How can Mary be without sin?

[HailMary]

And lastly, I’ve posted this before and I’ll post it again:

If you have a keen eye in Holy Scripture you will see just how important and glorious the Blessed Virgin Mary is.

She is the Living Ark of the Covenant. Do you know what the Ark of the Covenant meant to the choosen people, the people of God? Do you know how big of a role it played in the Divine Pedagagy which God used?

The Ark had two Golden Cherubim angels, looking at each other, and spreading their wings. The Ark was central in the way God communicated to the people of Isreal through Moses:

Exoodus 25:22. Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.

I assert that Mary is the living Ark by the following passages:

2 Sam 6:1-11 and Luke 1:39-43 & Luke1:59

These verses match blow for blow summarized in the following:

1. The Ark moved from Galilee to Jerusalem (2 Sam:6:2)
   – the Blessed Virgin moved from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 1:39)
2. David and the Isrealites made merry BEFORE the Lord ( 2 Sam 6:5)
   – St. Elizabeth made merry BEFORE the Lord (Jesus in the Womb of His dear mother) (Luke 1:41-42)
3. David confessing “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
   – St. Elizabeth confessing "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
4. The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three month ( 2 Sam 6:11)
   – Mary remained with St. Elizabeth about three months (Luke 1:56)

Therefore, the Ark of the Covenant prefigured the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Ark contained the manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law which were fulfilled in Jesus (Hebrew 9:4); Jesus is the Bread of Life, the Eucharst; Jesus is the staff of Aaron, liberation from Sin; Jesus is the Law, the Word of God.

Mary contained Jesus in her womb for 9 months. She is the only person that can look at the cross and say “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone”.

Furthermore, in Revelations 11:19 we read the following:
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.”

Guess what the Sacred writer is leading into?

Revelations 12:1:
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Therefore, with these verses in consideration, and the fact that the Ark was in the the Holiest part of the temple, of which there is no blemish, we can conclude that the Blessed Virgin Mary is sinless and perfect - a Mother fitted for a perfect Son.
Amen. So be it. GOD ALONE

 

[gelsbern]

Are you saying that God couldn’t have made Mary sinless?

Good question, and obviously the answer is yes, but couldn’t he have made her sinless at any time? Why does it have to be from conception? Why could it have not from when she gave her fiat?

I should mention that I am devout in participation in Marian devotions and love the Blessed Mother very very much.

But this is one of the topics of where I am not in agreement with western theology and am probably more inline with the east.

We all believe Mary had the free will to say No, but she gave
her fiat “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”. But let’s just suppose, she had said no. Since she had free will, and it was not commanded of her by God to bear Jesus, had she said no, it could in no way have been a sin, and so now, if she was conceived and born without original sin, said no to God, and then continued to her death to live as she had lived prior to the annunciation (without sinning), she would have been the only human being in history to be completely sinless from conception to death.

Now, let’s change it around, since Mary is humans and all humans since the fall of Adam and Eve have been born with original sin, is it slightly possible, that even Mary was born with original sin, but because she chose of her own free will to bear the Son of God, that at the point she gave her fiat, she was made totally pure?

Is it impossible for God to make someone pure even if they are born with original sin?

Of course, the answer is yes, and we see it happen at every baptism.

Is it also possible since God is outside of time, to have wiped away her original sin at any point?

Again the answer is yes.

The real question is, and I know there will be people who disagree, but does Jesus mention anywhere at all, in all His talks about what it takes to get into heaven does he ever mention a thing about Mary? Does whether Mary was conceived without original sin, or whether she was purified when she gave her fiat to bear the Son of God, really matter in terms of our salvation?

 

[kleary]

Good question, and obviously the answer is yes, but couldn’t he have made her sinless at any time? Why does it have to be from conception? Why could it have not from when she gave her fiat?

I should mention that I am devout in participation in Marian devotions and love the Blessed Mother very very much.

But this is one of the topics of where I am not in agreement with western theology and am probably more inline with the east.

We all believe Mary had the free will to say No, but she gave
her fiat “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”. But let’s just suppose, she had said no. Since she had free will, and it was not commanded of her by God to bear Jesus, had she said no, it could in no way have been a sin, and so now, if she was conceived and born without original sin, said no to God, and then continued to her death to live as she had lived prior to the annunciation (without sinning), she would have been the only human being in history to be completely sinless from conception to death.

