Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[In_His_Grace]

I still struggle a little with the Catholic belief that Mary was sinless. Although she was a wonderful woman with many ideal attributes, including humility, obedience (especially that one), a loving mother to her son who was also so brave that she risked her life to be with Him at the cross, I’m having trouble understanding why it is so important that she be sinless in order to bear our Lord.

Isn’t it the Catholic belief that the Virgin Mary was saved “in advance” by Jesus before He was even born? I’m trying to understand how it was possible for a human Mary to be made sinless before the Savior she bore was even born. Since she was human, why wouldn’t Romans 3:23 apply to her?

To my simple mind, it takes more mental and spiritual gymnastics to believe that Mary did not inherit a human nature (that included sin) than to believe that God supernaturally protected Jesus in the womb from the human sinful nature that Mary inherited from her parents, although she was arguably as holy/godly as any person who ever walked the earth and blessed above all women.

Please explain why it is so important that Mary be sinless. Couldn’t God have protected Jesus in the womb from that if God is all powerful, which He undoubtedly is?

I’m not Catholic so I’ll leave it to the Catholics here to answer your questions. Personally, I don’t have a problem with many of the Catholic beliefs and practices surrounding Mary. I do however take issue with the fact that the Catholic Church declared some of their doctrines regarding Mary as dogma, infallible doctrine, divinely and formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation.

 

[benhur]

Mary, to become the Mother of Christ, was in that much more need of salvation and redemption. God created her with free will. But He could not allow His Son to be conceived in sin. That is a contradiction.

Hi Kathy,

Mary did not have to be sinless for Christ to be conceived without sin. The Holy Spirit conceived Christ, not a fallen man. I see it as a contradiction to say God Incarnate could not touch fallen creation, even a fallen Mary. I mean it contradicts the whole purpose of God coming down from perfection to become a man, and come to a fallen Earth, and walk amongst us, and even touch and heal fallen men, women and children, even spill His most Sacred Blood on fallen soil. He certainly could have abided in an OT righteously believing Jewish maiden/virgin.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

KathleenGee;13584077:

Hi Kathy,

Mary did not have to be sinless for Christ to be conceived without sin. The Holy Spirit conceived Christ, not a fallen man. I see it as a contradiction to say God Incarnate could not touch fallen creation, even a fallen Mary. I mean it contradicts the whole purpose of God coming down from perfection to become a man, and come to a fallen Earth, and walk amongst us, and even touch

and heal fallen men, women and children, even spill His most Sacred Blood on fallen soil.

Blessings

I’m sorry but the Catholic Church disagrees

 

[benhur]

I’m sorry but the Catholic Church disagrees

Hi Mike,

Actually not sure I said anything contrary to CC. Now if I said Mary was not sinless, that is of course against IC and the CC. I posted Mary did not have to be IC . As PR puts it, she was IC not out of necessity but because it would be “fitting’’. Two different things. Unless I misread Kathy, she seems to have implied 'necessity”.

Blessings

PS- Of course I could be misreading PR, but don’t think so for we sparred long and hard over this some time ago. One certainly remembers the rare times we find common ground. She is a firm supporter of IC.

 

[Michael68]

Hi Mike,

Actually not sure I said anything contrary to CC. Now if I said Mary was not sinless, that is of course against IC and the CC. I posted Mary did not have to be IC . As PR puts it, she was IC not out of necessity but because it would be “fitting’’. Two different things. Unless I misread Kathy, she seems to have implied 'necessity”.

Blessings

PS- Of course I could be misreading PR, but don’t think so for we sparred long and hard over this some time ago. One certainly remembers the rare times we find common ground. She is a firm supporter of IC.

Oh, ok, maybe I misread it. I also am a supporter of IC

 

[benhur]

Mary was especially protected by Original Sin, although her parents could have passed on original sin to her.

Hi K,

Again if by necessity, then there could be a contradiction. If Mary by necessity had to be perfect to birth a perfect Christ would not have Mary’s parents have had to be perfect, to birth a perfect Mary ? Otherwise you have someone conceived in sin being made perfect. That is Mary’s imperfect parents conceiving and birthing a perfect Mary.

Yet if Thomas knew of DNA and that the child is complete and free, then most likely with such scientific knowledge, Aquinas would have accepted this dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Are you scientifically saying there is no exchange between a fetus and the mother? From my understanding they are two separate entities and environments but not perfectly separated.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Oh, ok, maybe I misread it. I also am a supporter of IC

I should have listened to that still small voice, and added after my postscript, ‘as I am sure you are also’ (supporter of IC). But thanks for being patient and rereading.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

I should have listened to that still small voice, and added after my postscript, ‘as I am sure you are also’ (supporter of IC). But thanks for being patient and rereading.

