If Mary was born without original sin, why then did Jesus say?

[StCsDavid]

Richard_Hurtz:

Can you name someone who was not?

That would be Adam and Eve. Both were created by God.

 

[mercygate]

Strider:

John the Baptist was not immaculately conceived. He was “Baptized,” i.e., original sin was removed in the presence of our Lord when he “Leapt in Elizabeth’s womb.” He was born without original sin.

Important distinction – and this is "t"radition, not Tradition or doctrine.

 

[YADA]

Adam & Eve were created by God, not concieved and born. They did not have ‘Original Sin’ nor ‘concupiscence’.

Adam and Eve, like all humanity has a "free will.’ We are free to choose good or evil, God or the desires of this world. It was an exercise of free will i. e. personal sin taht caused the fall.

John the Baptist, did not have an Immaculate Conception. He may have lived a life that was free of personal sin, scripture can gives evidence that he was a grace filled follower of God.

Similarly, Enoch, “walked all his days with the Lord” then was assumed into heaven without suffering death. Elisha, was taken into heaven by the “fiery chariot.” From these references, we can assume that even though they were concieved normally, born regularly they were able to exercise ‘free will’ in accordance the the God’s plan. While I know scripture also states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Enoch, Elisha, and John the Baptist are examples of what we could achieve if we but surrender ourselves to God.

 

[Eireann]

Richard_Hurtz:

Since you asked: I don’t believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary (and actually never did). I don’t remember anyone ever teaching about it or explaining it when I was going to CCD. When I looked more closely into the evidence offered for this dogma by the RCC I found it to be unconvincing.

I found this interesting, although way-off topic. Here

 

[Giver]

YADA:

Adam & Eve were created by God, not concieved and born. They did not have ‘Original Sin’ nor ‘concupiscence’.

Adam and Eve, like all humanity has a "free will.’ We are free to choose good or evil, God or the desires of this world. It was an exercise of free will i. e. personal sin taht caused the fall.

John the Baptist, did not have an Immaculate Conception. He may have lived a life that was free of personal sin, scripture can gives evidence that he was a grace filled follower of God.

Similarly, Enoch, “walked all his days with the Lord” then was assumed into heaven without suffering death. Elisha, was taken into heaven by the “fiery chariot.” From these references, we can assume that even though they were concieved normally, born regularly they were able to exercise ‘free will’ in accordance the the God’s plan. While I know scripture also states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Enoch, Elisha, and John the Baptist are examples of what we could achieve if we but surrender ourselves to God.

Thank you I believe this was a great post.

 

[tdandh26]

Immaculate conception is not some gift that God grants arbitrarily. It was a one time thing, which was done so that God, who is incapable of touching sin, could take on human flesh from the woman. If Mary had any stain of sin, even original, she would have died as soon as the Son entered her.
I have written about this on another thread, but i will repost it here.

Gods mercy and love are the wonder of wonders. It is this mercy and love which drew forth son from His eternal dwelling in the Father, to this sinful world, that He might redeem that which had fallen. God, in His divine nature is incorruptible and therefore incapable of being touched by sin. It was for this reason that the Eternal Wisdom created a vessel through which His incorruptible nature could take on human flesh. This vessel itself had to be free from all sin, for if even the slightest hint of sin was in her, the moment the divine nature entered into her she would have died. For inevitably that all powerful incorrutp nature would have, by its very essence, repelled sin with such force as to destroy the vessel which contained sin. For this very reason God created the Immaculate Conception. Thus at her proper age the son of the most High entered into her through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through her He took on flesh, so as to be able to take on the sins of the world, from beginning to end, and suffer Himself as payment for those sins.

 

[mlchance]

Giver:

Jesus equated the disciples who did the will of His Father with His mother, then if she was assumed into heaven why weren’t the disciples?

Well, since, according to you, Jesus tells you the answers to questions when you ask him, why don’t you ask him and let us know what he says?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MrS]

mlchance:

Well, since, according to you, Jesus tells you the answers to questions when you ask him, why don’t you ask him and let us know what he says?

– Mark L. Chance.

you bad

 

[all4one]

Della:

John the Baptist wasn’t immaculately conceived but he was born without the stain of original sin on his soul, which is what the Scripture verses cited in your post mean. The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays: Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist because Jesus, being of divine origin cannot have original sin on his soul, Mary, having been immaculately conceived was born without sin, and John the Baptist, who did not have the stain of original sin although he was not immaculately conceived.

