Did Mary sin?

[Saved_by_Grace]

I’m not going to write to much at this point, but just from browsing some threads I see that Catholics do not believe Mary sinned during her entire life. She lived a sinless life.

1. Is this correct?
2. What takes precedence if there is a contradiction? Scripture, Church Leadership, Other Writings, Tradition, etc.? i.e. What is your source of finality in regards to truth.

Thanks! I look forward to learning much from you all.

 

[adstrinity]

I’m not going to write to much at this point, but just from browsing some threads I see that Catholics do not believe Mary sinned during her entire life. She lived a sinless life.

1. Is this correct?
2. What takes precedence if there is a contradiction? Scripture, Church Leadership, Other Writings, Tradition, etc.? i.e. What is your source of finality in regards to truth.

Thanks! I look forward to learning much from you all.

“If there is a contratiction”? But, there’s not. We have the beliefs of 2000 years telling us this is truth. Faith and history tells us this is true. How could there be a contradiction? It is either true or it is not. As of late there has been a few challanges to this…

Yes, it is correct that we do not believe Mary sinned during Her entire life.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I couldn’t really tell if she did or not, but I raised to believe that she was sinless… basically, she was a good person with a beautiful heart.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[LilyM]

a) Yes it’s correct, it is Catholic dogma that Mary never sinned during her life.

b) The three sources of teaching, of Revelation, are

1. scripture,
2. the Magisterium (authoritative, ie infallible, teaching of the Popes and the Bishops in union with them) and
3. Apostolic Tradition. Which is that which we know to be consistent Christian teaching. This part is where the ‘other writings’ (usually the Early Church Fathers) help most, by giving consistent testimony dating back to Apostolic times of what was consistent (and therefore true) Christian belief and teaching AS those who learned it from the lips and pens of the Apostles passed it on.

Now these sources don’t ever contradict each other, properly understood. If there is seeming contradiction, it means there is an error in our understanding, and not an error in any of the sources. No particle of any one of the three can or should be discarded, they should simply be studied and examined until they are properly understood and brought into their rightful union.

They are unified, being three pillars supporting the one Truth revealed to us by Christ. They interrelate with each other, each clarifies and explains parts of the others that could otherwise be misunderstood. And it’s when the three are in harmony with each other on a point that we know we have …fanfare the TRUTH! :heaven:

This is why Paul talks of ONE ‘tradition’, whether it be oral (as some tradition is, including the Canon of Scripture itself, and as the Apostles taught themselves for many years before a word of the NT was written) or written in the form of scriptures, Church documents or other writings.

 

[emeraldisle]

I’m not going to write to much at this point, but just from browsing some threads I see that Catholics do not believe Mary sinned during her entire life. She lived a sinless life.

1. Is this correct?
2. What takes precedence if there is a contradiction? Scripture, Church Leadership, Other Writings, Tradition, etc.? i.e. What is your source of finality in regards to truth.

Thanks! I look forward to learning much from you all.

What is your source of finality in regards to truth.

God and He has revealed His Truth in His written word.

Mary was part of sinful humanity.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

God tells us in His written word that the Jesus was sinless.

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

God tells us in His written word that He made Adam and Eve and that they were created without sin and then they rebelled against God and so sinned, see Gen 1-3.

However God does not tell us that Mary was sinless but He clearly reveals to us that Mary was part of sinful humanity.

.

 

[LilyM]

God and He has revealed His Truth in His written word.

Mary was part of sinful humanity.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

God tells us in His written word that the Jesus was sinless.

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

God tells us in His written word that He made Adam and Eve and that they were created without sin and then they rebelled against God and so sinned, see Gen 1-3.

However God does not tell us that Mary was sinless but He clearly reveals to us that Mary was part of sinful humanity.

.

Of course God revealed His truth in His written word - obviously, by your logic, babes, the illiterate, and those who for other reasons have no access to scripture cannot possibly be saved.

EI, the poster wanted to know Catholic teaching, and was clearly after a Catholic perspective, not yours.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not going to write to much at this point, but just from browsing some threads I see that Catholics do not believe Mary sinned during her entire life. She lived a sinless life.

