Mother Mary & Original Sin:

[MrZetterlund]

I had recieved this letter from someone “warning me way” from Catholosism. Are Catholics allowed to believe that Mary “may” have sinned in her life-time, and subject to original sin?

**

"Now, you said, “believing Mary was sinless is really an undemanded individual belief.” I don’t know if a catholic told you that, or where you got that, but I must tell you, that is not correct. I want to direct your attention to the decree of Pope Pius IX where he made Mary’s Immaculate Conception (her being conceived w/o original sin and living a sinless life) a binding dogma that MUST be believed by ALL Catholics, or they can consider themselves fallen away from the faith:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”[29]

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Ineffibils Deus, Proclaimed 12-8-1854

So, there it is. The Pope is saying right there that if you so much as deny that Mary was conceived with Original Sin, let alone that she sinned during her life, you have completely fallen away from the faith. It is VERY much a matter that is not to be discussed, but to be believed.

Again, I pulled this whole Mary issue outta the hat at random…I brought it up not to discuss whether or not Mary sinned or not…I mean, heck , maybe she didn’t! The real issue was this: You had Christians from the 100s, 200s, and 400s believing that she was in fact, a sinner…which badly damages the notion that the apostles preached it orally, and passed it down to their students. Yet Roman Catholicism can take an idea that CLEARLY had it’s origins well after the 400s and tell it’s faithful that if you don’t believe it, well, you’re bound for hell."

**

 

[AmbroseSJ]

No.

 

[Catholic1954]

It is a doctrine of the Church that Mary was concieved without orginal sin and therefore remained sinless for her entire life.

 

[Southerncross]

You may notice that while people make the assertion that Our Lay sinned or " may have sinned " they are unable to offer even the least substantiation for their claims - the reason being there is none ! She was Immaculate at Conception & remains in that most pure state today .
[SIGN]Pax et Bonum[/SIGN]

 

[Cristian_B]

As far as I know, it is a dogma. And dogmas are well … primary teachings. You have to believe them if you want to be a Catholic, so you don’t have an option here.

 

[DiZent]

Again, I pulled this whole Mary issue outta the hat at random…I brought it up not to discuss whether or not Mary sinned or not…I mean, heck , maybe she didn’t! **The real issue was this: You had Christians from the 100s, 200s, and 400s believing that she was in fact, a sinner…**which badly damages the notion that the apostles preached it orally, and passed it down to their students. Yet Roman Catholicism can take an idea that CLEARLY had it’s origins well after the 400s and tell it’s faithful that if you don’t believe it, well, you’re bound for hell."

Where on earth is this “opposer” getting this. Supposedly they get ALL their evidence from Scripture alone. I’ve seen nothing in Scripture to support this, not in the writings of the Early Church Fathers

 

[Chesster]

Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman”

There can be no enmity if Mary sinned; ever.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I had recieved this letter from someone “warning me way” from Catholosism. Are Catholics allowed to believe that Mary “may” have sinned in her life-time, and subject to original sin?

As careful reading will note he is using “slight of hand (words)”. Using the Papal decree that Mary was conceived free of Original Sin and it’s effects, to include Mary never sinned, which the papal decree never mentions in the portion quoted. I believe that Mary was so united to her son that she did not, and because she did not have the effects of Original Sin, was not inclined to personal sin since she could not be touched by satan.

 

[JRKH]

I had recieved this letter from someone “warning me way” from Catholicism. Are Catholics allowed to believe that Mary “may” have sinned in her life-time, and subject to original sin?

I just want to add to the others that, while the acceptance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is necessary, complete understanding of it is not.

There are many things that we accept as Christians that we do not and cannot fully understand. The Trinity for one. Christ being “fully human” and yet “fully divine” for another. Yet we accept these things because the Church - The Pillar and Bulwark (1Tim 3:15), To whom we should listen (Mt 18:15-18), has “bound them” as teachings.

Peace
James

 

[DiZent]

Just to clarify for my protestant brethren, I know the Scripture that says “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”. Have babies sinned? Have children under the age of reason sinned? Original sin and sinning are two different things. Original sin is the human condition of the tendency to sin. God transcends time and chose Mary. The merits of Jesus were applied to her outside of time and freed her from Original sin (the tendency or nature to sin). Could she have went against that freedom? I suppose, but we have absolutely no evidence that she did and the Angel Gabriel called Mary “full of Grace”. One cannot be “in sin” and “full of Grace”. She could have said no - she was free to choose. Jesus says of His Mother “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it”, which is exactly what Mary did according to Scripture.

 

[lutherlic]

I had recieved this letter from someone “warning me way” from Catholosism. Are Catholics allowed to believe that Mary “may” have sinned in her life-time, and subject to original sin?

It sounds like your friend is a little desperate here. This really shouldn’t be a contest to see who can throw-up a strawman and theologically debate it best. It should be about the truth.

Let me ask you, are you certain Mary did sin or certain that Immaculate Conception is a fallacy? Probably not. Is it important that you are able to come to a conclusion on this under your own intellect? Probably not.

Part of the answer to your question is understanding we are THE Church Jesus founded, that the Apostles were our first bishops, that St. Peter was our first pope, that our current bishops and pope are their direct successors, and that they are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit on faith matters.

I assume your friend is Protestant, probably certain his denomination knows the truth. I’ll bet there is a huge schism between liberal and conservative portions of his own denomination (a really safe bet, BTW). Which half is the correct one? How can the vast differences between denominations be explained? How can bible only churches, using the same bible, explain their significant differences? I do not wish to bash our Protestant brethren (of which I was one until recently!), just to contrast their understanding of the truth and ours.