Also, Jesus was referring to this fact and to the fact that John was “Elijah” the “herald of the Son of God.” He was not commenting on Mary in this context but on why John, as the last of the prophets before himself, and born without the stain of original sin, was the greatest of the prophets as juxtaposed against John’s seeming lack of faith for sending his disciples to ask Jesus, earlier in the chapter (cf. Mt. 11:2), if he was truly the one for whom Israel had been waiting so long.

When studying Scripture context and the intent of the author trumps any other possible interpretation, as well as the ongoing teaching of the Church of which the Bible is the prime witness.

Forgive me, but I can not in any way see how you can just claim that J the B was ‘without the stain of original sin’ just because he was ‘greatest born of a woman’. These are the kind of speculations that make me bonkers. Why does everything have to be nailed down and filed in a nice little catholic box instead of reading the scripture as if it were the Living Word of God and see what it’s saying about the grace of the Kingdom. Could it possibly mean that John truly followed the commandments and the prophetic teachings and taught others also (including his introducing the Messiah)? Could it mean the Jesus was illustrating that even though John was a perfect Jew - that still he could not enter the Kingdom except by GRACE. As great as his works were- only Grace gets you in. John did get in but it was by GRACE. ‘The least in the Kingdom is greater the John’ meaning *In Christ * one is far greater than any personality.
Al

 

[mercygate]

all4one:

Forgive me, but I can not in any way see how you can just claim that J the B was ‘without the stain of original sin’ just because he was ‘greatest born of a woman’. These are the kind of speculations that make me bonkers. Why does everything have to be nailed down and filed in a nice little catholic box instead of reading the scripture as if it were the Living Word of God and see what it’s saying about the grace of the Kingdom. Could it possibly mean that John truly followed the commandments and the prophetic teachings and taught others also (including his introducing the Messiah)? Could it mean the Jesus was illustrating that even though John was a perfect Jew - that still he could not enter the Kingdom except by GRACE. As great as his works were- only Grace gets you in. John did get in but it was by GRACE. ‘The least in the Kingdom is greater the John’ meaning *In Christ *one is far greater than any personality.
Al

Yup. Aren’t you glad that no Catholic is required to believe that John the Baptist was born without Original Sin? Pious speculation (may well be true) but not a belief required de fide.

 

[FCEGM]

Fergal:

The original latin quote reads **
28** Dico enim vobis : major inter natos mulierum propheta Joanne Baptista nemo est : qui autem minor est in regno Dei, major est illo.

28 For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet that John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

that makes perfect sense to me. No greater prophet was ever born of woman.

With so many departures from the original scriptures, is it any wonder we are so confused??

Check the latin vulgate for a precise translation vulsearch.sourceforge.net/

Thank you, Fergal! Finally someone has hit the nail on the head and come to the true issue at hand. I hope amidst all the musings about St. John’s sanctification the OP will see the answer you’ve given us.

The context of Matthew 11 makes clear that it is a question of St. John and his prophetic ministry - that St. John the Baptist is the last and greatest of the prophets. The OP’s scripture quote isn’t as telling in its translation as are, e.g., the RSV, the Vulgate, and even the KJV: 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

There the phrase “hath not risen” well indicates the meaning: the OT so often speaks of God raising prophets from the midst of the people, and St. John the Baptist is the final one to be raised up to bring the people to the fulfillment of all their aspirations, Christ Jesus.

 

[Giver]

FCEGM:

Thank you, Fergal! Finally someone has hit the nail on the head and come to the true issue at hand. I hope amidst all the musings about St. John’s sanctification the OP will see the answer you’ve given us.

The context of Matthew 11 makes clear that it is a question of St. John and his prophetic ministry - that St. John the Baptist is the last and greatest of the prophets. The OP’s scripture quote isn’t as telling in its translation as are, e.g., the RSV, the Vulgate, and even the KJV: 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

There the phrase “hath not risen” well indicates the meaning: the OT so often speaks of God raising prophets from the midst of the people, and St. John the Baptist is the final one to be raised up to bring the people to the fulfillment of all their aspirations, Christ Jesus.

