say that the issue of Mary’s sinless life has TREMENDOUS ramifications for all believers who desire to live a holy life, since if no one can or has lived a sinless life by cooperating with the superabundant grace of God, then does that not mean that God’s graces are to no effect and that we cannot rely upon them to lead the sinless and holy lives that he has clearly called us to?

As one who loves God and believes that He gives us everything we need for life and holiness, I find the concept that the Blessed Virgin did indeed lead a sinless life by the grace of God greatly encouraging and inspirational and easy to believe since it is very much in line with the character of the God that I find in the Bible and the historic lives of the saints. Saints like Mary, the mother of God. Saints who I would love to be just like. Remember the words of God to St.Paul…
2 Corinthians 12: 9 “And he said to me:** My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity.** Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

bump

 

[Angainor]

me:

Yes, she could have lived a sinless life (any of us could).

No, she didn’t live a sinless life, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

Yes, of course it matters that Mary has fallen short, each of us matter in the eyes of God.

No, it does not matter to God’s plan for salvation that Mary fell short. Jesus remained sinless.

Church Militant:

I question your answer on # 2, because it is factually inaccurate. Is a newborn a sinner under that Pauline “all”? Is a mentally incapacitated person included in that “all”?You are technically correct. I would exempt from Paul’s statement those people who are incapable from sinning because they are incapable of exercising their will in any significant sense. However, just because there may be technical exceptions, I do not think that makes Paul’s statement altogether meaningless. I myself see no reason to exempt Mary from Romans 3:23.
Church Militant:

as to # 3…consider this: Perhaps non-Catholics make much less of it than they really should have. Mary’s salvation was unique in that the sacrifice of Christ was applied to her at her conception due to the foreknowlege of God in knowing both her selection by Him and her resultant “fiat”. Therefore her salvation was preemptive and being greeted by Gabriel as “full of grace” (a unique and singular title in all of history!) she was preserved from the stain of “actual” sin, which we are all clearly called to as well.

I don’t really have much to say on this, except: Wouldn’t the world be a much nicer place if God granted everyone preemptive salvation? If God was willing to do that for Mary, why not all of us?
Church Militant:
I have to agree in principle on point # 4…though I would say that the issue of Mary’s sinless life has TREMENDOUS ramifications for all believers who desire to live a holy life, since if no one can or has lived a sinless life by cooperating with the superabundant grace of God, then does that not mean that God’s graces are to no effect and that we cannot rely upon them to lead the sinless and holy lives that he has clearly called us to?

Point of fact: Jesus did live a sinless life by cooperating with the superabundant grace of God.

Yes, we can rely on God’s graces to lead the sinless and holy lives that he as clearly called us to. With or without Jesus, God has always provided us with the grace to lead a sinless and holy life. The question is: Do we rely on God’s graces? I can say for myself: no, I don’t always rely on God’s graces. I have fallen short. I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is why I need Jesus.
Church Militant:

As one who loves God and believes that He gives us everything we need for life and holiness, I find the concept that the Blessed Virgin did indeed lead a sinless life by the grace of God greatly encouraging and inspirational

To this I would say: Look instead to Jesus!

Catholicism emphasizes Jesus’ glory, holiness, and deity. It is fine to remember those things, but do not let that blind you to all else. It is understandable to me that if Jesus’ deity is over-emphasized, someone might yearn for the missing piece. Jesus was also fully human! He was, in every sense, one of us! Jesus was the sinless one. Jesus is the one that fully relied on God’s graces. Jesus is the missing piece Catholicism has been blinded to. Catholicism has been trying to fit Mary into the missing piece that Catholicism has lost sight of. Jesus himself was the human factor in our salvation.

Glory be to God!

 

[jimmy]

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.

First of all, just because Jesus had a divine nature does not mean he was sinless. His divine nature had to conquer what was declared evil by God. He could still sin in the flesh if he had wanted to, but he did not because he chose not to.

That was not an offering for sins, it was an offering for uncleanness. She did not offer a guilt offering as described in Leviticus. There are several types of offerings including a sin offering and a guilt offering. A guilt offering is offered when you commit a sin. A sin offering is offered when you are unclean. They were offered when a woman got pregnant because sex was considered dirty in a way.

The heresy that says that the divinity did not enter Christ untill his baptism is the Nestorian heresy. It was condemned at the council of Ephesus in 431. I suggest you read the council. The continuous teaching of the Church has been that Mary bore God in her womb and she gave birth to God. That has always been what the Church has taught. Read Irenaeus and Tertulian and Justyn if you want to see this.

If Christ had sinned as you claim then his sacrifice would mean nothing because he would be just as impure as us. Christ was perfect in all ways. He did not get mischeivious as a child. He honored all the commandments and all the laws of God. If he wouldn’t have, then he would have no justification to judge us on that behavior. Christ is perfect in all ways. Anger is a sin and the way you are thinking contradicts itself. If he sins, then he can’t be sinless.

