Is it a sin if I didn't know?

[ptisme]

As a Catholic I always thought that if we weren’t aware that we were actually breaking one of God’s commandments then it wasn’t actually a sin. The reason I ask is I have a fundamentalists friend who is telling me that Mary couldn’t have been without sin because of Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God). I was going to explain to him that a child who doesn’t have the ability to reason can’t have sinned. If that child dies he will not have committed a sin in his life.

Then I stumbled upon Leviticus 5:17: “If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lords commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible”. Someone please square me away on this parsing… Thanks.

 

[Della]

As a Catholic I always thought that if we weren’t aware that we were actually breaking one of God’s commandments then it wasn’t actually a sin. The reason I ask is I have a fundamentalists friend who is telling me that Mary couldn’t have been without sin because of Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God). I was going to explain to him that a child who doesn’t have the ability to reason can’t have sinned. If that child dies he will not have committed a sin in his life.

Your Fundamentalist friend is misusing that verse, although he doesn’t know why. But your explanation isn’t the answer, either, I’m afraid. Nor does it have anything to do with culpability for sin–which is what you are asking about. Mary’s sinlessness a topic for another thread, and has been discussed in many times on CAF. You may wish to search for it.

Then I stumbled upon Leviticus 5:17: “If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lords commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible”. Someone please square me away on this parsing… Thanks.

By committing a grave sin a person has sinned, but how culpable they might be is another matter. Let’s take your child analogy as an example, and a minor sin. A child steals a cookie from the jar. He was never told it was wrong, but still a cookie was taken/eaten against the wishes of his parent. So, he’s done something the parent didn’t want him to do–he’s guilty of going against his parent’s wishes. Now let’s take another child who has been told not to steal cookies–if he does it, he is more culpable that the one who didn’t know it was forbidden. The first child might get scolded and told not to do it again, whereas the second child might get a more severe punishment depending on why he did it and how he did it.

 

[ptisme]

Your Fundamentalist friend is misusing that verse, although he doesn’t know why. But your explanation isn’t the answer, either, I’m afraid. Nor does it have anything to do with culpability for sin–which is what you are asking about. Mary’s sinlessness a topic for another thread, and has been discussed in many times on CAF. You may wish to search for it.

By committing a grave sin a person has sinned, but how culpable they might be is another matter. Let’s take your child analogy as an example, and a minor sin. A child steals a cookie from the jar. He was never told it was wrong, but still a cookie was taken/eaten against the wishes of his parent. So, he’s done something the parent didn’t want him to do–he’s guilty of going against his parent’s wishes. Now let’s take another child who has been told not to steal cookies–if he does it, he is more culpable that the one who didn’t know it was forbidden. The first child might get scolded and told not to do it again, whereas the second child might get a more severe punishment depending on why he did it and how he did it.

Hi Thanks for answering. The answer re Rom 3:23 I was giving him was from Karl Keating in his book: Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Pg 271 if you have it…

 

[Della]

Hi Thanks for answering. The answer re Rom 3:23 I was giving him was from Karl Keating in his book: Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Pg 271 if you have it…

I rather doubt Mr. Keating meant that Mary was sinless merely because she was born and had been a child. I have the book, buried somewhere, but I’m sure that’s not what he meant. Mary was born sinless because God preserved her, from the moment of her conception from all stain of original sin. Mr. Keating no doubt meant that she committed no actual sins in her life, unlike the rest of us who were born with original sin and have a tendency to sin. Your Fundamentalist friend either doesn’t know this or he denies it misusing the verse you cited. Children under the age of reason are not held culpable of sins they committed because they did so in ignorance and without the capacity to realize what sin is. So, if Johnny hits little Markie at age 3 he did something wrong, but he wasn’t in control of his reason and emotions at that age and so is not culpable, although his parents still have the right and duty to correct him and mete out appropriate punishment.

 

[ptisme]

Protestants point to Rom 3:23 as proof that Mary sinned. Keating is pointing out that there are exceptions to the rule that “no person has sinned”. He sites young children and people without the intellectual ability to know they are sinned as exceptions. Of course Jesus would also be an exception. There is no doubt in scripture that he was fully man (and fully God) and that he never sinned…

 

[Della]

Protestants point to Rom 3:23 as proof that Mary sinned. Keating is pointing out that there are exceptions to the rule that “no person has sinned”. He sites young children and people without the intellectual ability to know they are sinned as exceptions. Of course Jesus would also be an exception. There is no doubt in scripture that he was fully man (and fully God) and that he never sinned…

Ah I see. Yes, that’s correct. :yup: Of course, your friend isn’t reading the verse in context, but is reading it literalistically to mean absolutely every person with no exceptions, when that is not St. Paul’s intention. He only meant that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners in the eyes of God–that no particular people, as the Jews claimed due to their being descended from Abraham, were more or less sinful than another–that the cross has broken down such distinctions.