(1 Corinthians 14:1-5) “You must want love more than anything else; but still hope for the
Spiritual gifts as well, especially prophecy. Anybody with the gift of tongues speaks to God, but not to other people; because nobody understands him when he talks in the spirit about mysterious things. On the other hand, the man who prophesies does talk to other people, to their improvement, their encouragement and their consolation. The one with the gift of tongues talks for his own benefit, but the man who prophesies does so for the benefit of the community. While I should like you all to have the gift of tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy, since the man who prophesies is of greater importance than the man with the gift tongues, unless of course the latter offers an interpretation so tat the church may get some benefit.

(Revelation 11:3-5) “But I shall send my two witnesses to prophesy for those twelve hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lamps that stand before the Lord of the world. Fire can come from their mouths and consume their enemies if anyone tries to harm them; and if anybody does try to harm them he will certainly be killed in this way.”

 

[Sherlock]

(Matthew 11:11) “I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.”

It seems to me if a person were so special that they were born without sin he or she would be greater than someone who was.

Another thought, Jesus must not have thought of Himself as a child born of woman.

I haven’t read the other responses, so I might be repeating what others have said: Jesus is speaking of prophets.

As for your second point, that is addressed by what I just said: Jesus was speaking of prophets, and He wasn’t a prophet but is God.

 

[Sherlock]

(1 Corinthians 14:1-5) “You must want love more than anything else; but still hope for the
Spiritual gifts as well, especially prophecy. Anybody with the gift of tongues speaks to God, but not to other people; because nobody understands him when he talks in the spirit about mysterious things. On the other hand, the man who prophesies does talk to other people, to their improvement, their encouragement and their consolation. The one with the gift of tongues talks for his own benefit, but the man who prophesies does so for the benefit of the community. While I should like you all to have the gift of tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy, since the man who prophesies is of greater importance than the man with the gift tongues, unless of course the latter offers an interpretation so tat the church may get some benefit.

(Revelation 11:3-5) “But I shall send my two witnesses to prophesy for those twelve hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lamps that stand before the Lord of the world. Fire can come from their mouths and consume their enemies if anyone tries to harm them; and if anybody does try to harm them he will certainly be killed in this way.”

How does this negate John’s status as the greatest of the prophets pointing to Christ?? Do you think Jesus was lying?

 

[USMC]

MrS:

If concupicence - the tendacy to sin - is part of mankind… and it appears that both [Adam and Eve] had the tendacy to sin (or else they would not have),

perhaps they did have a “form” or original sin.

just thoughts prompted by your response…

Adam and Eve did not have any tendency to sins of the flesh: no concupicense. They were created with a preturnatural gift called "original justice. Original justice was a certain spiritual “authority” that kept man’s lower nature subordinate to his higher nature, so that his passions and emotions (lower nature) perfectly obeyed his reason (higher nature).

When man rose up against God, however, God removed this gift. *"y the sin of our first parent original justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason, without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the souls without any defect…" (St. Thomas, Summa, Vol. 2 Q 85, Art. 5).

When man, a lesser being, rose up against God, a higher being, God removed the gift of original justice and man’s lower nature rose up against his higher nature. Now there is a great struggle within man: the struggle between his flesh and his spirit. “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another.” (Gal. 5: 17)

The two now fight for the obedience of the will; man’s reason tells him what he ought to do, while his flesh seeks its own satisfaction. “For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present within me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. … For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man (the reason): But I see another law in my members (the flesh), fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members.” (Romans 7: 18-19,22-23). This disorder within out nature is the result of the loss of original justice.

The only sin possible for Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, was the sin of pride, which is what the devil tempted them to.*

 

[katewithak]

Richard_Hurtz:

Can you name someone who was not?

Satan.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

katewithak:

Satan.

Satan was not ‘born of a woman’.

 

[FCEGM]

(1 Corinthians 14:1-5) “You must want love more than anything else; but still hope for the
Spiritual gifts as well, especially prophecy. Anybody with the gift of tongues speaks to God, but not to other people; because nobody understands him when he talks in the spirit about mysterious things. On the other hand, the man who prophesies does talk to other people, to their improvement, their encouragement and their consolation. The one with the gift of tongues talks for his own benefit, but the man who prophesies does so for the benefit of the community. While I should like you all to have the gift of tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy, since the man who prophesies is of greater importance than the man with the gift tongues, unless of course the latter offers an interpretation so tat the church may get some benefit.

