Did Mary know she was sinless?

[D_M]

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according wo what is said in teh law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12:6-8 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Whoever has thoughts on the matter please share, even protestants who will undoubtedly take this as proof that catholic teaching must be wrong…

 

[Christy_Beth]

Mary gave for her offering of two birds because that was the law. She was humble before the Lord, not thinking herself above her station in life. She obey His law, because He said it, she did it.

Ugh!! I’m not making much sense am I? The law called for two animals to be sacrificed. In this case, two birds. Mary was humble, so she obeyed this law since it was God’s law. If Mary had been puffed up about her status, God couldn’t have used her. Because she would then be sinful. Did I do better that time?

 

[Nita]

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

…

We just don’t know what Mary thought.
When the angel addresses her as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace”), Scripture says “she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.” (Luke 1:29). That sort of indicates to me that she was not aware of her sinlessness. (But, this is only an opinion.)

As Christy Beth noted, Mary brought the sin offering because the Law required it after the birth of a child. Jesus also fulfilled Law requirements that He was exempt from (cf Mt 17:25-27). Consider also that Jesus, altho He was sinless, received the baptism of John, for the repentence of sin (Mt. 3;13-15)

Nita

 

[D_M]

We just don’t know what Mary thought.
When the angel addresses her as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace”), Scripture says “she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.” (Luke 1:29). That sort of indicates to me that she was not aware of her sinlessness. (But, this is only an opinion.)

As Christy Beth noted, Mary brought the sin offering because the Law required it after the birth of a child. Jesus also fulfilled Law requirements that He was exempt from (cf Mt 17:25-27). Consider also that Jesus, altho He was sinless, received the baptism of John, for the repentence of sin (Mt. 3;13-15)

Nita

Thanks for both of your replies

Would Jesus have been exempt from paying taxes though?

For example in John’s gospel Jesus says to Pilate (John 19:11) Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

That temporal rulers had authority over Jesus (and over the rest of humanity as well) that God had given them… of course he did only speak in the conditional in that line.

Although John’s baptism for the repentance of sins of course could not have applied to Jesus (and He could not have been ignorant of that either), but He nevertheless fulfilled it in obedience to God… good point

That’s a good point also about the angel Gabriel, I hadn’t thought of that…

 

[peary]

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

I believe that Mary understood a special relationship with God that no one else had, but I do not know if she realized her sinlessness. If she did, her humility denotes her sanctity.

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

But Mary didn’t do this by herself. She went with her husband, Joseph, who was not sinless. They went as a married couple. And remember that in marriage, according to the Lord, the “two shall become one flesh.” So, irregardless as to her sinlessness, she shared in her husband’s imperfection because of her relationship to him as his wife. That’s how I understand it.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Jesus knelt before John the Baptist to be baptized. John didn’t want to do it but Jesus told him that he should go through the motions just the same. True, the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove above Him, but Jesus subjected Himself to what that aspect of Judaism required.

 

[sancte_joseph]

i think this is silly its like “Did Jesus know he was divine?”
I personally think Our Blessed Mother did know…and out of obedience and humilty to the Law did what was commanded. and i don’t think the sin offerring was because Saint Joseph was with her…ok he was not sinless but still we must think what made him a righteous saint? his close relationship with the Christ child and his blessed mother.

 

[LilyM]

Well, she knew God had already saved her - ‘my spirit rejoices in God my saviour’ - so I think the answer is more likely to be yes than no, although of course she was always humble.

 

[GailMac]

Off the cuff, I’d say Mary knew she was different but as to the actual thought of sin, I think she was of a mind like Eve before the fall. There were three things they had before the fall and sin took them away. If you remember Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the tree of which they ate the forbidden fruit gave them knowlege of good and evil, so if Mary was in a state of fullness of grace, she knew about sin but knew no sin. Her sorrow over the sins of the world around her, even to sharing in her Son’s Crucifixion, were in a mind that thought on these things differently then we do.