 

[ptisme]

Ah I see. Yes, that’s correct. :yup: Of course, your friend isn’t reading the verse in context, but is reading it literalistically to mean absolutely every person with no exceptions, when that is not St. Paul’s intention. He only meant that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners in the eyes of God–that no particular people, as the Jews claimed due to their being descended from Abraham, were more or less sinful than another–that the cross has broken down such distinctions.

That’s a great point. Hey, question. I tried using the “search” button to find “Mary” and “sinless” to find some good biblical reasoning why Mary remained sinless throughout her life. Do you have any links? Much appreciated

 

[spockrates]

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

(Romans 3:23-24)

Ptisme:

Not sure if this is helpful. It seems to me it comes down to what the word *all *means in this context. It does not mean all who exist have sinned, for the Bible tells us angels still abiding with God are sinless. It does not mean all human beings have sinned, for Christ was fully human. What it must mean, then is that all *sinful * beings have sinned. Since Mary is not in the category of sinful beings, the passage does not prove she sinned. She might very well, as Christ, be one of the human beings who never sinned.

What your Fundamentalist Christian friend would need is a more specific passage of scripture, which gives Mary by name and shows that she did indeed commit some sinful thought, word or deed, I think.

What do you think?

 

[ptisme]

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

(Romans 3:23-24)

Ptisme:

Not sure if this is helpful. It seems to me it comes down to what the word *all *means in this context. It does not mean all who exist have sinned, for the Bible tells us angels still abiding with God are sinless. It does not mean all human beings have sinned, for Christ was fully human. What it must mean, then is that all *sinful * beings have sinned. Since Mary is not in the category of sinful beings, the passage does not prove she sinned. She might very well, as Christ, be one of the human beings who never sinned.

What your Fundamentalist Christian friend would need is a more specific passage of scripture, which gives Mary by name and shows that she did indeed commit some sinful thought, word or deed, I think.

What do you think?

yeah, I think I covered that with him. My first point was to prove that there is no verse in the bible that suggest she wasn’t free of sin. He pointed to Romans 3:23 and I gave him examples to that exception. Now what I need is biblical proof that she was free of sin. I think I found that as well with the whole meaning of “full of Grace”.
thanks!

 

[Della]

This lists verses regarding Mary and her attributes: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II. Also, St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s “The Glories of Mary” is available online: archive.org/details/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft. He talks about Mary’s sinlessness and gives scriptural support for it in Discourse II.

A few years ago I composed and saw published a scriptural rosary in which I included the Immaculate Conception. I drew heavily on the Song of Songs, from my reading of “The Glories of Mary.” Here are the verses that speak of her uniqueness and spotlessness:

“As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.” (SofS 2:2)

“Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee.” (SofS 4:7)

“One is my dove, my perfect one is but one.” (SofS 6:9)

“My sister my spouse is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.” (SofS 4:12)

I hope these references help you in your researches.

 

[ptisme]

This lists verses regarding Mary and her attributes: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II. Also, St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s “The Glories of Mary” is available online: archive.org/details/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft. He talks about Mary’s sinlessness and gives scriptural support for it in Discourse II.

A few years ago I composed and saw published a scriptural rosary in which I included the Immaculate Conception. I drew heavily on the Song of Songs, from my reading of “The Glories of Mary.” Here are the verses that speak of her uniqueness and spotlessness:

“As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.” (SofS 2:2)

“Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee.” (SofS 4:7)

“One is my dove, my perfect one is but one.” (SofS 6:9)

“My sister my spouse is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.” (SofS 4:12)

I hope these references help you in your researches.

I’ll check it out. Thank you for your help, it was most appreciated

 

[JerryZ]

As a Catholic I always thought that if we weren’t aware that we were actually breaking one of God’s commandments then it wasn’t actually a sin. The reason I ask is I have a fundamentalists friend who is telling me that Mary couldn’t have been without sin because of Romans 3:23 (For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God). I was going to explain to him that a child who doesn’t have the ability to reason can’t have sinned. If that child dies he will not have committed a sin in his life.

Then I stumbled upon Leviticus 5:17: “If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lords commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible”. Someone please square me away on this parsing… Thanks.

As soon as he uttered this your reply is:
Ah! I see then you believe that Jesus was a sinner!

He will no doubt deny this you pounce on with:

Well I guess you believe that children that die right after being born or mentally ill persons who do not have the use of reason are also sinners!

