Did Mary ever sin?

[patrick457]

Okay then guys.

This thread is meant to be a continuation of a debate over this other thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118452

We’ll move the discussion here to prevent the other from drifting off-topic.

 

[masterjedi747]

Go ahead and debate it all you want, but it’s never going to change the answer.
And the answer is NO.

 

[squeekster]

If Mary was a human being, then it is completely ludicrous to believe she never sinned. There is NO Scriptural evidence to show otherwise. The idea that Mary was sinless is nothing more than a fairy tale. Period.

 

[4given]

Go ahead and debate it all you want, but it’s never going to change the true, biblical answer. And the answer is YES.

 

[TOP]

No , she was born without the stain of original sin. Her sinless womb was the perfect home for our Lord prior to birth. She was the immaculate conception. Tim

 

[squeekster]

No , she was born without the stain of original sin. Her sinless womb was the perfect home for our Lord prior to birth. She was the immaculate conception. Tim

So you would have us believe that God is a liar? In HIS WORD, He says that ALL have sinned. That would include Mary. It would NOT include Jesus because He has always been. And since He is God the Son, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to sin. Not so with Mary.

So what we have is this.

God says ALL, including Mary, have sinned.
The RCC says all, EXCEPT Mary, have sinned.

Thanks, but I’ll side with God on this one.

 

[VociMike]

So you would have us believe that God is a liar? In HIS WORD, He says that ALL have sinned. That would include Mary.

Then it would include Jesus as well, for He is truly man.

Tell me, what sin has a stillborn child committed?

 

[TOP]

In “The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: A Commmemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Proclamation of the Dogma” wrote for Dec. 8, 2004 by Rev. Frederick L. Miller it states on page 14, "The eternal “concept’ God has of Mary was realized in the act of her physical conception. The Holy Spirit intervened in a unique manner in that conception. He intervened silently and secretly as Mary’s parents expressed their love for each other in the act of marital love. He intervened not only by creating Mary’s soul “out of nothing” as He does in the conception of every human person, but also by simultaneously filling her with His sanctifying presence, therby preserving her from inheriting the sin of Adam.” Tim

 

[Reformed1]

Then it would include Jesus as well, for He is truly man.

Tell me, what sin has a stillborn child committed?

According to your theology, and mine too, they are still tainted with original sin.

 

[VociMike]

According to your theology, and mine too, they are still tainted with original sin.

But Paul does not say “all are tainted with sin” or “all are born in sin” or anything like it, he says “all have sinned”. That is active sin, not passive being affected by the sin of others.

If the original objector does believe in original sin, then the question again becomes, if all have sinned (original sin), what about Jesus?

 

[squeekster]

If you want to believe the twisted untruths of your church, go for it. I will believe what God says over the mere whims of a bunch of men.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If you want to believe the twisted untruths of your church, go for it. I will believe what God says over the mere whims of a bunch of men.

Because you have done such a great job of defending your position…

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Then it would include Jesus as well, for He is truly man.

Tell me, what sin has a stillborn child committed?

Unfortunately we are all saddled with original sin. IMHO a stillborn child is in heaven because that child was unable to confess that Jesus was Lord and was not at an age of accountability. Therefore, IMHO those babies are in heaven as well as aborted babies.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Then it would include Jesus as well, for He is truly man.

Hi, now cmon I know you dont believe this.

 

[squeekster]

Because you have done such a great job of defending your position…

If Scripture isn’t good enough for you, and you would rather follow mere men, there really isn’t anything else to say. You wouldn’t listen anyway.

 

[whosebob]

According to your theology, and mine too, they are still tainted with original sin.

JMJ + OBT​

Many Protestants have an understanding of Original Sin and hold to a theology of Grace which is disparate from the Western Catholic understanding. This is a brief excerpt from the Original Sin article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi).

In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

1. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

1. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation [of grace], therefore, is the hereditary stain.

[emphasis mine]

(continued below)

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
Romans 3:9-20
3:9
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
3:10
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
3:11
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
3:12
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
3:13
“Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
3:14
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
3:15
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
3:16
ruin and misery mark their ways,
3:17
and the way of peace they do not know.”
3:18
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
AND
Romans 3 : 21-26
3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
**3:22
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
3:23****for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
3:24
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. **3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–
3:26
he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus

Hopefully this Scripture helps you. Nothing here that excludes Mary from sin.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

If Scripture isn’t good enough for you, and you would rather follow mere men, there really isn’t anything else to say. You wouldn’t listen anyway.

Again, you offered:

So you would have us believe that God is a liar? In HIS WORD, He says that ALL have sinned. That would include Mary. It would NOT include Jesus because He has always been. And since He is God the Son, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to sin. Not so with Mary.

So what we have is this.

God says ALL, including Mary, have sinned.
The RCC says all, EXCEPT Mary, have sinned.

Thanks, but I’ll side with God on this one.

To which VociMike responded:

Then it would include Jesus as well, for He is truly man.

Tell me, what sin has a stillborn child committed?

And the best thing you could can back with, since you were unable to defend your interpretation, was that our Church was, “twisted” untrue and counter to the Word of God… Being counter to your fallible interpretation of Scripture does not equal being counter to the Word of God no matter how much you will it. Great advice by the way, I will stick with the Word of God on this and not take the opinion of a “bunch of men” (your) word on it.

 

[VociMike]

Hi, now cmon I know you dont believe this.

 

[6glargento]

If Scripture isn’t good enough for you, and you would rather follow mere men, there really isn’t anything else to say. You wouldn’t listen anyway.

“all” doesn’t nessesarilly mean “every single person”

consider this:

“in adam ALL die, so in christ ALL will be made alive”

we know that not everyone has died, enoch and elija were taken up to heaven they never experianced physical death. and not all will be made alive in christ becuase many will go to hell.

in romans 3:23 paul is speaking generally his audience was made up of a bunch of people who had all sinned. (the romans)

to quote romans 3:23 to deny the immaculate conception is a very weak argument becuase it is stickly a linguistic argument, the context clearly shows that paul was apeaking to the common man and was not making a dogmatic statement.