I don’t think theologians these days give her all that is due her when they try to take away her intelligence. Somehow they see her silence as stupidity. Yes, she knew. And she knew a few things besides! She is after all, wisdom.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according wo what is said in teh law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12:6-8 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Whoever has thoughts on the matter please share, even protestants who will undoubtedly take this as proof that catholic teaching must be wrong…

I doubt it very much - really holy people seem to have no idea at all that they are anything of the kind; on the contrary, they seem to be unanimous in seeing themselves as the lowest of the low. They see what God is - & what they are: that is why.​

All Saints see God - in that respect, she is in the same boat as any other; God is infinite whether one is the BVM, or any other Saint. So presumably her privileges are irrelevant here; had they been even greater, she would still be a creature, still be nothing in comparison with the God of Infinite Holiness.

IMO

 

[Mailman]

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according wo what is said in teh law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12:6-8 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Whoever has thoughts on the matter please share, even protestants who will undoubtedly take this as proof that catholic teaching must be wrong…

LilyM said Mary knew God had already saved her because she said, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” But you can also look at it this way: Does anyone need a Savior if he/she has no sin? Of course not. That makes it rather confusing. We’re looking at whether Mary knew she was sinless but this text shows clearly that she was not sinless. Can anyone give an explanation?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mailman - You could look at it this way - God created Adam and Even in a sinless state, yet they fell. God created Mary in a sinless state, yet she never fell. He preserved her from all sin. *He “saved” her at her conception *and thus she was able to proclaim: “My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior!” at her manifestation to Elizabeth during the Visitation. So there you have it - God is truely her Savior, but the moment in time in which this great deed is accomplished is different for her then the rest of us. The Canticle of Mary also states: “For He Who is mighty has done great things for me…” Would this not be one of those great deeds? her Salvation from sin at her conception, yet her soul waited until after the Annunciation and not until her visitation to her cousin Elizabeth did she make an outward sign of what she already knew within. Wisdom.

Does that help any? I hope so.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Mailman]

Dear Mailman - You could look at it this way - God created Adam and Even in a sinless state, yet they fell. God created Mary in a sinless state, yet she never fell. He preserved her from all sin. *He “saved” her at her conception *and thus she was able to proclaim: “My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior!” at her manifestation to Elizabeth during the Visitation. So there you have it - God is truely her Savior, but the moment in time in which this great deed is accomplished is different for her then the rest of us. The Canticle of Mary also states: “For He Who is mighty has done great things for me…” Would this not be one of those great deeds? her Salvation from sin at her conception, yet her soul waited until after the Annunciation and not until her visitation to her cousin Elizabeth did she make an outward sign of what she already knew within. Wisdom.

Does that help any? I hope so.

Peace,

Gail

Dear Gail, Thanks for your thoughts. I’m still confused why the Bible does not say Mary is without sin in plain language but it does say Mary needed a Savior, showing that she was with sin. I try to read the Bible with an open mind as if I know nothing of anyone’s belief or teaching and when I gather all the texts that talk about Mary and sin, I do not really see anything there that even remotely suggests that Mary was without sin. That may not be the case if I read the Bible armed with a preconceived notion that Mary is without sin. When Mary said, “For He who is mighty has done great things for me,” she did not go on to say one of those great things is that she was saved at conception. We only ASSUMED that was one of the great things done to her because we believed beforehand that she was without sin. The only sure thing we know what great thing was done to her was that, of all the women of the stock of Abraham at the time, she was the one chosen by God to bear His Son. And so she was “blessed among women” - or she was being bestowed a great favor by God.

If you can share some more texts about Mary which talk about these things I would really appreciate it.

God bless.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mailman - You asked this:“I’m still confused why the Bible does not say Mary is without sin in plain language but it does say Mary needed a Savior,…”

The simple answer is easy - God never intended for the Bible to be the sole arbiter of anyone’s faith. He relied upon the Apostles to teach, not write books. Jesus didn’t give dictation, He preached. He relied on His word spreading orally for the message of Salvation to go out to the world. He sent the Apostles to teach and Baptise and forgive sins. They did.

When I read about Mary at the Annuciation, I don’t see her sinful as some do. I know differently. She couldn’t have any sin in her or God couldn’t have taken His abode within her. Mary is a mystery for many. Trust God to have gotten it right.

From the womb before the dawn I begot you…

God knew what He was doing.