Our faith is unchanging, as the truth does not change. Infallible declarations from the pope are rare and usually only to reaffirm Sacred Tradition when it becomes challenged. We are in the business of preserving the faith, not evolving it through thought experiments or updating it through democratic votes at annual conventions.

Personally, I put a lot more trust in the teachings of the Church than in my own ability to independently divine the truth!

 

[Good_Fella]

It sounds like your friend is a little desperate here. This really shouldn’t be a contest to see who can throw-up a strawman and theologically debate it best. It should be about the truth.

Let me ask you, are you certain Mary did sin or certain that Immaculate Conception is a fallacy? Probably not. Is it important that you are able to come to a conclusion on this under your own intellect? Probably not.

Part of the answer to your question is understanding we are THE Church Jesus founded, that the Apostles were our first bishops, that St. Peter was our first pope, that our current bishops and pope are their direct successors, and that they are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit on faith matters.

I assume your friend is Protestant, probably certain his denomination knows the truth. I’ll bet there is a huge schism between liberal and conservative portions of his own denomination (a really safe bet, BTW). Which half is the correct one? How can the vast differences between denominations be explained? How can bible only churches, using the same bible, explain their significant differences? I do not wish to bash our Protestant brethren (of which I was one until recently!), just to contrast their understanding of the truth and ours.

Our faith is unchanging, as the truth does not change. Infallible declarations from the pope are rare and usually only to reaffirm Sacred Tradition when it becomes challenged. We are in the business of preserving the faith, not evolving it through thought experiments or updating it through democratic votes at annual conventions.

Personally, I put a lot more trust in the teachings of the Church than in my own ability to independently divine the truth!

 

[Evan]

It is a doctrine of the Church that Mary was concieved without orginal sin and therefore remained sinless for her entire life.

It is a doctrine that Mary was concieved without original sin. But that does not preclude her from sinning at a later date.

Is there an authoritative document that supports the perpetual sinlessness of BVM. I can see some arguments for it:

“I will be called blessed by all generations”

“Hail, full of grace”

The assumption.

It is reasonable, it is proper, but is it declared?

 

[crazzeto]

I had recieved this letter from someone “warning me way” from Catholosism. Are Catholics allowed to believe that Mary “may” have sinned in her life-time, and subject to original sin?

---

No, we are not… But that’s not a problem, because we Catholics understand very well that sinlessness is in fact quite possible. For instance take Zachary and Elizabeth, parents to John the baptist, from Luke 1:

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

You can see here, that there are clear cases of sinlessness in the Bible it’s self. The question is, was Mary born with out sin? Well we can answer this question from typology. We know there OT types of NT fulfillment, and we know from scripture that the types are inferior to the fulfilment.

Eve is a type of Mary, that is to say Mary is the second Eve. This was a teaching from the first days of Christianity, as an example I will copy what Justin Martyr had to say:

We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded from the Father by His power and Will,…and by means of the Virgin, became mad, that by what the disobedience arising from the serpent had it’s beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when then Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her and the power of the Highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, ‘Be it to me according to Thy word.’

If Eve is a type of Mary, and Mary is the fulfilment, then Mary must be greater than Eve. If Eve was conceived without sin, then could you honestly say Mary wasn’t if she was not only sinless, but also not born with out sin?

Edit
(The bolding in Justin’s writings is mine, because it relates to another Marian type. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant).

 

[SonofMonica]

Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman”

There can be no enmity if Mary sinned; ever.

Chesster – can you explain this a bit more? I don’t even know what enmity means… and why can’t there be enmity if Mary sinned? I’m confused.

 

[crazzeto]

Chesster – can you explain this a bit more? I don’t even know what enmity means… and why can’t there be enmity if Mary sinned? I’m confused.

en·mi·ty   /ˈɛnmɪti/ Show Spelled[en-mi-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties.
a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.
Use enmity in a Sentence
See images of enmity
Search enmity on the Web

---

Origin:
1250–1300; ME enemite < MF; OF enemiste < VL *inimīcitāt- (s. of *inimīcitās), equiv. to L inimīc(us) enemy + -itāt- -ity

—Can be confused: amity, enmity.

—Synonyms
malice, acrimony, rancor.

 

[SonofMonica]

en·mi·ty   /ˈɛnmɪti/ Show Spelled[en-mi-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties.
a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.
Use enmity in a Sentence
See images of enmity
Search enmity on the Web

---

Origin:
1250–1300; ME enemite < MF; OF enemiste < VL *inimīcitāt- (s. of *inimīcitās), equiv. to L inimīc(us) enemy + -itāt- -ity

—Can be confused: amity, enmity.

—Synonyms
malice, acrimony, rancor.

LOL, okay I didn’t mean that I didn’t know what the word enmity meant in the dictionary. I meant I didn’t know the meaning of “I shall put enmity between you and the woman,” as stated in Genesis, means. So I don’t know what it has to do with Mary.

 

[crazzeto]

LOL, okay I didn’t mean that I didn’t know what the word enmity meant in the dictionary. I meant I didn’t know the meaning of “I shall put enmity between you and the woman,” as stated in Genesis, means. So I don’t know what it has to do with Mary.

Mary is an enemy of the Devil, i.e. sin.

 

[SonofMonica]

Mary is an enemy of the Devil, i.e. sin.

It was Eve in Genesis, though. Not Mary.

 

[crazzeto]

It was Eve in Genesis, though. Not Mary.

Perhaps the problem is you’ve mis-identified “she”.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Eve did not crush the head of the Serpent. Perhaps the Rev. Haydock’s comments will help clear this up for you:

Gen 3:15 She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)