Mary - no sin?

[mlz]

Could someone explain to me the Catholic teaching on how Mary could be without sin. I’m confused because I know it says I think in Romans that" all have sinned an fallen short His glory". Also, I knew she was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, but after marrying Joseph why would she still be a virgin. Most married people do not remain virgins…? These are questions I’m trying to understand.

Thank you,
mlz

 

[LilyM]

‘all have sinned’ is what is known as hyperbole - exaggeration for effect. We know that young infants are incapable of sin as they are of crime, or that people with mental illness or defect can be incapable of sin.

It’s a bit like another passage of scripture that says ‘there are no righteous, no not one’, when Noah and his family, among many other people in scriptures, are actually described on the contrary as being righteous.

As for Mary being sinless - well, she has been called the ‘Ark of the New Covenant’. THere are lots of parallels between her and the Ark of the OT.

The Ark in the OT contained manna (bread from heaven), the two tablets of the Law of Moses, and the staff of Aaron the High Priest. Likewise Mary contained within her womb, in the person of Jesus, the Bread of Life, the Messiah who fulfilled the Law and our eternal High Priest.

The Ark was hidden in the hill country for three months, and David danced before it. Likewise Mary went to the hill country to visit Elizabeth for three months and the unborn John the Baptist leapt with joy - note Elizabeth says it was at HER greeting, and not simply at the presence of the Christ child.

Then in Revelations 12, John first says that the Ark of the Covenant is seen in heaven, then follows this with the crowned woman who gives birth to the ruler (clearly Mary who gave birth to Jesus) being seen in heaven. This implies that the woman is in fact the Ark.

Anyways - the Ark was built of the purest and best materials available. How could Mary be any less than a perfect human being (created sinless, as Adam and Eve were created sinless)

 

[VociMike]

It has been revealed by God to his Church that Mary was immaculately conceived (conceived without the spiritual damage that we inherit from the Fall), and that she avoided all personal sin throughout her life - by the grace of God, of course. And since this was revealed by God, the Church does and must teach it.

As to why Mary was, in this most important sense, a perfect human being, the Church only says that it was fitting for the Mother of God to be so. That makes total sense, since Jesus Christ is the perfect unification of God and Man, deriving his perfect divine nature from his Father, and his perfect human nature from his Mother.

The passage in Romans clearly does not mean each and every human being, for there is no sin that a newborn baby has committed.

As to why Mary remained a virgin, again we are left to some speculation. The most compelling answer to my mind is to ask, when is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? When the first father dies, but God the Father never died. Perhaps when the first father abandons mother and child, but God the Father never abandoned Mary or Jesus. So Mary had a particular covenant with God, and was not in a position to have a parallel covenant with a man.

Another very practical reason is that there would have been great temptation among early Christians to elevate Jesus’ blood (half) brothers, if he had any, to some divine stature. That would have been gravely damaging to the new Christian faith, resulting in splintering and other dangers to the early Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could someone explain to me the Catholic teaching on how Mary could be without sin. I’m confused because I know it says I think in Romans that" all have sinned an fallen short His glory". Also, I knew she was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, but after marrying Joseph why would she still be a virgin. Most married people do not remain virgins…? These are questions I’m trying to understand.

Thank you,
mlz

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[thistle]

Could someone explain to me the Catholic teaching on how Mary could be without sin. I’m confused because I know it says I think in Romans that" all have sinned an fallen short His glory". Also, I knew she was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, but after marrying Joseph why would she still be a virgin. Most married people do not remain virgins…? These are questions I’m trying to understand.

Thank you,
mlz

The founder of Protestantism, Luther, believed and declared in writing that Mary was sinless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The founder of Protestantism, Luther, believed and declared in writing that Mary was sinless.

Indeed. I did not write the following, and I regret that when I was first starting out as an apologist, I did not appreciate the importantce of documenting my sources.

"Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and *Against the Papacy of Rome *(1545)."

 

[PBP]

You can be saved from falling into a manhole without ever falling into it.

 

[mlz]

As to why Mary remained a virgin, again we are left to some speculation. The most compelling answer to my mind is to ask, when is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? When the first father dies, but God the Father never died. Perhaps when the first father abandons mother and child, but God the Father never abandoned Mary or Jesus. So Mary had a particular covenant with God, and was not in a position to have a parallel covenant with a man.

