Does Mary's sinlessness = perfection?

[DL82]

The Church teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and for the whole of her life.

Does this also mean that the Church teaches that Mary was perfect during her earthly life?

As I understand it, it is possible to have imperfections of character even without any specific sins, mortal or venial. Does this also apply to Mary, who lacks even concupiscence and original sin?

 

[gookykookypig]

Mary’s sinlessness doesn’t affect his concupiscence, but by her extreme devotion and with the special aid of God’s grace she overcame these struggles.

One instance that proves that Mary can sin (but did not) is her inquiry to Angel Gabriel.

"Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
(Luke 1:34, emphasis mine)

This is a crossroad for Mary. Zechariah had failed in this part. Instead of believing Gabriel’s message, Zechariah doubted and emphasized his own senility and the untimely redemption of their public shame. By this way, Zechariah had sinned with “unbelief”.

Mary, on the other hand, is only a wrong step more to fall in the pit of sin, too. She questioned the message in the matter of virginity, but with belief in the message. If Mary had inquired the “how” of the incarnation in the wrong attitude and disposition, Mary would have sinned, too, just like Zechariah. But Mary just said, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”. That is true in her part and that’s interesting with Mary. Mary admitted her own inability to produce due to her virginity (even if she knew she was betrothed to Joseph, who has the possibility to impregnate her in the future), and Zechariah denied his own ability to produce in the pretext of his (and Elizabeth’s) senility. Mary gave the question the right way and in faith. Zechariah in the wrong disposition of unbelief. See the difference? It seems like Mary is standing at the edge of the cliff. Probably because this is the Annunciation, a very special event. Satan might be there to tempt the Blessed Mother to say “No” (Have you read that Mary was very perplexed at that moment?)

So it is understandable that even the Blessed Mother is exposed even to the perils of life, because this earthy life is a valley of tears and temptations for us. But with God’s grace and His preventive salvation to her Mary was preserved, but as I said, that doesn’t take away her freewill. It is only by God’s grace that she had endured and stayed with the right.

So Mary isn’t exempted with concupiscence. Mary might have been tormented with various temptations also at Calvary. Read my blog write-up,* Mary Vs Atheism.* marynodded.blogspot.com/2008/10/mary-vs-atheism.html

 

[gookykookypig]

Mary’s sinlessness doesn’t affect his concupiscence, but by her extreme devotion and with the special aid of God’s grace she overcame these struggles.

An erratum on my part, the underscored word above is wrong. It is meant to be the word her.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The Church teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and for the whole of her life.

Does this also mean that the Church teaches that Mary was perfect during her earthly life?

As I understand it, it is possible to have imperfections of character even without any specific sins, mortal or venial. Does this also apply to Mary, who lacks even concupiscence and original sin?

Mary’s soul was as perfect as a human soul can be. Did she do ordinary things, that ordinary humans do, like unintentionally leaving her son behind when returning home from a trip? Ah…

 

[mcs7474]

I have always thought of Mary walking through the forest and right before she is about to fall in a big pit (sin) Jesus comes along to keep her from falling.

So sinless, but in need of a savior.

 

[jmcrae]

The Church teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and for the whole of her life.

Does this also mean that the Church teaches that Mary was perfect during her earthly life?

As I understand it, it is possible to have imperfections of character even without any specific sins, mortal or venial. Does this also apply to Mary, who lacks even concupiscence and original sin?

How are you defining “perfect”? She was without sin, but she didn’t have all knowledge - there were many things that she did not understand. And we have no way of knowing what the state of her housekeeping was, or what the size of her personal library was, or whether she was good at music, or anything like that.

 

[justasking4]

How are you defining “perfect”? She was without sin, but she didn’t have all knowledge - there were many things that she did not understand. And we have no way of knowing what the state of her housekeeping was, or what the size of her personal library was, or whether she was good at music, or anything like that.

Do you think she knew she was sinless?

 

[jmcrae]

Do you think she knew she was sinless?

Most likely she did. After all, there was a procedure every year for the Jews to examine their consciences during Yom Kippur, and she would have found, year after year, that she had nothing to confess, and no moral failings to atone for.

 

[guanophore]

Do you think she knew she was sinless?

Do you know when you are sinning? do you know when you choose not to sin? Do you ever sin without knowing? If she did know that she could choose not to sin, do you think she was aware of it? Did she think she had no choice but to sin? do you think you “have” to sin?