To your particular remark “but it does say Mary needed a Savior,…” I would say, no, read carefully the Magnificat - Luke Chapter 1, verse 46 to 47----

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Note carefully verse 47 Mary acknowleges her Savior but doesn’t say WHEN!!! Does this mean that the point in time she was saved at was at that particular moment or before? Is it possible that she was saved at the moment she was conceived in her mother’s womb? With God all things are possible. And what exactly did God save her from? Sin. That is after all, the ultimate goal of salvific actions, to save us from sin! To begin to doubt this could lead one to doubting one’s own salvation.

I would also like to say…imagine your own soul rejoicing in God’s saving actions in your life…but for Mary this was magnified by an untold number of persons, for she was carrying in her womb the Incarnate Word, the Savior not only of herself but of the entire world, her past, her present and her future! EVERYONE!!! Imagine that if you dare! The first born was with the first saved! Mary! And this good news went forth and spoke through Mary to Elizabeth at the mystery we call the Visitation. I think you could pray a Rosary and focus on the mystery of the Visitation and ask God for some grace to see better.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Mailman]

Dear Gail,
I was not unlike you for a good many years of my adult life (I’m now 52). I did not also give that much importance to the Bible because I did not grasp the full import and significance of the statement, “The Bible is the Word of God.” Only very much later in life did I realize that if the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then God Himself is the one speaking in the pages of the Bible. How wonderful, I thought, it’s as if God is talking to me personally when I’m reading the book! He does not really have to appear to me in person to make His revelations known; it is there for me to read! And then I also realized that if the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible must be without error or contradiction in ALL its teachings – whether it be about faith, morals, history, science – EVERYTHING! And, indeed, I have yet to find one error or contradiction in the Bible. No wonder Jesus said, “… the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

And one thing I noticed, Jesus ALWAYS quotes Scripture whenever He speaks about any subject that has already been written. It is as if He is telling us: “If you ask me anything that is already written in Scripture, I will just quote that text for my answer.” This is why I always go to the Bible for answers and not try to use my human reason. You will notice that on a doctrinal issue about the resurrection of the dead, Jesus contradicted the Sadducees’ beliefs by telling them, “How wrong you are! And do you know why? It is because you do not know the Scriptures…” (Mark 12:24). That statement alone gave me all the confidence that if I follow what the Lord tells me in His Word, I could not go wrong. And when I meet the Lord someday, He will not have to tell me, “Have you not read…?”

God, in His Word, is consistent. The Apostle Paul was also inspired to write: “All Scripture is inspired by God (Greek theopneustos, “God-breathed”) and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults and giving instruction for right living” (2 Tim. 3:16). But is Scripture the sole arbiter of our faith? That is amply answered above. But a simpler way to get a clear answer is by asking two questions: 1) WHO is the sole arbiter of our faith? The answer to that would have to be “God,” not man. 2) HOW would God arbitrate our faith? My simple answer is: By what He tells us to do or not do. In other words, we are judged by our obedience or disobedience to what He tells us (His Word). So, we conclude: God’s Word (the Bible) is the sole arbiter of our faith.

Again, God’s Word is consistent. What will judge us on the last day? Jesus Christ said, “The words I have spoken will be their judge on the last day” (John 12:48). And in the Old Testament: “… for he comes to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth” (Psalm 96:13). And what is this truth that He shall judge the world with? Jesus answers: “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). That’s why the Apostle Paul reminded Timothy, as he would like to remind you and me: “And you remember that ever since you were a child you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ” (2 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus, when He was tempted by the devil, also showed us that a Christian’s faith must be anchored on the teachings in Scripture in order for him not to get waylaid by the devil. In all three occasions, Jesus quoted Scripture to refute Satan. Satan, being the wily devil that he is, also quoted Scripture but, like most professing Christians today, misapplied it. What I think many missed on that exchange of words is the implication of the very first statement of Jesus. He said, “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God” (quoted from Deuteronomy). Now, if we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then we can rephrase that to say, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word written in the Bible, the Word of God.” Then, this would clearly show that a true Christian is one who has read all of the Bible and is living by its every word.

