Question on Mary

[Guardian_Wolf]

So I was explaning to one of my friends that Catholics to not worship Mary. In this discussion, her ‘lack of’ Original Sin came up a well as Mary’s asumption into Heaven. In this arised a question or two, which I’m going to directly copy here:

My comment was copied from the 'Catholicism for Dummies book:

At any rate, she was freed of original sin by the Immaculate Conception. So since she was one of the only people without original sin she was also freed from the consequences of the sin, such as physical death, or the separation of body and soul. This, along with Christ’s love for his mother, allowed her to be assumed body and soul into heaven.

Her response:

About Mary, I’m still confused as to WHY you believe that.

I guess it surprises me that Mary would be purified from sin, when the Bible says that “no one is good, not even one” and that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus’ sacrifice… not his birth.

I’m not trying to convert her, only teach her more about Catholicism, since we enjoy reigious discussion.

Any help you guys could offer in explaing this would be great, as would Bible verses…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, if you read Psalm 14 (the “no one is good”) you’ll see that the Lord speaks of these people as 'eating up my people as though they are eating bread". . .IOW, if ‘no one is good’ but they are ‘eating up my people’. . . then the Lord’s people aren’t included in that ‘no one is good’, right? So right there, the use of ‘no one’ does not necessarily indicate that absolutely means no one, ever.

Furthermore, what ‘personal sin’ has a newborn child committed? Or a mentally-challenged person? None. A child dying at birth has committed no sin, would your friend say that the child is somehow sinful?

Finally. . .Mary was saved through Jesus’s sacrifice, just like all the rest of us. . .the difference being that she was saved before her conception, and not ‘afterward’.

Think of it this way. All the rest of us are walking toward heaven but we fall into a big pit before we get there. Jesus reaches in and pulls us out. But with Mary–just before she WOULD HAVE fallen into the pit, Jesus reaches over and lifts her across.

She was saved ‘from the pit’ just like everybody else, but before falling and not after falling.

If God can become an incarnate human being (and He did), isn’t that a far ‘greater’ task than to simply make one woman sinless at conception (after all, God had already created Adam and Eve without sin) in order to bear Him as an incarnate Man?

Ask her if she realizes that she is putting limits on God. . .that she isn’t thinking in terms of praising God for His works, but rather into ‘forcing’ God to being ‘reasonable’ in human terms. Because SHE with her limited, fallible mind has ‘understood’ a cherry picked Scripture to mean 'all human beings ever have sinned", she refuses to even ‘allow’ God to have ‘meant’ anything else by the passage, and thus, she refuses to even consider the Catholic Christian position (which for 1500 years was the ONLY position and remains so in both Catholic and Orthodox teaching to this day).

 

[DeniseFath]

If her question is why Mary had to be born without sin, it’s simply that she could not have carried and conceived Jesus any other way. God wouldn’t let a perfect and sinless Jesus be carried in a sinful body. Jesus had to be conceived in a worthy vessel - and since no sinful vessel would be worthy, Mary was conceived without sin.

Think of the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. God was very specific about how it was to be built, because it was going to be a holy place. It was where God was going to dwell, so it had to be as perfect as humans could make it. WHAT God dwelled in mattered.
When, in 2 Samuel 6:6-7, Uzzah touches the Ark of the Covenant because it is about to fall, God kills Him for such irreverence. A sinner touches the outside of the Ark and dies. If God responds like that, surely He would never let sin touch the inside of the Ark. Since Mary carried Jesus she is considered the new Ark. God would not allow His most Holy Son to be conceived in an unholy, sinful person.

There’s also the argument that such perfect holiness in a sinful body would kill the body, because it wouldn’t be able to hold such glory. In the OT we read, "Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling” (Ex. 40:34-38). Moses couldn’t even be in the same tent because of the Lord’s presence, but a sinful Mary should have been able to carry the Lord Jesus in all His glory? Doesn’t add up.