Now, let’s change it around, since Mary is humans and all humans since the fall of Adam and Eve have been born with original sin, is it slightly possible, that even Mary was born with original sin, but because she chose of her own free will to bear the Son of God, that at the point she gave her fiat, she was made totally pure?

Is it impossible for God to make someone pure even if they are born with original sin?

Of course, the answer is yes, and we see it happen at every baptism.

Is it also possible since God is outside of time, to have wiped away her original sin at any point?

Again the answer is yes.

The real question is, and I know there will be people who disagree, but does Jesus mention anywhere at all, in all His talks about what it takes to get into heaven does he ever mention a thing about Mary? Does whether Mary was conceived without original sin, or whether she was purified when she gave her fiat to bear the Son of God, really matter in terms of our salvation?

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception as decreed by the Roman Pontiff?

A serious question to ask and a serious one to answer. The decree states anathema to those who do not believe, therefore if you dissagree with the decree, that means excommunication ipso-facto I believe.

We are not free to doubt or dissagree with this INFALLIBLE decree of faith from the Roman Pontiff.

Ken

 

[NotWorthy]

So do you think Luke plagerized 2 Samuel, or maybe he just internalised it because he loved it so much?

I think the Holy Spirit guided Luke to write it as it happened, in order to show that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

This puts together the pieces to Revelations 11 and 12. First in chapter 11, the original Ark is shown in heaven. The ark hadn’t been seen since Jeremiah (?) hid it, and there were some Jewish traditions about it being in heaven, I believe. Then the Ark is replaced with Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

What else does this tie-in with? Mary’s Assumption and Mary as Queen of Heaven.

 

[gelsbern]

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception as decreed by the Roman Pontiff?

A serious question to ask and a serious one to answer. The decree states anathema to those who do not believe, therefore if you dissagree with the decree, that means excommunication ipso-facto I believe.

We are not free to doubt or dissagree with this INFALLIBLE decree of faith from the Roman Pontiff.

Ken

I thought that would be pretty obvious, but to answer your question, no I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary as decreed by the Roman Pontiff. I do believe Mary was pure and a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and I also believe in the virgin birth of our Lord.

If we are to believe that scripture in infallible in matters of faith, and St. Paul said all are born into sin, then we can be fairly sure that unless Mary was somehow divine and not just a mere human, that she was also conceived the same way the rest of us humanity has been conceived. However again, since God exists outside of time, he could have made her immaculate from conception,at the moment she said “Let it be done…”, or he could have simply purified her at that point. But nowhere can I find where salvation depends on believing in exactly when she was purified. Now if your pope has said, that those under his authority must believe in it, then you are bound by it (what you bind on earth is bound in heaven). But those who are not under the authority of Rome are not bound by that belief. Am I saying anyone is wrong to believe in the Immaculate Conception? Nope, but I don’t believe it is an essential matter of salvation.

I will say no more, because I just realized that this is in the apologetics section, and it is supposed to be for Roman Catholic apologetics.

 

[Abira]

Hi,

thanks to everyone for their answers… I know I had a few questions asked of me earlier but I didn’t answer because I didn’t come with anything of my own.

Take care.

 

[mark_a]

The prevailing attitude in some circles of Christianity that no person can be holy or used as an example of holiness really gets the negativity ball rolling.

Mary and Peter sure take the brunt of it.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I thought that would be pretty obvious, but to answer your question, no I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary as decreed by the Roman Pontiff. I do believe Mary was pure and a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and I also believe in the virgin birth of our Lord.

If we are to believe that scripture in infallible in matters of faith, and St. Paul said all are born into sin, then we can be fairly sure that unless Mary was somehow divine and not just a mere human, that she was also conceived the same way the rest of us humanity has been conceived. However again, since God exists outside of time, he could have made her immaculate from conception,at the moment she said “Let it be done…”, or he could have simply purified her at that point. But nowhere can I find where salvation depends on believing in exactly when she was purified. Now if your pope has said, that those under his authority must believe in it, then you are bound by it (what you bind on earth is bound in heaven). But those who are not under the authority of Rome are not bound by that belief. Am I saying anyone is wrong to believe in the Immaculate Conception? Nope, but I don’t believe it is an essential matter of salvation.