Blessings

LOL

 

[Tommy999]

Hi K,

Again if by necessity, then there could be a contradiction. **If Mary by necessity had to be perfect to birth a perfect Christ would not have Mary’s parents have had to be perfect, to birth a perfect Mary ? Otherwise you have someone conceived in sin being made perfect. That is Mary’s imperfect parents conceiving and birthing a perfect Mary. ** Are you scientifically saying there is no exchange between a fetus and the mother? From my understanding they are two separate entities and environments but not perfectly separated.

Blessings

Thank you, Ben, for stating more concisely what I was trying to get at.(the bolded part).

 

[Tommy999]

You refer to 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
I have questions for you do you take this to mean there are not exceptions?
No exceptions are mentioned yet we know Jesus never sinned but it wasn’t deemed necessary to state it.
Would there be others? What about children? The mental handicapped? Would not these be exceptions too? Yet they too are not mentioned.
It wasn’t necessary in my view that she would be sinless but she was. It is fitting that the mother of Jesus be so.

Hi Adrift,
When I read Romans 3:23, I interpret that to mean all humanity has sinned and falls short of the glory of God. Jesus, being the divine 2nd person of the Holy Trinity and God in the flesh. does not fall into that category and of course He was sinless. Otherwise He couldn’t have been the perfect lamb that was slain for the sins of the world.

I believe that all humans are born with a sinful nature because of Adam’s original sin.

As for children and the mentally handicapped, I assume that God makes provisions for each in His own way. I assume God doesn’t judge children or the mentally handicapped but that doesn’t make them exempt from the stain of original sin. All one had to do is witness two 3 year-olds fighting over the same toy to tell that.

I am not a theologian nor do I play one on TV, so I do not know if this is correct theologically but I hope it is. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t presume to have all the answers.

 

[adrift]

Hi Adrift,
When I read Romans 3:23, I interpret that to mean all humanity has sinned and falls short of the glory of God. Jesus, being the divine 2nd person of the Holy Trinity and God in the flesh. does not fall into that category and of course He was sinless. Otherwise He couldn’t have been the perfect lamb that was slain for the sins of the world.

I agree

I believe that all humans are born with a sinful nature because of Adam’s original sin.

I believe there was an exception

As for children and the mentally handicapped, I assume that God makes provisions for each in His own way. I assume God doesn’t judge children or the mentally handicapped but that doesn’t make them exempt from the stain of original sin. All one had to do is witness two 3 year-olds fighting over the same toy to tell that.

Again you are correct However the scripture was not referring to original sin but personal sin.

I am not a theologian nor do I play one on TV, so I do not know if this is correct theologically but I hope it is. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t presume to have all the answers.

I think you are very close.

I do believe that there are exceptions that or assumed. Jesus is God but He is also fully human.

 

[benhur]

Thank you, Ben, for stating more concisely what I was trying to get at.(the bolded part).

Your welcome, and thank you for the encouragement.

Blessings

 

[adrift]

Right We agree. But…did the early church capitalize the ‘m’ in mother or would they have if their alphabet allowed ?

I don’t know what the early Church would do. I was taught to capitalize titles. The same as I would capitalize, Bill de Blasio Mayor of New York.

Fair question. I think . Mary as virgin is the mother of Jesus, who was both God and Man. Now was Mary to be further elevated to being ever virgin, or even without sin from inception, and further to be assumed bodily, or to sit at the right hand of the Son, or to be a Queen, or to be co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate ? Did Nicea or Theotokos framers, declare any of these ?

Blessings

Why is any of these things an elevation? Mary always reflex her son. All these things points to Jesus although frankly I never heard of Mary being at the right hand of Jesus.

 

[Tommy999]

If the Catholic Marian dogmas are as important as some Catholics indicate, I am puzzled by why the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Virgin Mary in his letters to the early Christian believers in his epistles as he taught them the fundamentals of Christianity. Shouldn’t such an important dogma have been touched upon in Scripture?

For example, I don’t recall Paul ever instructing anyone in any of his letters to the Romans, Ephesians, or Corinthians to have a special devotion to Mary or anything along those lines.