Hope this helps a little. God bless!

P.S. Envoy has a great pdf about Mary that’s worth the read: envoymagazine.com/ark_newcov.pdf

 

[giuseppeTO]

Wolf, there is really only one concise and simple answer to this question. In the Catholic Church, we follow the bible’s admonition to heed its words ALONG with the truths passed along via apostolic tradition to St. Peter and his successors. Ask her to re-read the end of the gospel of St. John where he explains that it was impossible to write down every word and example from Christ’s life, the public part alone spanning three years.

Consequently, we heed the teaching power entrusted by Christ to St. Peter and his descendants as the lone guarantor of the faith. Each of the 100,000 Protestant sects have their own version and translation of what each verse of the bible tells us. And within many sects, members are allowed, if not encouraged to read the bible and draw one’s own interpretation and/or morality from it. Hence, you will find “Christians” who would interpret Christ’s charity and concern for the poor as a validation for euthanasia and even abortion.

Our Lord foresaw this dilemma when he gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and created a single authority in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, we (as Catholics), do not need to fret over the interpretation of the bible or our articles of faith. They were guaranteed by Christ through St. Peter and the apostles. That is how we believe in the Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Conception - not by piecing together disparate verses from the bible - but by relying on the Magisterium of the Church and the deposit of faith.

Many of these truths were taught long before the Catholic Church put together the first written versions of the bible. Our Lord did not say “go ye and write books and pass them around so that each may determine My will”. But rather, “Go ye and teach all nations” providing the first four hundred years of faith, truth, and morals before the catholic Church codified the new Testament into a volume. Unfortunately, for our Protestant friends, they miss/ignore 400 years of teaching and ignore St. John’s gospel itself by clinging only to the written word and rejecting Christ’s teaching authority.

The best description of why it became a dogma of the church is probably found in the Papal Bull “Ineffabilis Deus” which made it so.

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

I sent her a copy of what the first two posters said, and this is her response

But the whole point of Jesus coming was that He would be like us. Be flesh. In the New Testament, it says that we have a High Priest who can sympathize with us since he was tempted in every way. He was both flesh and divine, a beautiful miracle. But how could he be flesh if his mother was without sin?

Jesus incarnate couldn’t have been as holy as the Ark, since Jesus touched the sick and the prostitutes and the thieves.

Children are born without personal sin, but they are born with sin. It’s in the nature of man; it’s inescapable. The moment Jesus subjected Himself to a human body, He took on sin.

And this is just a random question from me, but:

Furthermore, what ‘personal sin’ has a newborn child committed? Or a mentally-challenged person? None. A child dying at birth has committed no sin, would your friend say that the child is somehow sinful?

I thought everyone was born with Original Sin…so then wouldn’t a child still have that “hovering over them”?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Your friend is so full of Protestant new-age goop that you will not resolve this via email.

But the whole point of Jesus coming was that He would be like us. Be flesh.

Absolutely wrong. Her “whole point of Jesus coming” is completely fabricated in her mind. Christ took human flesh to demonstrate His love for us by suffering the ignominious death on the cross for our redemption. He did not need to do that to redeem us. He is God. He did not even need to prick his finger - but He chose to show us His Divine Love in the ultimate sacrifice, and then instituted the sacrament so that we can continue to refresh our souls with sacramental grace by partaking in the sacrament.

In the New Testament, it says that we have a High Priest who can sympathize with us since he was tempted in every way.

More Protestant goofiness. He is God. He did not need to experience temptation to understand what we are up against. He made the Devil, for crying out loud!

He was both flesh and divine, a beautiful miracle.

Hmmm. Sometimes even heretics get it right.

But how could he be flesh if his mother was without sin?

HELLO!! Because He is God and can do whatever he pleases. Duh … its the only time it ever happened. Doesn’t it give us a little bit of a hint? What laws would you bind God by?

Jesus incarnate couldn’t have been as holy as the Ark,

What in tarnation does this mean on our planet?