Gail, I would like to address the other points you raised but this is getting too long, maybe on my next post. May I just comment on your suggestion for me to pray the rosary? You know, if I ask the Lord now what he thinks about it and He appears before me to give me His answer, I’m sure He will only tell me this: “Have you not read what I told my disciples when they asked me how to pray?” Then I would still have to go to the Bible to find out what indeed He told His disciples. And then I would read this part of His instruction to them: “And when you pray, speak not much, as the heathens do. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard” (Matt. 6:7).

Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mailman - I’m so happy your brought up the Bible. It is wonderful isn’t it?

However, there seems to be a few things not written by you that I thought you might want to consider. I don’t know, perhaps you’ve already thought about them, but here goes:

In your post you state: ““All Scripture is inspired by God (Greek theopneustos, “God-breathed”) and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults and giving instruction for right living” (2 Tim. 3:16).”

But the Scriptures St. Paul was referring to was of course the Old Testament for all the Books of the New Testament at the time of the writing of this letter to St. Timothy were just being written. If one took this literally then one would have to exclude all of the New Testament from one’s reading list of Scriptures that are useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. St. Paul when he wrote this letter had no idea he was adding to our acceptable canon of Scriptures. But we know he was operating under the influence of the Holy Spirit and this letter he wrote was LATER added to our acceptable canon of Scriptures.

After your use of Second Timothy, you say: "But is Scripture the sole arbiter of our faith? That is amply answered above. " I fail to see this as true because if I did, I would chuck my New Testament because I know the Scriptures St. Paul was refering to were the Scrolls of the Old Testament! I having common sense, know that isn’t what he meant for me to do.

Besides that, the passage quoted does not mention directly faith. It says that the Scriptures, the Old Testament Scriptures, are useful “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2ti003.htm But it doesn’t specifically say FAITH or arbitrating one’s faith. Is this possible?

So, let me get this right, reading the passage from Second Timothy I find that by reading Scriptures of the OLD TESTAMENT I might be taught, reproved, corrected, and instructed in justice, things I need to become perfect. But wait aminute, prayer isn’t even mentioned nor getting Baptised nor a few of the other things I know we’re supposed to do if we hope to grow in holiness. Ummmmm…you’re *sole arbiter *theory has some holes in it already.

But then you state: " But a simpler way to get a clear answer is by asking two questions: 1) WHO is the sole arbiter of our faith? The answer to that would have to be “God,” not man."

If I take this literally then I really would have to throw my whole Bible away because I’d be interpreting it myself and being merely human I couldn’t possibly interpret correctly! I’d have to wait for God Himself to read it to me!

Fortunately, I know better and listen carefully when the Church speaks of such things, for God guides her with His promised Holy Spirit and since His Holy Spirit resides in her, the Church in abundance, I can trust the development of my faith to her.

Then you say: “2) HOW would God arbitrate our faith?” My simple answer is: By what He tells us to do or not do."

My answer was given above, but I’ll say it one more time because I like to type…The Church is used by God, you know the One He built and preserves in faith which gives a living witness to the fecundity of His Words in its 2000 year plus existence, to tell us what to do and not do. I listen to her as I would God. But You disagree with this and state for yourself: “In other words, we are judged by our obedience or disobedience to what He tells us (His Word).”

I’d agree that Mary, His Mother (and mine) told the servers at the Wedding Feast of Cana to “Do whatever He tells you…” Yet how do I accomplish this in light of the conclusion of St. John’s Gospel that states: 24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.** 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.** http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh021.htm

Ummmmm…wait a minute Not Everything God wants me to do is recorded in the Bible? Uh oh! Does St. John imply more will be written in time for our instruction, edification, etc.? My answer would be yes! We call it Sacred Tradition! So, when the world is completely covered with books, then God will be done writing! Until then I think I’ll just trust the Church thank you very much Mailman for your opinion on you, God and your Bible saving you.

BTW, I became a Catholic after reading the Bible. How is it that I can read the SAME BOOK and proceed to call a Rectory and get Baptised, while you read the same book and sit back in an easy chair and grow smugger? Perhaps you should take our Lady’s advise and “Do WHATEVER He tells you!”

