Do Catholics believe Mary was sinless?

[benjohnson]

If it helps, Lutherans believe Mary was sinless. Short answer: Mary did nothing herself to deserve her sinless state, but because she was the human mother of God, the sinless child would be born from a sinless woman.

 

[snarflemike]

If it helps, Lutherans believe Mary was sinless. Short answer: Mary did nothing herself to deserve her sinless state, but because she was the human mother of God, the sinless child would be born from a sinless woman.

The way it makes the most sense to me is that if Jesus was to become the perfect union of God and Man, he would require not only a perfect Divine Father but a perfect human Mother.

 

[anp1215]

The way it makes the most sense to me is that if Jesus was to become the perfect union of God and Man, he would require not only a perfect Divine Father but a perfect human Mother.

Me too. I can’t picture Christ in the womb of a sinful woman. To think about the Blessed Virgin committing sins while Christ was within her, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Though the sinlessness of Mary is suggested by her self-description as “the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38), I don’t find any explicit written references to her sinlessness until the late fourth and early fifth century. (St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, etc.)

 

[johnnyjones]

As a former bible only thumper, I don’t think you need theology, exegesis, lexicons or any supportive literature to show the immaculate conception. You just need common sense and a basic understanding of Christianity.

How can God be housed by a sinful creature, Mary? Jesus was/is God, whether baby or man. In fact He is forever the God/man.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I read the Papal Bull and I saw what the Pope at the time had to say about it. For me it’s a stretch but I’m not bound by those rules of being required to believe every Papal Bull. I love so much about Catholicism. I just have a hard time when there are things that I can’t believe but I would have to believe it anyway to be a “true” Catholic. Anyway, that part’s of topic. God Bless.

I don’t get it. What is so hard to believe about Genesis 3:15?

 

[figs]

What always baffles me is how people have no problem believing God made Adam and Eve sinless…
I mean, this is God we are talking about here, so if He chooses to make the a woman, Mary, the Ark of the New Convenant, sinless, what’s so hard to believe?

When Gabrial says, “Hail, full of grace” he is aknowledging her sinlessness.

You can read in the Bible the care God took to the finest detail, in the constuction of the first Ark of the Convenant. Not to mention the temple it would be kept in. And all that fuss over a couple of stone tablets that had His commandments on it! Wow, huh?

I find it very difficult to imagine that God would just pick at random sinful woman to house and nurture the Lamb of God. As if it were no big deal, suddently all that care and meticulousness isn’t important?

God doesn’t miss any details, He doesn’t do things half measure.
He made Mary sinless so she would be worthy of ‘housing’ something so divine so magnificent, so pure… God’s only and most precious Son.

 

[johnnyjones]

What always baffles me is how people have no problem believing God made Adam and Eve sinless…
I mean, this is God we are talking about here, so if He chooses to make the a woman, Mary, the Ark of the New Convenant, sinless, what’s so hard to believe?

When Gabrial says, “Hail, full of grace” he is aknowledging her sinlessness.

You can read in the Bible the care God took to the finest detail, in the constuction of the first Ark of the Convenant. Not to mention the temple it would be kept in. And all that fuss over a couple of stone tablets that had His commandments on it! Wow, huh?

I find it very difficult to imagine that God would just pick at random sinful woman to house and nurture the Lamb of God. As if it were no big deal, suddently all that care and meticulousness isn’t important?

God doesn’t miss any details, He doesn’t do things half measure.
He made Mary sinless so she would be worthy of ‘housing’ something so divine so magnificent, so pure… God’s only and most precious Son.

Many RCs don’t even believe in the creation event in Genesis. That’s a problem. I mean some use Adam and Eve to describe original sin by seemingly saying Adam and Eve are real people, but then go on to say the whole story around it is fiction.

 

[EricFilmer]

As others have stated in this thread, I have no difficulty in believing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense. Consider it along the following lines: When a person sins, it taints the totality of his person: body, mind and soul. In many cases this is readily obvious. For example, consider a person who regularly commits the sin of gluttony with food and drink. This sin afflicts his body (increased weight can lead to a variety of ailments), mind (in terms of psychology gluttony has the capacity to be an addiction, as does every sin) and soul (all sins disrupt our reception of grace from God to one degree or another). Even though many tend to think of sin as an exclusively spiritual problem, it is always a physical problem as well, even if not as readily observable as in my example using gluttony. Simply put, when we choose to sin, our bodies are tainted by it along with our minds and souls.