 

[steve975]

My understanding on this is that as a human, Mary was not perfect in the sense that she could still make mistakes as all humans do. So with my understanding, Mary, and perhaps even Jesus due to his human nature, still could have done things such as trip and fall, accidentally drop something, or at least other physical mistakes that wouldn’t amount to any form of sin. And at least with Mary, considering she was not also God as is Jesus, she was probaby also capable of miscalculations and limits in terms of her mental capabilities. For example, I don’t think Mary would have been able to go on an episode of “Jeopardy” and answer every single question correctly or remember every book she had read word-for-word. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you think she knew she was sinless?
jmcrae
Most likely she did. After all, there was a procedure every year for the Jews to examine their consciences during Yom Kippur, and she would have found, year after year, that she had nothing to confess, and no moral failings to atone for.

I think she was aware of her sin. Her acknowledgement that God is her Savior (Luke 1:47) indicates her awarness as a sinner and also the offering of sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” is also another indicator of sin. Here is a footnote from the New American Bible on this passage:
" [2] Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification,” understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either “his” or “her.” According to the Mosaic law (Lev 12:2-8), the woman who gives birth to a boy is unable for forty days to touch anything sacred or to enter the temple area by reason of her legal impurity. At the end of this period she is required to offer a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a turtledove or young pigeon as an expiation of sin. The woman who could not afford a lamb offered instead two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as Mary does here. They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Luke 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Exodus 13:2, 12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation at the temple is probably derived from 1 Sam 1:24-28, where Hannah offers the child Samuel for sanctuary services. The law further stipulated (Numbers 3:47-48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through their payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent."

 

[jmcrae]

I think she was aware of her sin. Her acknowledgement that God is her Savior (Luke 1:47) indicates her awarness as a sinner and also the offering of sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” is also another indicator of sin.

I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between sin and purity. The turtledoves were a purity offering; not a sin offering. (It is not a sin to give birth - nor to bury the dead, nor to butcher meat, nor any of the other things that cause a state of ritual impurity - it is an entirely different concept than the concept of sin.)

The writer of your article has made a very elementary mistake by calling it a “sin offering” - hopefully, it was just a typing error. (I’m also quite certain that you’re aware that we don’t consider the footnotes of our Bibles to be inerrant, right?)

 

[guanophore]

I think she was aware of her sin. Her acknowledgement that God is her Savior (Luke 1:47)

This is a false assumption. Awareness of having been saved by God does not equate to having sinned.

I recently narrowly missed a huge fatal accident on the freeway. I am deeply grateful that God saved me from it.

indicates her awarness as a sinner and also the offering of sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” is also another indicator of sin.

No, ja4, it is not. This offering is for ritual uncleanness, not for personal “sin”. One has to understand the difference between personal sin and ritual uncleanness to grasp this concept. Those who buried the dead also had to be purified, because they were ritually unclean. Do you think it is a sin to bury the dead? The purification was for blood - blood is spilled during childbirth. Do you think giving birth to a child is a sin?

Here is a footnote from the New American Bible on this passage:
" [2] Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification,” understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either “his” or “her.” According to the Mosaic law (Lev 12:2-8), the woman who gives birth to a boy is unable for forty days to touch anything sacred or to enter the temple area by reason of her legal impurity. At the end of this period she is required to offer a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a turtledove or young pigeon as an expiation of sin. The woman who could not afford a lamb offered instead two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as Mary does here. They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Luke 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Exodus 13:2, 12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation at the temple is probably derived from 1 Sam 1:24-28, where Hannah offers the child Samuel for sanctuary services. The law further stipulated (Numbers 3:47-48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through their payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent."

I think this speaks for itself. It states clearly that the “sin” is a legal and ritual impurity. This is not the same as personal sins (disobeying the commandments of God). It is not a sin to give birth, but according to Jewish law, it made the mother and child unclean due to the exposure to blood.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Church teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and for the whole of her life.

Does this also mean that the Church teaches that Mary was perfect during her earthly life?

As I understand it, it is possible to have imperfections of character even without any specific sins, mortal or venial. Does this also apply to Mary, who lacks even concupiscence and original sin?

She was sinless, but not perfect - that is, not completed as the person God intended her to be. This is clear from the fact that she was able to increase in grace during her earthly life. To be free from sinful deeds, passions & tendencies is not the same as perfection.​