Let him/her stew on that for a while, then point out WHO St. Paul was talking about, not that he stated that all humans that lived or live today are sinners for even now there those that through no fault of their own are borne without the capacity to sin. You will find whose he was talking about by reading the context of the letter, whom it was addressed and the preceding verses.

Mary is the second woman who was created without original sin and the only one that CHOSE not to sin during her life. This is why GOD selected her as the mother of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Remember what is required for sin:
Grave matter (Do not eat the fruit of this tree or you will die)
Full knowledge (They understood the consequences)
Personal consent (No one forced their will)

Eva was created without original sin, however, she commited personal sin herself and by that action all the human race is born with original sin.

Mary was born without original sin by a special grace from GOD (Hail Mary Full of Grace)

NOTICE: The Archangel does NOT say “Hail Mary YOU are full of grace”
The archangel instead said (Hail Mary “Full of Grace” This is an attribute.
A name that is the nature of Mary.
She cannot have sinned otherwise that name: “Full of Grace” would have no meaning.

---

 

[ptisme]

As soon as he uttered this your reply is:
Ah! I see then you believe that Jesus was a sinner!

He will no doubt deny this you pounce on with:

Well I guess you believe that children that die right after being born or mentally ill persons who do not the use of reason are also sinners!

Let him/her stew on that then point out WHO St. Paul was talking about, not that he stated that all humans that lived or live today are sinners for even now there those that through no fault of their own are borne without the capacity to sin.

Mary is the second woman who was created without original sin and the only one that CHOSE not to sin during her life. This is why GOD selected her as the mother of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Remember what is required for sin:
nnot
Grave matter (Do not eat the fruit of this tree or you will die)
Full knowledge (They understood the consequences)
Personal consent (No one forced their will)

Eva was created without original sin, she commited personal sin herself and by that action all the human race is born with original sin.

Mary was born without original sin by a special grace from GOD (Hail Mary Full of Grace)

NOTICE: The Archangel does NOT say “Hail Mary YOU are full of grace”
The archangel instead said (Hail Mary “Full of Grace” This is an attribute. A name that is the nature of Mary. She cannot have sinned otherwise that name “Full of Grace” would have no meaning.

---

Exceptional. esp the last part!

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our first parents; that the fulfillment of God’s precepts is impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther’s doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law. Jansenius, in his “Augustinus”, taught that according to the present powers of man some of God’s precepts are impossible of fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin. True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1050-1). All acts done without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#VI

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#IV

Now I’m really chewing into this venial sin thing. So, here is the definition … It might take me a while to digest these thoughts.

Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God, or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end, but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. “Ille qui peccat venialiter, inhæret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum non actu sed habitu” (I-II:88:1, ad 3). For a mortal sin, some created good must be adhered to as a last end at least implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up between God and that object. The created good is not desired as an end. The sinner is not placed in the position of choosing between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true last end he would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what is displeasing to his friends without destroying friendship.

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (1 John 5:16-17) it is clear there are some sins “unto death” and some sins not “unto death”, i.e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it; because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. “Just as”, says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] “are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation.” (I-II:89:2)

 

[VesselofMercy]

Which translation of the Bible says “full of grace” for Luke 1:28? I can’t find it anywhere!

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Then I stumbled upon Leviticus 5:17: “If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lords commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible”. Someone please square me away on this parsing… Thanks.

If you read the context, the only “penalty” is that he must arrange to have a particular sacrifice offered. It is treated with more lenience than deliberate sin. Still, it is a sin because it is an offense against the objective moral order, which must be repaired.

In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the Gospel Entrance, the priest prays “Forgive our voluntary and involuntary transgressions.” Similar idea.

In a state of grace, we can expiate such offenses through the use of the sacraments, prayers, good works, etc.

 

[ptisme]

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Angel entered her presence, and he said to her, “Peace to you,** full of grace, **our Lord is with you; you are blessed among women.”

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Which translation of the Bible says “full of grace” for Luke 1:28? I can’t find it anywhere!

**Douay-Rheims: **Hail, full of grace

**Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition: **Hail, full of grace

Msgr. Knox Bible - Hail, full of grace

 

[ptisme]

If you read the context, the only “penalty” is that he must arrange to have a particular sacrifice offered. It is treated with more lenience than deliberate sin. Still, it is a sin because it is an offense against the objective moral order, which must be repaired.

In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at the Gospel Entrance, the priest prays “Forgive our voluntary and involuntary transgressions.” Similar idea.

In a state of grace, we can expiate such offenses through the use of the sacraments, prayers, good works, etc.

That is what I was looking for. thx!