Children are born without personal sin, but they are born with sin. It’s in the nature of man; it’s inescapable.

…good so far

The moment Jesus subjected Himself to a human body, He took on sin.

Dang … knew it was too good to be true. Sin NEVER EVER touched Christ’s person (if that is what she is insinuating), either inherently in His human nature or by personal contact with sin.

“Took on sin” - Protestants like using these very vague colloquialisms to obfuscate the fact that they have no theological basis or ground to stand on except for their personal feelings - what “feels” right, wrong, indifferent, true, or false.

The only time he “took on sin” was nailed to the cross and proclaiming “IT IS FINISHED”.

 

[FCEGM]

GW - to address your friend’s latest objections:

But the whole point of Jesus coming was that He would be like us. Be flesh. In the New Testament, it says that we have a High Priest who can sympathize with us since he was tempted in every way. He was both flesh and divine, a beautiful miracle. But how could he be flesh if his mother was without sin?

How, then could Adam and Eve before the Fall, have been truly human? The Lord’s redemption is to bring us to be truly human through our transformation in Him by His Grace. HE is the Model for us, not we for Him!

Jesus incarnate couldn’t have been as holy as the Ark, since Jesus touched the sick and the prostitutes and the thieves.

Jesus is GOD Incarnate - GOD IS Holy; He IS HOLINESS - just as He IS Truth, IS Love. It was because of His Divine and Human natures that He could actually touch and heal, both physically and spiritually.

Children are born without personal sin, but they are born with sin. It’s in the nature of man; it’s inescapable. The moment Jesus subjected Himself to a human body, He took on sin.

The Lord Jesus confronted sin and conquered sin, because He Himself was/is the Sinless One. He didn’t have sin; if He, Himself, “took on sin”, he would not have the health to heal, since He, Himself, would require the same healing.

And regarding your question, yes, all are born with original sin, with the exception of the Lord Himself, of course, and His Mother, by virtue of the foreseen merits of her Son’s salvific work.

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

Your friend is so full of Protestant new-age goop that you will not resolve this via email.

Quote:
But the whole point of Jesus coming was that He would be like us. Be flesh.

Absolutely wrong. Her “whole point of Jesus coming” is completely fabricated in her mind. Christ took human flesh to demonstrate His love for us by suffering the ignominious death on the cross for our redemption. He did not need to do that to redeem us. He is God. He did not even need to prick his finger - but He chose to show us His Divine Love in the ultimate sacrifice, and then instituted the sacrament so that we can continue to refresh our souls with sacramental grace by partaking in the sacrament.

Quote:
In the New Testament, it says that we have a High Priest who can sympathize with us since he was tempted in every way.

More Protestant goofiness. He is God. He did not need to experience temptation to understand what we are up against. He made the Devil, for crying out loud!

Quote:
He was both flesh and divine, a beautiful miracle.

Hmmm. Sometimes even heretics get it right.

Quote:
But how could he be flesh if his mother was without sin?

HELLO!! Because He is God and can do whatever he pleases. Duh … its the only time it ever happened. Doesn’t it give us a little bit of a hint? What laws would you bind God by?

Quote:
Jesus incarnate couldn’t have been as holy as the Ark,

What in tarnation does this mean on our planet?

Quote:
Children are born without personal sin, but they are born with sin. It’s in the nature of man; it’s inescapable.

…good so far

Quote:
The moment Jesus subjected Himself to a human body, He took on sin.

Dang … knew it was too good to be true. Sin NEVER EVER touched Christ’s person (if that is what she is insinuating), either inherently in His human nature or by personal contact with sin.

“Took on sin” - Protestants like using these very vague colloquialisms to obfuscate the fact that they have no theological basis or ground to stand on except for their personal feelings - what “feels” right, wrong, indifferent, true, or false.

The only time he “took on sin” was nailed to the cross and proclaiming “IT IS FINISHED”.