1. Is this correct?

Yes.

1. What takes precedence if there is a contradiction? Scripture, Church Leadership, Other Writings, Tradition, etc.? i.e. What is your source of finality in regards to truth.

If we perceive a contradiction, there is something the matter with our perception, but there are no actual contradictions between the Holy Tradition, the Scriptures, and the teachings of the Church for the simple reason that all three come from the same source: Christ and His Apostles.

The Angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” Luke 1:28. There is no contradiction here with the idea that she is without sin - in fact, it seems to confirm it, since to be “full of grace” by necessity leaves no room for sin; he could have said to her “Hail, she who is without sin,” to mean the same thing.

 

[emeraldisle]

The Angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” Luke 1:28. There is no contradiction here with the idea that she is without sin - in fact, it seems to confirm it, since to be “full of grace” by necessity leaves no room for sin; he could have said to her “Hail, she who is without sin,” to mean the same thing.

There is contradiction on how Roman Catholics interpret Luke 1:28.

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490

.

 

[LilyM]

There is contradiction on how Roman Catholics interpret Luke 1:28.

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490

.

EI, butt out. The OP wanted to know what WE think, he or she doesn’t care about your opinion on the matter.

 

[jmcrae]

There is contradiction on how Roman Catholics interpret Luke 1:28.

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490

.

So, there are heretics in the Universities; what else is new?

 

[Saved_by_Grace]

Thank you for the quick responses!

Here is my problem. It is very clear in the Bible that:

(Romans 3:10) - it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one.”
(Romans 3:23) - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Psalm 14:3) - “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

So what is it in your Apostolic teachings and Traditions/History that agree with these verses (and many others) where all have sinned BUT Mary.

Thanks again for your patience to some honest questions!

(As an aside, if Mary was without sin then she did not need a sacrifice in Jesus since she was able to declare her own righteousness?)

 

[SimonArizona]

Thank you for the quick responses!

Here is my problem. It is very clear in the Bible that:

(Romans 3:10) - it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one.”
(Romans 3:23) - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Psalm 14:3) - “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

So what is it in your Apostolic teachings and Traditions/History that agree with these verses (and many others) where all have sinned BUT Mary.

Thanks again for your patience to some honest questions!

(As an aside, if Mary was without sin then she did not need a sacrifice in Jesus since she was able to declare her own righteousness?)

But in Scripture the word “all” (pas in Greek) doesn’t always mean literally “every single one without exception.” For example, in the same letter, St. Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) yet we suspect that at least some Jewish people will not be saved.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Thank you for the quick responses!

Here is my problem. It is very clear in the Bible that:

(Romans 3:10) - it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one.”
(Romans 3:23) - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Psalm 14:3) - “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

So what is it in your Apostolic teachings and Traditions/History that agree with these verses (and many others) where all have sinned BUT Mary.

Thanks again for your patience to some honest questions!

(As an aside, if Mary was without sin then she did not need a sacrifice in Jesus since she was able to declare her own righteousness?)

This is not Catholic Doctrine, but it is something I was thinking about.

When a female child is born, all the eggs she will ever release are already produced. This means the egg that was to become Jesus in union with the Holy Spirit was already present.

Perhaps the grace and sanctification of Jesus was also already present also.

Perhaps this is why the angel gave Mary the title of “Full of Grace”

Wild speculation, I know, just thinking…

 

[SimonArizona]

This is also a matter of common Hebrew idiom. In Romans 3:10-12, St. Paul quotes Psalm 14:3, which reads: "All have gone astray;/ all alike are perverse./ Not one does what is right,/ not even one. Yet the very next psalm refers to those who walk “without blame” (Ps15:2). Obviously, then, the lament in Psalm 14:2-3 is emotional and exaggerated language, not intended as a literal utterance. Since St. Paul is referring back to these sorts of passages, the interpretation of his words should take them into account, too.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, I’m so glad you brought up Psalm 14! I had brought that up to Emerald earlier.

Let me put all of Psalm 14 here to make it clear.

