Preserving Mary's sinlessness

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
Hi all,

With today being the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I was able to make it to Mass (and a Mass said by the Bishop nonetheless :D)

Anyway, he had a very good homily about Mary and her sinlessness, but I have some questions on this. Mary was indeed sinless from her conception to the birth of Jesus. That is indisputable. But how is her sinlessness justified for her entire life? That’s what I never really understood. I believe it on faith, but how can we justify it? Why was Mary sinless for her whole life? I’m just looking for some clarification 🙂

Thanks,
coolduude
 
My first instinct is to say that her sinlessness is preserved because she did not inherit the sinful nature of man. The human propensity to sin would not suddenly appear after the birth of Jesus.

Think of a garment that was stained but has been bleached. If the stain shows up again after many years despite the bleach, it is because it was always stained but covered. Mary was not allowed to be stained by sin, so there was no stain to appear after the birth of Jesus.
 
coolduude said:
Hi all,

With today being the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I was able to make it to Mass (and a Mass said by the Bishop nonetheless :D)

Anyway, he had a very good homily about Mary and her sinlessness, but I have some questions on this. Mary was indeed sinless from her conception to the birth of Jesus. That is indisputable. But how is her sinlessness justified for her entire life? That’s what I never really understood. I believe it on faith, but how can we justify it? Why was Mary sinless for her whole life? I’m just looking for some clarification 🙂

Thanks,
coolduude
Click to expand...
From the grace of God. She is His most perfect purely human creature and destined to be Assumed into Heaven and the Queen of Heaven and Earth. She could not have that title if she had sin in her life. Remember she was also with the apostles when the Holy Spirit came upon them. So I’ll say she was destined by God for her life of holiness.

God Bless.
 
coolduude said:
Anyway, he had a very good homily about Mary and her sinlessness, but I have some questions on this. Mary was indeed sinless from her conception to the birth of Jesus. That is indisputable. But how is her sinlessness justified for her entire life? That’s what I never really understood. I believe it on faith, but how can we justify it? Why was Mary sinless for her whole life? I’m just looking for some clarification 🙂
Click to expand...
I dispute that Mary was sinless from conception to the birth of Jesus. The Bible only says she remained a virgin until (not through, not after) the birth. But, if you accept that she put aside her sin nature for nine months, why not her whole life?

A better translation of Luke 1:28 is “highly favored”, not “full of grace”. If full of grace really meant sinless, then there’s a lot of sinless people running around, such as Stephen in Acts 6:8, who is said to have been full of grace (and, that’s correctly translated, unlike Luke 1:28).
 
Steel_Pinwheel said:
I dispute that Mary was sinless from conception to the birth of Jesus. The Bible only says she remained a virgin until (not through, not after) the birth. But, if you accept that she put aside her sin nature for nine months, why not her whole life?

A better translation of Luke 1:28 is “highly favored”, not “full of grace”. If full of grace really meant sinless, then there’s a lot of sinless people running around, such as Stephen in Acts 6:8, who is said to have been full of grace (and, that’s correctly translated, unlike Luke 1:28).
Click to expand...
You are incorrect.

The word used for Stephen in Acts 6:8 and the word used for Mary in Luke 1:28 are different. The actual Greek word (kecaritwmenh) used in Luke 1:28 is unique to Mary alone in the entirety of Scripture in terms of what it means.

Here is a thread about this very matter:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55634

Here is a quote of the post that might interest you in general.

*"Stephen & Greek:

There are 2 versions of the Greek. Older translations generally have a form of pistis in the Greek - which doesn’t mean grace but faith. Newer translations, with access to more source documents have the following (or very similar) to work from:

stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.

the word caritoV is used. This is a noun that means grace. The word plhrhV is also used here, which is from the word that means to fill. It can either be translated as an aorist or a pluperfect tense which are both past tenses. The word pluperfect comes from the latin expression, “more than completed”. If it is an aorist tense, it would be “was graced” and if it is pluperfect it is “had been graced”. The pluperfect is expressing something that was done before something else. In other words what this means is that when Stephen had to defend himself he was filled with grace.

However, Luke 1:28 reads

kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

The word kecaritwmenh is used here. This is a perfect passive participle. It is also feminine. A participle is a verb that is used to describe the subject. The perfect tense describes an action in present time which has a completed aspect. In this verse it is used as a title and means basically “you who have been graced” or “you who have been filled with grace”. This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Although this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

Many thanks to jimmy - a senior member here. Nearly all of the above is copied straight from a post from him in the thread that I linked to above. I have corrected one word - which he also corrected in his next post."
*

So Mary was free of sin from the moment of her conception onwards. 👍 Stephen is not even close to this honour.

God Bless 🙂
 
You rock ddarko. Pulling greek translation is awesome!! God bless you.
 
Mary’s sinless is not due to Grace alone but rather cooperation with Grace. I think this aspect of the economy of salvation is very often forgotten (strangely) by Latin Catholics in their apologetics on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Steel_Pinwheel said:
I dispute that Mary was sinless from conception to the birth of Jesus. The Bible only says she remained a virgin until (not through, not after) the birth. But, if you accept that she put aside her sin nature for nine months, why not her whole life?