Ok, I can see this, but then why did she even marry Joseph or why did Joseph marry her? It is so difficult to understand given human nature and the reason many marry. Apostle Paul mentions marraige and it seems as if couples are meant to have sex not abstain from sex otherwise they should not marry…??? Where is this different here, help me understand.
mlz

 

[VociMike]

As to why Mary remained a virgin, again we are left to some speculation. The most compelling answer to my mind is to ask, when is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? When the first father dies, but God the Father never died. Perhaps when the first father abandons mother and child, but God the Father never abandoned Mary or Jesus. So Mary had a particular covenant with God, and was not in a position to have a parallel covenant with a man.

Because Mary needed a husband and Jesus needed a father on this earth. Because for Jesus to be like us in all things but sin it was fitting that he had a human family, just as he has a divine family.

Just because God says that in general people should do X, doesn’t mean that he may not have other plans for some. He told us to be fruitful and multiply, but Jesus didn’t marry, and didn’t multiply. If there was ever a case of “we have to judge this situation by a different standard” then it was the case of the man and woman who were chosen to be the mother and father of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. Remember the scripture about the eye and the ear and the hand and the foot.

 

[mlz]

. Remember the scripture about the eye and the ear and the hand and the foot.

Please elaborate…where is the connection with what you were explaining? Otherwise, I understand your point. Thanks,
mlz

 

[mlz]

"Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and *Against the Papacy of Rome *(1545)."

I appreciate seeing these references. Could anyone else send me more references to Luther’s view on Mary? I would really appreciate it since I’m trying to sort all this out.
Thank you,
mlz

 

[VociMike]

. Remember the scripture about the eye and the ear and the hand and the foot.

Please elaborate…where is the connection with what you were explaining? Otherwise, I understand your point. Thanks,
mlz

1 Cor 12:14-20
For the body does not consist of one member but of many.
If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.
If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
If all were a single organ, where would the body be?
As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

Each of us has a God-given role to play in his work of salvation. And the roles of Mary and Joseph were so unique, we should not be surprised that they were called to “play by different rules”.

After all, Mary bore the child, while she was married even, of one who was not her husband, and yet we don’t fault her for that. So neither should we fault her for remaining a virgin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, I can see this, but then why did she even marry Joseph or why did Joseph marry her? It is so difficult to understand given human nature and the reason many marry. Apostle Paul mentions marraige and it seems as if couples are meant to have sex not abstain from sex otherwise they should not marry…??? Where is this different here, help me understand.
mlz

The *Protoevangelium of James *was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was “chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord.” His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

Taken from:

Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
By Christine Pinheiro
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

I appreciate seeing these references. Could anyone else send me more references to Luther’s view on Mary? I would really appreciate it since I’m trying to sort all this out.
Thank you,
mlz

**Martin Luther **

Mary, Mother of all Christians

“It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

On Honoring Mary

“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

“No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

On Praying to Mary

“Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!” You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary.” (Personal Prayer Book, 1522)

“Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation.” (Sermon, March 11, 1523)

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

On the Assumption of Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”

 

[Benadam]

In the person of Jesus All things are made New. A new creation. A New creation through the earthly conduit by which we share in God’s creative act. This creative act is attached to an earthly purpose for all of us.

The Incarnation OTOH is attached to a heavenly purpose and Mary agreed to be that purposes’ one human initiator on earth.

Heavenly purpose relates to eternal fulfillment earthly purposes relate to earthly fulfillment. Eternal purposes aren’t subject to change, earthly purposes are. The conduit by which the Holy Spirit ,with Our Blessed Mother as helpmeet, is the womb. Through the ‘blessed’ womb God Incarnated on earth the New creation.

The human womb is the means by which the New creation entered the world. The way *humans have always *participated in creating, was raised up to God so God’s New creation could enter the world.

It seems that if God raises up the meaning of what He creates like this, in this case the human womb, that purpose found in it’s former meaning( fulfilled in it’s new meaning) relates to it’s new meaning like the OT relates to the NT in meaning and purpose.

I hope I was able to express what I’m thinking well eneogh.