I will say no more, because I just realized that this is in the apologetics section, and it is supposed to be for Roman Catholic apologetics.

I’m sorry, I don’t know scripture like the back of my hand (yet!), but I thought Paul said " all have sinned"… referring to actual sin (which of course, seems to be a general statement considering “all” do not seem commit actual sin…Jesus, babies, mentally retarded,) . Is there a separate verse that says “born into sin”? I would like to research that further if you would give me the chap/verse. Thanks.

 

[The_Catholic]

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception as decreed by the Roman Pontiff?

A serious question to ask and a serious one to answer. The decree states anathema to those who do not believe, therefore if you dissagree with the decree, that means excommunication ipso-facto I believe.

We are not free to doubt or dissagree with this INFALLIBLE decree of faith from the Roman Pontiff.

Ken

Yes but that doesn’t mean that if one does not believe in the Imacualate conception then they’re dammed (unless of course they say they are a Roman Catholic).

The IC doctrine doesn’t save us. If a Baptist, Lutheran, or another Protestant disagrees with it out of ignorance, it doesn’t mean they’re dammed, even though it is a true doctrine.

 

[auhsoj88]

How does Mary react in the presence of the archangel? “She was greatly
troubled at that saying”. Mary (and this is crucial) is not afraid by
the presence of the angel! She is only troubled by the salutation which
is the normal reaction of anyone who is truly humble. Scout the bible
from beginning to end and you will not find any other human being
saluted in this way by an angel.

…

Very good point! Throughout history the greeting “Hail” was only reserved to greet kings and queens. You just did not say “Hail” when greeting the average Joe. It is a special greeting to which only earthly kings and queens were given. This is perhaps why the reason Mary was troulbled by the greeting. And Grabriel proceeds to tell her she will give birth to a King.

If Gabriel gives Mary her honor, why shouldn’t Christians??

In Christ

 

[gelsbern]

I’m sorry, I don’t know scripture like the back of my hand (yet!), but I thought Paul said " all have sinned"… referring to actual sin (which of course, seems to be a general statement considering “all” do not seem commit actual sin…Jesus, babies, mentally retarded,) . Is there a separate verse that says “born into sin”? I would like to research that further if you would give me the chap/verse. Thanks.

Romans 5:12 talks about it.

drbo.org/chapter/52005.htm

users.binary.net/polycarp/origsin.html

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The prevailing attitude in some circles of Christianity that no person can be holy or used as an example of holiness really gets the negativity ball rolling.

Mary and Peter sure take the brunt of it.

Well, “holiness” isn’t precisely the same thing as “sinlessness from birth and throughout every moment of one’s life.” St. Peter is an admirable exemplar of this distinction. And if the argument here were simply that Mary is holy and a good example of holiness, I don’t believe you’d see much argument from most of the posters here.

Hope you’re not saying that the “prevailing attitude” you mention above is being exhibited in this particular thread. If so, I’d say you’re mischaracterising a lot of the responses. But perhaps I mistake your meaning.

 

[mark_a]

Well, “holiness” isn’t precisely the same thing as “sinlessness from birth and throughout every moment of one’s life.”

Correct.

Hope you’re not saying that the “prevailing attitude” you mention above is being exhibited in this particular thread.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Romans 5:12 talks about it.

drbo.org/chapter/52005.htm

users.binary.net/polycarp/origsin.html

Thanks, I appreciate you posting the scripture. I guess my response is that this is exactly why Mary needed a Savior as she says in Luke 1:47. No Catholic will claim that Mary was not in need of salvation, only about the “timing” of her salvation. Could it not be possible that Mary was saved from this original sin (which this verse points to) in a preventative way, ie. at the moment of her conception? The Church, specifically teaches that Mary was preserved by the intervention of God, by the anticipated merits of her Savior and ours, Jesus. This makes sense in light of the angels greeting to Mary “Hail, full of grace” and in light of the other verses already noted in this thread.

It does not make sense to me that Mary could have the taint of original sin upon her soul while carrying Our Lord in her womb. I see from Rm 5:12 that original sin was a consequence for all men and indeed for Mary too, but for the salvation of Our Lord. But I believe it was possible for the Lord to wash Mary’s soul at the moment of her conception because all things are possible with God and because He had a specific purpose for her in His plan of salvation.