On the other hand, St Paul was clear as to what the heart of the gospel was, as he did in I Corinthians 2:2:

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified”

 

[benhur]

I believe there was an exception

Hi a,

Understand. As another example: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Heb 9:27 Yet apparently Enoch and Elijah were exceptions. I would only say that it seems exceptions are explicit. Elijah for instance is well documented in scripture.Very little interpretation needed. It is also partly substantiated for example in the Transfiguration and implicitly as the two witnesses in Revelations.

Mary as an exception is not explicit. It does require interpretation, by implication at best. One can also say by itself this exception seems inconsequential during the tradition’s origin, serving its own purpose (as fitting one who mothered the Savior).
Yet the dogma on Mary evolved, and indeed the ‘consequences’ increased. Now she also is seen by interpretation and implication also in Revelations. Now she is the Queen of Heaven, and even the second Eve by Tradition, on par with explicit scripture of Christ being the second Adam. One could say this is just like Elijah’s exception and its further consequences, lending to better understanding of the original exception. I am not of that opinion. The two cases of Elijah and Mary showing ‘exception’ are different, and have different authoritative reasoning. Hence one has a relatively quick universal understanding and the other a more arduous, long road to Catholic declaration.

To me this is one of our first examples of 'tradition" having equal authority to scripture. We have Augustine who on one hand admonishes Holy Writ as superlative to teach us all things, also stands by the tradition of Mary being sinless despite citing the scripture of everyone having sinned.(but you were still allowed to believe either way at this time). Tradition/church made the exception.“Seek and ye shall find” works both for digging deep to see the the diamond in the rough, or for justifying that which is only implied, and may not be. Time will tell.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I don’t know what the early Church would do. I was taught to capitalize titles. The same as I would capitalize, Bill de Blasio Mayor of New York.

Ok

Why is any of these things an elevation?

Yes, wrong word on my part for you used "beyond, not intended’’ in your question.

All these things points to Jesus

Yes, but did the framers of theotokos see such pointing?

although frankly I never heard of Mary being at the right hand of Jesus.

Good correction, though not sure some believe it is implied, or that it will be declared so in future.

Blessings

 

[fbl9]

If the Catholic Marian dogmas are as important as some Catholics indicate, I am puzzled by why the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Virgin Mary in his letters to the early Christian believers in his epistles as he taught them the fundamentals of Christianity. Shouldn’t such an important dogma have been touched upon in Scripture?

For example, I don’t recall Paul ever instructing anyone in any of his letters to the Romans, Ephesians, or Corinthians to have a special devotion to Mary or anything along those lines.

On the other hand, St Paul was clear as to what the heart of the gospel was, as he did in I Corinthians 2:2:

"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"

In knowing Christ would you not also know His mother?
How does a sinful soul magnify the Lord?

 

[benhur]

In knowing Christ would you not also know His mother?

Absolutely. We can also know about His fleshly brothers and sisters . Then again, do you know about Mary or actually know her, as in personally, spiritually met ? And God is so big that anyone who does His will* is* mother, brother, sister.

How does a sinful soul magnify the Lord?

Quite right. We are told to get right with the Lord before communion or any “magnifying”. This was both true in OT. Both covenants had means of purifying, by faith in God who cleanses a broken and contrite heart, and by rites to show that forth. How else could Job be “perfect” , or Enoch or Elijah taken, or David acquire a heart after God ? The Lord inhabits the praises of His people. Sinful souls have been magnifying the Lord since the beginning, and till the end. Otherwise you are saying only three people in history have ever “magnified the Lord”- Adam and Eve before the fall, and Mary.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Absolutely.W e can also know His brothers and sisters in the flesh. And God is so big that anyone who does His will is mother, brother, sister.
Quite right. We are told to get right with the Lord before communion or any “magnifying”. This was both true in OT. Both covenants had means of purifying, by faith in God who cleanses a broken and contrite heart, and by rites to show that forth. How else could Job be “perfect” , or Enoch or Elijah taken, or David acquire a heart after God ? The Lord inhabits the praises of His people. Sinful souls have been magnifying the Lord since the beginning, and till the end. Otherwise you are saying only three people in history have ever “magnified the Lord”- Adam and Eve before the fall, and Mary.

Blessings

Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters in the flesh. Common mistranslation

 

[molly420]

I’m not sure if this question is already somewhere on this page, if so I haven’t found it.
But I’d really like to know what the catholic church says when it comes to prophecy?

Does is still exist and if so how does the church practice it?

Thank you