The agnostic writings were rejected by the Church because they taught what the Church did not teach. They were written long after the death and ressurection of Christ. The gospel of Thomas was written in the mid to late 2nd century. It contradicted the teachings of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

gladtobe:

And may I ask this question as well. Does the church have the authority to contradict what is already written in scripture? Or should it uphold what scripture says? Paul’s writing in Romans chapter 3 is a depiction of mankind’s universality in sin. ALL men. And as I said before, since Paul knew of Mary, why didn’t he say Mary was the exception to all men as being a sinner and falling short of the glory of God? Was Paul absent minded?

First off, the bible is a writing of the Church and the Church is not subject to the bible in any way.

Second, the bible and the Church do not contradict in any way, the bible supports the Church in every teaching.

 

[scylla]

You see no reason to exempt Mary from this passage of Paul?!! even though more than one person has mentioned Psalm 53 and plenty of logical reasoning behind her being sinless. Plus historical evidence of this.

It starts like this,
“Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.”

Read Psalm 53 and see if he is indeed talking about all humans who have ever lived, including infants (who possibly have died without ever personally sinning) or Mary. Has everyone who ever lived said in their hearts “There is no God?”

My private interpretation of the Bible has been wrong before, so I prefer to bow to the wisdom of the Church. The Church has been around since Christ and He created it. If it is indeed the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth then it all makes sense.

There is a reason the Church has to define doctrine. The Church just doesn’t make stuff up willy, nilly. If that were the case then I could say the Church made up the Bible, why believe in it?

 

[Church_Militant]

My dear Angainor,
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. It’s a pleasure to discourse with you sir!

I don’t really have much to say on this, except: Wouldn’t the world be a much nicer place if God granted everyone preemptive salvation? If God was willing to do that for Mary, why not all of us?

Sure it would indeed be great, but that isn’t really what this is all about. Again I have to point out that the Blessed Virgin is unique in all of history. We are not… Consider how pure and holy the Ark of the Covenant was. it simply being the vessel of the old law etc. Now consider that same purity and holiness with respect to the one woman who would bear the New Covenant with her human body. That uniqueness is staggering is it not? Yet the contents of that first Ark was not divine and Mary was indeed the Ark of the New Covenant (De facto) who carried divinity within her. She was the recipient of special graces at her conception that we do not have. Her special destiny and God’s foreknowlege of her fiat means that she was already accustomed (from birth) to cooperating with that superabundance of God’s grace in her life. She was the very first believer, in a way that none of us can really even get a grip on…just glimpses.

I do not think that makes Paul’s statement altogether meaningless.

I myself see no reason to exempt Mary from Romans 3:23.

This is not my contention at all, at all. I am merely pointing out that Biblically and logically my premiss is possible.

I might even go on to say that Mary knew of God’s preemptive work of grace in her life and that that is evident from her Magnificat when she says: “46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.”
(Luke 1:46-49)

Yes, we can rely on God’s graces to lead the sinless and holy lives that he as clearly called us to.

With or without Jesus, God has always provided us with the grace to lead a sinless and holy life. The question is: Do we rely on God’s graces? I can say for myself: no, I don’t always rely on God’s graces. I have fallen short. I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is why I need Jesus.

This is a very good point. If we know that God has indeed supplied all the grace we need to live sinless lives, (Whether we do personally or not. I agree with you in my own life.) Then why do we dare to doubt that someone else, especially the unique mother of God incarnate, did indeed do so. We have no evidence of any sin of Mary’s, do we? We know that there are natural exceptions to St.Paul’s quote from the OT, right?

Consider one more thing as well: The passage that Paul quotes is from the OT…even when God made such pronouncements through the prophets, were there not exceptions even then? The prophets themselves? A faithful remnant? There were indeed, weren’t there? Then why not in the New Covenat as well? Why not the Mother of God?

Please also keep in mind that all of this is the result of the timeless sacrifice of Christ on the cross. (The lamb slain before the foundation of the world St John calls Him, right?)
If that sacrifice was preeminient and was applied to the faithful of the OT, then why could it not be applied only slightly differently to the unique soul of the one woman who would bear the Son of God? No one here is ever going to say that the Blessed Virgin did not need a savior…even she rejoiced in that. I will say that it seems apparent to me that Mary is the prize-winning example of a believer who did indeed lead a sinless life in cooperation with God’s grace.

Jesus is the missing piece Catholicism has been blinded to. Catholicism has been trying to fit Mary into the missing piece that Catholicism has lost sight of. Jesus himself was the human factor in our salvation

I’m sorry, but this part is really a great expression of why we need this site and forums like this. We Catholics do not and have not ever sought to “fit Mary into the missing piece that Catholicism has lost sight of.” If you think this then you really do need to read more of what our faithful writers have to say about all this. I beg you to go to the library on the main page and carefully read through the tracts there since they deal with this much more concisely than I can. All of us here will readily agree with your last line.
Pax vobiscum,