(Revelation 11:3-5) “But I shall send my two witnesses to prophesy for those twelve hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lamps that stand before the Lord of the world. Fire can come from their mouths and consume their enemies if anyone tries to harm them; and if anybody does try to harm them he will certainly be killed in this way.”

Yes - and this has to do what with the OP’s original question and Fergal’s and my responses?

 

[cazayoux]

Giver:

You have a right to your belief. I do wonder why you believe what you believe about the Catholic Church.

Church Authority: A quick guide for those with a couple of minutes… and who here doesn’t have a couple of minutes for truth?

---

**Jesus founded ONE church **
[Matt 16:18]

Jesus established an authoritative church
John 8:32; 14:6; 18:37; 18:15-17
1 Tim 3:15 (What IS the pillar and foundation of truth? … not the bible, but the church)

Remember that the bible has authority BECAUSE the church has authority. Remember that the bible is a Catholic book.

Jesus established a visible church
Eph 5:23
John 17:20-23
Acts 4:32
1 Cor 1:10

If it was an invisible church, how would we go to it to resolve issues? It had to be a church that we could go to.

THAT authority is apostolic
Matt 28:18-19 (all authority is given to Jesus)
John 20:21 (he gives THAT authority to the apostles)
Luke 10:16
John 14:16-17,26; 16:13

THAT church is infallible on teachings of faith and morals
Acts 8:30-31 (we need a guide … wouldn’t God give us an infallible guide?)
1 John 4:6
1 Peter 1:12

i know what some might be thinking: “that was then, those same apostles aren’t alive today. that authority is gone or no longer necessary.”

Apostolic succession
Matt 28:19-20 ("… to the end of the age …")
1 Cor 12:28 (“apostles, prophets, teachers”)
Acts 1:15-26 (filling Judas’s position - he was gone, yet the office remained)
1 Tim 1:18 (Paul passes on authority to Timothy)
1 Cor 4:17 (instruction to respect Timothy - FULL authority)
2 Tim 1: 13-14 (asserting his teaching authority)
2 Tim 2: 2 (4 generations of apostolic succession in this line)
Titus 1:5-7 (appoint elders)
1 Tim 1:3; 4:11-13 (“command and teach these things”)
2 Tim 1:6 (laying on of hands … to ordain others)
1 Tim 4:14; 5:22 (“which was conferred on you … hands”, “lay hands”)

With this knowledge and understanding that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus is authoritative, infallible, and alive through succession … which church would that be?
Only the Catholic Church can trace that visible, authoritative succession back to the first apostles.

Cheers!

michel

 

[Karen10]

(Matthew 11:11) “I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.”

It seems to me if a person were so special that they were born without sin he or she would be greater than someone who was.

Hi, Jimmy Akin addresses this in the following article on Catholic.com:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105bt.asp

Check out the link to understand more.

Another text that is sometimes used to discount the distinctives of Mary is Matthew 11: 11, where Jesus declares, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” How can Mary be second only to her Son if John the Baptist is the greatest “among those born of women?”

The answer again has to do with correctly identifying the class of things being discussed. This is made clear by the context. The reference to John’s greatness occurs in a discussion of his role as a prophet (11:7-15). And the declaration of his greatness is occasioned by Jesus quoting the prophecy of the coming prophet (v. 10) who would herald the Messiah (Mal. 3:1). Jesus follows up the remark by pointing to John as the terminus of the Law and the prophets (v. 13) and as the fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah (or one like Elijah) would come (v. 14).

This explains the sense in which John is greater than all others: He is the greatest of the pre-Christian prophets in the sense that he gets to be the herald of the Messiah himself. Indeed, some manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel give the parallel to this saying as, “I tell you, among those born of women no prophet is greater than John the Baptist” (Luke 7:28, var.). Needless to say, the class of Old Testament prophets is a set to which Mary does not belong.

Further, Jesus’ universe of discourse at this point is limited by another factor: time. “The kingdom of heaven” refers to the Christian age, to the Church that Jesus will found. John thus may be the most blessed of the line of Old Covenant prophets because he is the Messiah’s herald, but even the humblest Christian will be more blessed than John is. And of course Mary-unlike John-lived into the Christian age and became part of the Church.