(1) The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none that does good.
2] The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
to see if there are any that act wisely,
that seek after God.
3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt;
there is none that does good,
no, not one.
4] Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon the LORD?
5] There they shall be in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6] You would confound the plans of the poor,
but the LORD is his refuge.
7] O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people,
Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.

Right after verse 3, verse 4 speaks of "the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread. . "

OK, so the 'All" who are evildoers are ‘eating up’ God’s people… . so "All" are eating “some”. And in verse 5, those people of God are called the ‘generation of the righteous’. . .and are righteous people evil?

The “all” in verse 3 obviously does not refer to all humanity. . .but to the evil ones who oppress the ‘good’ people–God’s people --'His" people. There is a clear distinction made between the evil people and those whom they ‘eat up’ are specifically mentioned as being ‘righteous’ --obviously not evil.

 

[tassitus]

This is not Catholic Doctrine, but it is something I was thinking about.

When a female child is born, all the eggs she will ever release are already produced. This means the egg that was to become Jesus in union with the Holy Spirit was already present.

Perhaps the grace and sanctification of Jesus was also already present also.

Perhaps this is why the angel gave Mary the title of “Full of Grace”

Wild speculation, I know, just thinking…

Hey, C-Rules, I really like this line of thinking, and have not once heard this “speculation” before. Where did you first hear of it?

And does anyone know why this thread is staying in the “Non-Catholic Religions” subforum?

Peace all.

 

[SimonArizona]

Oh, I’m so glad you brought up Psalm 14! I had brought that up to Emerald earlier.

Let me put all of Psalm 14 here to make it clear.

(1) The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none that does good.
2] The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
to see if there are any that act wisely,
that seek after God.
3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt;
there is none that does good,
no, not one.
4] Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon the LORD?
5] There they shall be in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6] You would confound the plans of the poor,
but the LORD is his refuge.
7] O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people,
Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.

Right after verse 3, verse 4 speaks of "the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread. . "

OK, so the 'All" who are evildoers are ‘eating up’ God’s people… . so "All" are eating “some”. And in verse 5, those people of God are called the ‘generation of the righteous’. . .and are righteous people evil?

The “all” in verse 3 obviously does not refer to all humanity. . .but to the evil ones who oppress the ‘good’ people–God’s people --'His" people. There is a clear distinction made between the evil people and those whom they ‘eat up’ are specifically mentioned as being ‘righteous’ --obviously not evil.

What do you think about Jesus saying “When I am lifted up I will bring all men to myself.” Yet we know not all men will come to Christ.

 

[Saved_by_Grace]

So did Mary not need Jesus as her Savior since only sinners need a Savior?

For the record, I do believe Mary is blessed among women. What a blessing in the way God chose to use her.

Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

 

[SimonArizona]

So did Mary not need Jesus as her Savior since only sinners need a Savior?

For the record, I do believe Mary is blessed among women. What a blessing in the way God chose to use her.

Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

one more then I go to work

Some Christians object that If Mary was sinless, she didn’t need Christ as her savior. But the Church teaches, as does Scripture that she did indeed need a divine Savior (luke 1:47). She wasn’t saved out of sin, but rather saved from sin. The rest of us have been delivered out of original and actual sin, while she was preserved from it. If a farmer pulls his cow out of a ditch, he saved it. If he prevents his cow from falling into a ditch, he saved it also. Either way, Mary’s salvation was God’s gracious gift through the merits of her Son.

 

[ralphinal]

So did Mary not need Jesus as her Savior since only sinners need a Savior?

For the record, I do believe Mary is blessed among women. What a blessing in the way God chose to use her.

Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

No, she needed a savior as much as the rest of us. The issue is not IF she was saved but WHEN. I wish I could claim this analogy as my own, but I cannot.

Imagine a man is walking down a jungle path. Suddenly, he finds himself mired in quicksand. He panics, causing his sinking to speed up. As his head begins to go under, Tarzan swings from the tree, throws him a vine and pulls him out. The next day, another man is walking down the same path. Just before he steps into the quicksand, Tarzan swings down and pulls him back.

Which of the two men did Tarzan save from the quicksand?