Moving on…
According to the Bible, Jesus was human in all ways except sin. He chose to acquire his human nature the same way all people do: through ones mother. But the human nature Jesus acquired had to be without sin. After all, if Mary had committed even one sin prior to the Incarnation, then the human nature acquired by Jesus would have been, at some point, held in the grip of the devil. Such an idea should be repugnant to all Christians when considered along these lines. In light of all this, I think the statement that Jesus was human in all ways except sin indicates that he not only refused to commit a sin, but that he also did not acquire a human nature that was previously tainted by sin.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

“Full of grace” = so much grace that God couldn’t give Mary more grace–He had already made her “full” with grace.

If you believe that mary sinned you believe that even after God had given her that much grace that the devil was strongerr than God and could get mary to fall to sin!

That doesn’t make any sense!

Jesus inherited his perfect humanity from Mary–the same kind of perfect humanity that Adam and Eve had before the fall=Jesus had to have to perfect humanity to make the perfect sacrifice on the Cross.

The sinlessness of Mary isn’t about Mary–it is about God and Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for our salvation.

The only thing that mary had to do with the wholwe process was her fiat or yes–her acceptance of god’s plan and her CONTINUANCE in all of God’s graces with her free will.

Mary being sinful is completely illogical.

“All generations will call me blessed” not “all generations shall call me depraved and infested with sin” as the Protestants would have you believe.

 

[bmullins]

Out of curiosity… why is this particular dogma hard for you to accept or believe? It seems to me this one would be fairly self evident.

The bible says that God gave specific instructions to Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant, using incorruptible and pure materials (specific woods that do not decay, gold a simple of eternal lasting.) He had it made with precise measurements, and to exacting specifications. This was a container for the written Word…

The Bible says that God knits every man in the womb, that He knows each of us completely from the very moment of conception. We all believe that God creates each of us specifically as us, and that each person is designed specifically the way they are. As they told us in elementary school (well some of us) God doesn’t make mistakes.

Now knowing that, do you find it hard to believe that God would make the container (Mary) for the very Living Word (Jesus) without putting time or effort into it? That God knits you and I in the womb and creates us specifically for our purpose… but not Mary… she was just a random accident? That God as an after thought said “Oh yeah… I need someone to raise me… ah anyone will do… roll the dice.” No… God would not have sent his very Son, the Logos… into this world into just any person… but into the womb of the very person he created to exacting measurements, to be incorruptible.

Just like the Ark, which was not allowed to be touched by man… so too was the Living Ark, Mary, not entered physically by any man, including Joseph. Just as the Ark was made of pure materials, incorruptible… so too was Mary made with purity in tact, and made with the heart and soul of a woman who would live to God’s will always, assenting with a Yes for all time… forever sinless.

For me, this one was easier to accept than many other Catholic doctrines.

 

[rturner76]

I get it, it made sense to the church to make this connection. My point was just that it was made up by the church and there is no written proof of it in terms of no Apostle wrote about it or no manuscript speaks about her sinlessness.

It doesn’t mean it’s not true I just wanted to be clear. It is because someone decided it was that way, it made sense to them under the inspiration of God of course. Because the Pope cannot make a mistake in dogma correct?

 

[rturner76]

Yes, it does make sense

Out of curiosity… why is this particular dogma hard for you to accept or believe? It seems to me this one would be fairly self evident.

The bible says that God gave specific instructions to Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant, using incorruptible and pure materials (specific woods that do not decay, gold a simple of eternal lasting.) He had it made with precise measurements, and to exacting specifications. This was a container for the written Word…

The Bible says that God knits every man in the womb, that He knows each of us completely from the very moment of conception. We all believe that God creates each of us specifically as us, and that each person is designed specifically the way they are. As they told us in elementary school (well some of us) God doesn’t make mistakes.

Now knowing that, do you find it hard to believe that God would make the container (Mary) for the very Living Word (Jesus) without putting time or effort into it? That God knits you and I in the womb and creates us specifically for our purpose… but not Mary… she was just a random accident? That God as an after thought said “Oh yeah… I need someone to raise me… ah anyone will do… roll the dice.” No… God would not have sent his very Son, the Logos… into this world into just any person… but into the womb of the very person he created to exacting measurements, to be incorruptible.

Just like the Ark, which was not allowed to be touched by man… so too was the Living Ark, Mary, not entered physically by any man, including Joseph. Just as the Ark was made of pure materials, incorruptible… so too was Mary made with purity in tact, and made with the heart and soul of a woman who would live to God’s will always, assenting with a Yes for all time… forever sinless.

For me, this one was easier to accept than many other Catholic doctrines.

 

[TimothyH]

THis is all assumed by her being the mother of Christ. There is no doctrine that says this or Christ did not say this correct? It is assumed? Not to imply that it is untrue
snarflemike;9327493:

No, it is not assumed, it was taught by God to the Apostles.