Peace,

Gail

P.S. I’m confused - do YOU believe Mary knew she was sinless? I do.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

Thank you for all of your (name removed by moderator)uts:

I’m not sure that Mary calling the Lord her saviour means she knew she had been saved… consider for example:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; “I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth- Who was with me?”

Isaiah 60:16 You shall suck the milk of nations, you shall suck the breast of kings; and you shall know that I, the Lord, am your Saviour and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob

2 Samuel 22:1-3 And David spoke to the Lord the words of this song on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. He said, "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

The Jews understood long before Jesus’ coming that God was their Saviour.

I do question if Mary could have known she was sinless and I think she must not have known because of the part I quoted at the beginning. Someone compared it to when Jesus took baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but the difference in that case was that John the Baptist understood and stated that this was the Lamb of God and that he was not worthy to even untie His sandals (much less baptize Him we may think), so I question if the baptism given to Jesus would have really been a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. When Mary gave the offering in the temple are we to understand that the temple authorities also knew that she was offering a sacrifice for her impurity even though she was pure? The offering was required because the woman was impure, and the law doesn’t state any case for exceptions…

I think maybe it is like if St Mary was in the church today and if she went to confession every year in obedience to canon law or if she made the pentitential rite at the beginning of every mass in obedience to church teaching. The church assumes (correctly) that all of us are sinners, just as the temple would have assumed likewise.

 

[Mailman]

Dear Gail,
I’m so sorry I sounded like a smug to you. I only wanted to be concise and candid to avoid lengthy posts. It could also be because I’m so sure of my beliefs and tend to state my thoughts with some conviction that I come across as being smug. Or maybe I just don’t know how to express myself in a more tactful manner; or it could be a combination of all the above.

Anyway, I feel that that the atmosphere for a pleasant discussion is missing and it may be a good idea to take a break. I’m afraid that if we go on, this one would turn into a debate. All I really want is to share views and not argue on who is right and who is wrong.

There’s this story of an Irishman and a Jew who were holding a debate as to the respective merits of their religion. The debate waxed fast and furious, when the Irishman delivered a crusher to the Jew with this challenge: “Answer me this, Abe: could one of your boys be Pope? No! Now what have ye to say to that?”

The Jew considered this thoughtfully. “I’ve a question for you, Pat. Could one of your boys be God?” “Why, of course not,” Pat replied. “Well,” the Jew shrugged his shoulders, “one of our boys made it!” :extrahappy:

So, the Jew got the better of the argument there. And then they got into another debate; this time about the eternal life. They argued hotly every day. One day the Jew fell mortally ill and was buried at sea, with coal being used to weight the body according to age-old custom.

“Egorra, Oi knew where he was bound for all the time,” was Pat’s comment, “but Oi niver dr’amed the h’athen would have to tote his own fuel!” :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy:

Hey, I hope you like the joke. And I hope my post this time brought a smile on your face for a change. See you in a few days.

 

[rocketrob]

Does anyone need a Savior if he/she has no sin? Of course not. That makes it rather confusing. We’re looking at whether Mary knew she was sinless but this text shows clearly that she was not sinless. Can anyone give an explanation?

Dear Gail, Thanks for your thoughts. I’m still confused why the Bible does not say Mary is without sin in plain language but it does say Mary needed a Savior, showing that she was with sin…If you can share some more texts about Mary which talk about these things I would really appreciate it.

Hi,
I’m not sure that Mary calling the Lord her saviour means she knew she had been saved…I do question if Mary could have known she was sinless and I think she must not have known because of the part I quoted at the beginning.

Perhaps its best to actually go to the Catechism to determine what the Church teaches on this subject:

Article 411:
…Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

Article 491:
…The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Article 492:
The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.” The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”

These articles from the Catechism show that Mary did in fact need to be saved by the merits of the salvific work of her Son, Jesus Christ. But by a unique grace of God, the merits of Christ’s salvation were applied for her at her conception.

For me, it makes sense that Mary had to be free from the effects of sin lest the intimate union with the divine nature of Christ in her womb consume and destroy her. Sin cannot exist in the full presence of God.