A better translation of Luke 1:28 is “highly favored”, not “full of grace”. If full of grace really meant sinless, then there’s a lot of sinless people running around, such as Stephen in Acts 6:8, who is said to have been full of grace (and, that’s correctly translated, unlike Luke 1:28).
Click to expand...
I was just reading about this yesterday… So, I’ll quote what was written. I’m certainly no expert in the translation of original writings into the English we understand and read today…

… Joseph had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. (Mt. 1:25)

The birth of Jesus is told in nine words: “She bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”

The literal English translation of today’s passage is sometimes confusing:… UNTIL…

In English, when people say something didn’t happen “until” such-and-such, it is usually implied that is DID happen afterward. The Greek construction, however, doesn’t necessarily carry that implication. From the NAB (The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. )
It’s an odd question to me: WHY was Mary sinless her whole life?

Why couldn’t/wouldn’t she be?

I often feel, and this personal opinion, that we do things that are sinful because God isn’t visibly right in our face stopping us. If you think about it. Did you do the things your real life parents told you NOT to right in front of them?.. And when you did do things your parents told you not to do, it wasn’t necessarily to spite them, but because you wanted to try to something, or you weren’t thinking, and it doesn’t seem so wrong without mom’s watchful eye…

Well, I’m thinking… If I managed to get pregnant without the aid of a man… I would KNOW that to the core of my being. No matter how many people argued it until the end of time. If I saw an angel who asked me if this was ok, and then… BAM, I’m PG… I have NO DOUBT in my mind there is a God. THEN, I birth this little boy. We go through hell and back… I watch him perform mircles and such… I listen to the words he speaks… Now, UNLESS, I’m certifiably insane… WHY ON EARTH would I even think to sin? Doesn’t it stand to reason that she had so much more on her plate than to come up with sinful things to do? Doesn’t it stand to reason that she of all people truly understands her eternal destiny. I can’t even imagine a sin that she would do? I just envision her above it all quite frankly.
 
coolduude said:
Hi all,

With today being the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I was able to make it to Mass (and a Mass said by the Bishop nonetheless :D)

Anyway, he had a very good homily about Mary and her sinlessness, but I have some questions on this. Mary was indeed sinless from her conception to the birth of Jesus. That is indisputable. But how is her sinlessness justified for her entire life? That’s what I never really understood. I believe it on faith, but how can we justify it? Why was Mary sinless for her whole life? I’m just looking for some clarification 🙂

Thanks,
coolduude
Click to expand...
She was the ark of the New Covenant. If the pure gold that was use to make the ark of old covenant did not get tainted, the ark of the new would not get tainted either.
 
There is only one instance that a angel( messenger of God) greeted one with the words
“Full of Grace” or "favored one " depending on the transalation used.
There is no Room for sin in one that is full of Grace. Grace is Gods life in Mary!
 
The PRIME issue raised about the Immaculate Conception - St. Anne’s CONCEPTION of a sinless Mary - “bothered” even the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas (a Doctor of the Church who I would put up against anyone alive today as far as theological brilliance - with all due respect to the Holy Father 🙂 ).

St. Thomas Aquinas pondered: How could Mary have been conceived SINLESS, when original sin is transmitted to ALL PURELY HUMAN BEINGS (Christ, of course, excepted because he was a “composite” of both human and divine, and thus the doctrine of original sin transmission never applied to Him)? If one accepts the doctrine or original sin as an act of faith that must be believed (and we must as Catholics), and one accepts the doctrine of the redemption (and we must as Catholics), then how can we say that Mary did not need a redeemer?

Duns Scotus “resolved” the “problem” by suggesting that Mary’s agreement to bear Christ incarnate had the effect of “prefiguring” her redemption because God foresaw that Mary WOULD accept, even though she did not accept . . . until she did accept . . . 🙂

I know . . . this gets deep.

I don’t think the Church has ever dogmatically tackled the issue raised by St. Thomas and discussed by Duns Scotus, except for its dogmatic “CONCLUSIONS” (for lack of a better word).
 
coolduude said:
Hi all,

With today being the feast of the Immaculate Conception, I was able to make it to Mass (and a Mass said by the Bishop nonetheless :D)

Anyway, he had a very good homily about Mary and her sinlessness, but I have some questions on this. Mary was indeed sinless from her conception to the birth of Jesus. That is indisputable. But how is her sinlessness justified for her entire life? That’s what I never really understood. I believe it on faith, but how can we justify it? Why was Mary sinless for her whole life? I’m just looking for some clarification 🙂

Thanks,
coolduude
Click to expand...
I think that would relate to Revelations’s teaching that Mary is the ark of the covenant and the New Eve (cf. Rev 11:19-12:1,5,13,17) (cf. also Justin and Irenaeus and Tertullian and Mathetais, Augustine, athanasius, etc)

cf. Lk 1:35 w/ Ex 40:34, Lk 1:43 w/ 2 Sam 6:9

Just as Adam failed to protect Eve, so the New Adam entirely protects his mother, the Mother of God
 
A great discussion.

Thanks to all.

St Thomas Aquinas was wrong.

I learned in school that Mary was conceived without original sin and hence did not have the attraction to sin. Thus she never sinned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top