If we look only at scripture and ignore everything else, it can be inferred. And inference is a logical conclusion drawn from facts. An assumption is a supposition without proof. It is not assumed.

That Mary was sinless has a very clear basis in scripture. But because there is no text which says, “Mary never sinned” or “Mary was without sin during her whole life” does not mean that it cannot be drawn as a logical conclusion.

-Tim-

 

[ahs]

@rturner,

I’m not sure if this will help or not…or make it more cunfusing for you. But here is a tract from this website that gives some of the Early Church Fathers explanations:

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

 

[Cat_Herder]

I get it, it made sense to the church to make this connection. My point was just that it was made up by the church and there is no written proof of it in terms of no Apostle wrote about it or no manuscript speaks about her sinlessness.

I think I have cited Genesis 3:15 several times to you, and linked this explanation. So I don’t see how you can claim there is “no written proof” and that there is no “manuscript.” The Bible certainly qualifies as both written proof and manuscript!

 

[snarflemike]

I get it, it made sense to the church to make this connection. My point was just that it was made up by the church and there is no written proof of it in terms of no Apostle wrote about it or no manuscript speaks about her sinlessness.

Note that “no written proof” is an arbitrary standard, and not one that the Church has ever recognized. You probably knew your name, and your parents’ names, long before anybody handed you a legal document stating those names, right?

It doesn’t mean it’s not true I just wanted to be clear. It is because someone decided it was that way, it made sense to them under the inspiration of God of course. Because the Pope cannot make a mistake in dogma correct?

Right, the Church (including the Pope, when declaring doctrine) cannot make such a mistake, because then it would be binding heaven to error, which is of course impossible.

 

[EricFilmer]

I get it, it made sense to the church to make this connection. My point was just that it was made up by the church and there is no written proof of it in terms of no Apostle wrote about it or no manuscript speaks about her sinlessness.

It doesn’t mean it’s not true I just wanted to be clear. It is because someone decided it was that way, it made sense to them under the inspiration of God of course. Because the Pope cannot make a mistake in dogma correct?

From the Catholic perspective, the source of all dogma / doctrine is God. God reveals them through Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, this teaching is implied in Scripture (as others have pointed out in this thread) but is primarily drawn from Sacred Tradition. The apostles passed on a lot of knowledge (which we collectively call the Deposit of Faith) but they did not always do so in writing. Sacred Tradition encompasses the oral teachings of the apostles which were passed down from generation to generation, as well as the concept of God’s revelation through Sensus Fidei (the “sense of the faithful”).

We see this same sort of thing involving other doctrines of the Church, such as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the teachings concerning the eternal divine nature of Christ (i.e., his divine substance is the same as that of the Father rather than similar). Such teachings are implied in Scripture but are mostly drawn from Sacred Tradition.

 

[figs]

I get it, it made sense to the church to make this connection. My point was just that it was made up by the church and there is no written proof of it in terms of no Apostle wrote about it or no manuscript speaks about her sinlessness.

It doesn’t mean it’s not true I just wanted to be clear. It is because someone decided it was that way, it made sense to them under the inspiration of God of course. Because the Pope cannot make a mistake in dogma correct?

There is documentation as you can see from the except below. Is it in the Bible, itself, not word for word, but then again God had hoped we would use our brains a bit instead of Him being repetative. Hence the connection between Adam & Eve, Christ as the new Adam and Mary the new Eve.
If God made*** Adam & Eve without sin*** and then later, after the fall, created a second Adam and Eve with the new Adam being without sin, how is it that he would create the new Eve with sin?
There have been several examples in this thread of why it is concluded that Mary was without sin and none of them are a huge leap of faith.

Early Christian belief always associated Mary with Jesus in the divine plan. The Patristic writers referred to Mary as the “new Eve,” who cooperated with Christ, the “new Adam.” In the writings of Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.), Irenaeus (202 A.D.), Ephraem of Syria (403 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (348 A.D.), Jerome (420 A.D.), Augustine (430 A.D.), Epiphanius of Salamis (403 A.D.), and John Chrysostom (407 A.D.), Mary is portrayed as bringing life (Christ) into the world, whereas Eve brought death, and Mary’s humility and obedience is contrasted with Eve’s pride and disobedience.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr90203.htm

 

[Lochias]

Note that “no written proof” is an arbitrary standard, and not one that the Church has ever recognized. You probably knew your name, and your parents’ names, long before anybody handed you a legal document stating those names, right?

Indeed, indeed, indeed. This kind of thing bears repeating from time to time, because it’s easy for many (myself included) to slip into those kinds of arbitrary standards.