Thanks again for pointing out this verse.

 

[gelsbern]

Thanks, I appreciate you posting the scripture. I guess my response is that this is exactly why Mary needed a Savior as she says in Luke 1:47. No Catholic will claim that Mary was not in need of salvation, only about the “timing” of her salvation. Could it not be possible that Mary was saved from this original sin (which this verse points to) in a preventative way, ie. at the moment of her conception? The Church, specifically teaches that Mary was preserved by the intervention of God, by the anticipated merits of her Savior and ours, Jesus. This makes sense in light of the angels greeting to Mary “Hail, full of grace” and in light of the other verses already noted in this thread.

It’s possible, but she did have free will, IF and it’s a big if I know, but if she had said no, then what? I could understand it better if she was predestined to be the mother of God no matter what, but the Church has never taught predestination, and so if she had said no, would she suddenly be stained with original sin because she didn’t choose to be the Theotokos?

Again, it’s difficult for us to wrap our minds around how God works. It is very possible, that at the moment she said yes, God worked a miracle and since all time is a single point to Him, He wiped original sin from her at her conception, but it is also possible with the truth of free will, that Mary was purified when she said yes to the angel and it was at that point her original sin was wiped away through the baptism of desire to do what God asked of her. Either way, Mary was a purified vessel that carried our Lord in her womb and gave birth to him and still remained a virgin after the birth. (Of course this doesn’t touch on perpetual virginity, which would be for a discussion in another thread.

It does not make sense to me that Mary could have the taint of original sin upon her soul while carrying Our Lord in her womb.

Nor does it make sense to me. When we are baptized, the taint of original sin is wiped away, totally and completely. If God can do that now to every single baptized Christian through the sacrament of baptism, why could he have not just simply purified her when she said yes? Why does it have to be from her conception? That is what I don’t understand. We all believe Mary was the pure vessel that carried our Lord and gave birth too him, why should anyone be condemned for not believing that it happened at a specific point in time?

I see from Rm 5:12 that original sin was a consequence for all men and indeed for Mary too, but for the salvation of Our Lord. But I believe it was possible for the Lord to wash Mary’s soul at the moment of her conception because all things are possible with God and because He had a specific purpose for her in His plan of salvation.

Thanks again for pointing out this verse.

Again, yes he had a purpose for her, but she still could have said no. What would have happened had she said no?

 

[Victorious]

I thought that would be pretty obvious, but to answer your question, no I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary as decreed by the Roman Pontiff. I do believe Mary was pure and a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and I also believe in the virgin birth of our Lord.

You know, it’s not immediately apparent that you are not in union with Rome, especially in view of your comments in another thread about your experiences as a candidate for the priesthood. Now that I have looked at your website and your public profile, I see that you are not Catholic. Maybe you could make this a little clearer, so people are not misled?

Mary was indeed conceived without sin, through the anticipated merits of Christ’s Passion (God not being bound by the constraints of time and space).

 

[gelsbern]

You know, it’s not immediately apparent that you are not in union with Rome, especially in view of your comments in another thread about your experiences as a candidate for the priesthood. Now that I have looked at your website and your public profile, I see that you are not Catholic. Maybe you could make this a little clearer, so people are not misled?

Mary was indeed conceived without sin, through the anticipated merits of Christ’s Passion (God not being bound by the constraints of time and space).

I have gotten yelled at for having my signature attached to my posts as well and for not having it. I can’t win it seems. You are correct, I am not Catholic, but I am catholic and I hold to the catholic faith through the creeds and the sacraments.

 

[Victorious]

I have gotten yelled at for having my signature attached to my posts as well and for not having it. I can’t win it seems. You are correct, I am not Catholic, but I am catholic and I hold to the catholic faith through the creeds and the sacraments.

I am not yelling at you. I am, however, concerned about people being led to believe that a non-Catholic is a Catholic, and thereby being misled into thinking that that person’s opinions reflect authentic Catholic teaching when they don’t.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

It’s possible, but she did have free will, IF and it’s a big if I know, but if she had said no, then what? I could understand it better if she was predestined to be the mother of God no matter what, but the Church has never taught predestination, and so if she had said no, would she suddenly be stained with original sin because she didn’t choose to be the Theotokos?