As the Catechism states in article 487:

Article 487:
What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Finally, its difficult for us to understand how Mary could have led a sinless live due to our fallen, concupiscent nature. Since Mary was freed (ie, saved) from the effects of sin at her conception, she was not subject to the fallen nature of mankind. However, she did make the choice that Eve failed to make…she said ‘yes’ to God.

rocketrob

 

[TWG]

If Jesus existed in our Fallen World which is full of sin, then why am I supposed to believe that he - God - could not have existed in Mary’s womb - sin or no sin??

I would also ask why the Angel Gabriel tells Mary not to be afraid (Luke 1:30) unless he knew she was truly afraid of him. Which then leads to the question why would she be afraid of anything if she knew she was without sin? Since death is the result of sin, she would have known she had nothing to ever fear*. It would seem to me that at the very least her fearful reaction shows that she thought she had sin. It would also seem to indicate that she actually did. Remember in Genesis 1:8-10 Adam is not afraid until after he sins.

There is also the problem of Romans 3:10-12 where we are told that “There is no one righteous, not even one…”, and Romans 3-23 where we are told that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. This would not include Jesus because he is God. But, on what basis would Mary not be included?

Lastly I would also ask that if it becomes “necessary” for Mary to be sinless in order for her to carry Jesus - who is indeed sinless - in her womb, then would not her mother need to be sinless to carry her? And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve, who we know was with sin?

When I read Jesus’ Geneology in Matthew’s Gospel there are “issues” with all the other women listed (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba). Why would Mary have to be so markedly different?

Frankly, I think the reason Mary calls God her Savior (Luke 1;47) is because he was her Savior - just like yours and mine. She is His birth Mother, but Jesus says in Matthew 12:50 that “whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

In any case, all Christians recognize that they are sinners - and we know we are adopted into his family as the Children of God (see: Ephesians 1:4-5 and John 1:12-13).

“But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, under the Law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons…” Galatians.4:4

• Note: My take on Jesus’ own fear in the Garden of Gesthemene is quite different, in that his fear is the result of knowing that he will have to face death for the sins of the world - even though he himself was without sin and un-deserving of this sentence. Aside from this, I know of know other fear in Jesus who slept while the storm tossed the boat around on the Sea of Galilee.

 

[rocketrob]

If Jesus existed in our Fallen World which is full of sin, then why am I supposed to believe that he - God - could not have existed in Mary’s womb - sin or no sin??

Existing in the Fallen World after His Incarnation, birth, etc, would be different than the intimate union experienced between He and His mother in the womb. Exodus 33:20-23 clearly states that man cannot experience God’s full glory in the fallen state and survive, but then shows that God can condescend to us and veil His full glory in ways that allow us to relate with or experience aspects of His being.

I did say that ‘for me’ it made some sense that Jesus’ divine nature would not be compatible in the womb of a mother in the fallen state (the weak link being the mother, not Jesus), but I’m not sure what, if anything, the Church actually teaches on this topic. So, rather than misrepresent the Church’s position on such an important topic, I will back off this idea. God obviously cannot be limited, so its not so much a question of ‘why’ something had to be a certain way as opposed to an assertion of ‘what’ has been revealed as the truth of the situation.

There is also the problem of Romans 3:10-12 where we are told that “There is no one righteous, not even one…”, and Romans 3-23 where we are told that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. This would not include Jesus because he is God. But, on what basis would Mary not be included?

This really isn’t a problem, and stems from the misconception of what the Catholic Church does teach that I was actually trying to address. The Church does not state that Mary did not need to be redeemed. Rather, it specifically states that she was redeemed, by her own son. She was just redeemed at a different time in her existence than the rest of us will hopefully be. Remember, God is not bound by the limits of time.

Lastly I would also ask that if it becomes “necessary” for Mary to be sinless in order for her to carry Jesus - who is indeed sinless - in her womb, then would not her mother need to be sinless to carry her? And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve, who we know was with sin?

I already addressed this above, but its not based on what I was speaking about. I was speaking about God and His divinity destroying sin. You are speaking about created human beings.

When I read Jesus’ Geneology in Matthew’s Gospel there are “issues” with all the other women listed (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba). Why would Mary have to be so markedly different?

The Catechism speaks to this question as follows:

Article 489
Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.

rocketrob