Yes, as we know, Mary had free will, just like Eve. Only unlike Eve, she chose to be obedient to God. There is a lot of speculation about “what if she had said no”. It’s hard to say. But I cannot believe that God would have just said, “oh, ok then, wouldn’t want to disrupt your life, guess I’ll go pick out another virgin then”. God, of course, already knew what her answer would be, just as he knew what Eve was going to do. Would Mary suddenly have been stained with original sin? No, under the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, the sin had been wiped away. However, I believe that “if” she had said “naw, I don’t want to bare the Savior of the world” that it would have been an act of disobedience and therefore she would have committed an actual sin.

Again, it’s difficult for us to wrap our minds around how God works. It is very possible, that at the moment she said yes, God worked a miracle and since all time is a single point to Him, He wiped original sin from her at her conception, but it is also possible with the truth of free will, that Mary was purified when she said yes to the angel and it was at that point her original sin was wiped away through the baptism of desire to do what God asked of her. Either way, Mary was a purified vessel that carried our Lord in her womb and gave birth to him and still remained a virgin after the birth. (Of course this doesn’t touch on perpetual virginity, which would be for a discussion in another thread.

Yes, I’m glad that you agree that she was a purified vessel. I do understand your point about the timing of this purification. Why wouldn’t God just purify her at the time of the Annunciation? He could have, absolutely, chosen to do that. But then the angel’s salutation would not make sense. The words “full of Grace” which was kecharitomene is from the verb “charitoo” which means to endow with grace. But it is also a passive participle which means it has a continuence of a completed action or in other words it suggests a perfection of grace from a past event.

Nor does it make sense to me. When we are baptized, the taint of original sin is wiped away, totally and completely. If God can do that now to every single baptized Christian through the sacrament of baptism, why could he have not just simply purified her when she said yes? Why does it have to be from her conception? That is what I don’t understand. We all believe Mary was the pure vessel that carried our Lord and gave birth too him, why should anyone be condemned for not believing that it happened at a specific point in time?

Well, you can’t say we all believe that she was a pure vessel because there are plenty of Christians who don’t believe she was pure at all–they mostly believe in her virginity but not purity. Anyway, I believe in the purity from the conception because of the other scriptures that were mentioned previously–the purity of the Ark of the Covenent, and the comparison to the Tabernacle, etc. Of course, I also believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in proclaiming dogma for the Church. I realize that you do not which is certainly your privilege. But, all these factors add up to my conclusion that Mary was Immaculately Conceived. Not that she had to be, per se, but because He wanted it thus.

Again, yes he had a purpose for her, but she still could have said no. What would have happened had she said no?

Then Mary would have been just as Eve was–disobedient. I shudder to imagine what would have happened. Would our salvation be lost? Would God have just picked someone else? Like you said above, it is hard to wrap our minds around how God works. But what if Noah had refused to build the Ark, what if Abraham had said “no” to God when He told Him to leave his home, or what if Peter had not listened to Jesus when He said “Come follow me, I will make you fishers of men”. ?Any “no’s” by these ordinary human beings would have been disastrous. But I think God knows what He is doing when He asks people for these momentous tasks as part of His plan of salvation. And all we are left with is the fact that “what if” doesn’t matter, what matters is that the answer was “yes”.

Stimulating conversation… thanks! I think my brain hurts now.

 

[LilyM]

Remember that the Angel Gabriel greeted Mary as ‘full of grace’ BEFORE she had said yes to being Christ’s mother. This surely strongly implies the notion of her being specially chosen and preserved from sin before the Annunciation.

And the Immaculate Conception makes sense. Those who have sinned during their youth are highly unlikely to develop INTO a state of sinlessness later, given concupiscence and free will. See what a difficult time even the hand-picked Apostles and all the greatest Saints who have lived have had with it?

Rather those who are most pure would be they who have never sinned to begin with. Mary’s lifelong freedom from original or actual sin via the Immaculate Conception would be necessary to make as sure as possible (without negating free will) that Mary would co-operate with God’s plan.

For that matter Christ, perfect and sinless God-man though he was, found his task incredibly difficult. Mary, without the protection which he had of being divine, would’ve found hers impossible without the special heavenly protection offered by her Immaculate Conception.