This is what my friend had to say in response:

*Now, I did kind of quote the Bible there. Like Jesus being a priest who could sympathize with us because he was tempted. That’s in Hebrews. I assume your friend then does not take the Bible literally?

I do believe sin touched his body. I mean… if it didn’t, then his death on the cross was pointless. What was he dying for, if not for sins? And how could he die for sins if he did not take them on?.. See More

Yes, God could snap his fingers and make us all forgiven or whatnot. I believe in God’s eternal om(name removed by moderator)otence (Okay, that sounds churchy… his complete all-power-ness). But I also believe He abides by the laws of the Old Testament himself. Sin costs blood. So, He sent his Son to be the all-encompassing sacrifice. But the sacrifice has to take on the sins, like the lambs in the Old Testament when a sinner laid its hands on it.

I don’t think Jesus ever sinned. But I do believe he bore ours.*

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

Friend also responded as such:

Oh, yeah, Adam and Even were definitely made without sin. But because God gave us free will, so that our love of Him would be genuine, they chose rebellion, a rebellion that tainted our race.
I think my point is that if Mary was without sin, she was set apart from our race, and I don’t see how Jesus could have been both fully human and fully divine with a sinless mother. I don’t think Jesus needed a perfect mother to be who He was. God frequently uses broken, dirty people. I mean, Jesus’ line is full of such people. Rahab the prostitute is the prime example, of course, but then there’s also Ruth, who wasn’t even a Jew.
… See More
Isaiah 53:4-6 says:
Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the LORD has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

I don’t see how Jesus’ sacrifice could save us unless he “took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows.”

Also, I love that Jesus didn’t just die for sins but for sorrows. It’s interesting to think about!

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is what my friend had to say in response:

*Now, I did kind of quote the Bible there. Like Jesus being a priest who could sympathize with us because he was tempted. That’s in Hebrews. I assume your friend then does not take the Bible literally? *

I definitely take the bible literally. But only the original bible as compiled by the Catholic Church and thus maintained throughout the ages as the unadulterated version. So lets have the chapter and verse and I’ll check it against the Douay-Reims

I do believe sin touched his body. I mean… if it didn’t, then his death on the cross was pointless.

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

And finally, this whole post really needs to go to the Apologetics Board. The Traddy board is not an appropriate place for this. Although this is fun, you want Scott Hahn answering this and not some lowly schismatic SSPX-puke.

Please note, that me, the OP is NOT stating these things or asking these questions. I’m posting the questions for my friend, who is not Catholic, but is willing to try and understand what we believe/where we’re coming from.

I was unsure how to answer her questions myself, so I came here, figuring that a Board for Traditional Catholics could give me the best, and most clear and concise and intelligent/informational answers.

And who is this ‘lowly schismatic SSPX-puke’ you’re referring to? Everyone’s posts on here have been fairly constructive and helpful. Except you however, who seem to be intent on insulting my friend.

I figured traditional catholics, of all people, would welcome someone tryng to understand more about Catholicism…

EDIT: If I am misunderstanding something here, please feel free to correct me.

 

[adstrinity]

Is anybody else as disturbed as I am by the phrase, “Jesus incarnate couldn’t have been as holy as the ark”? IF I am reading this correctly, I am understanding, “GOD could not have been as holy as some created thing made out of wood and gold”. This is saying that it would be better to worship this graven image than God Himself! She is limiting God.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Please note, that me, the OP is NOT stating these things or asking these questions. I’m posting the questions for my friend, who is not Catholic, but is willing to try and understand what we believe/where we’re coming from.

I was unsure how to answer her questions myself, so I came here, figuring that a Board for Traditional Catholics could give me the best, and most clear and concise and intelligent/informational answers.

And who is this ‘lowly schismatic SSPX-puke’ you’re referring to? Everyone’s posts on here have been fairly constructive and helpful. Except you however, who seem to be intent on insulting my friend.

I figured traditional catholics, of all people, would welcome someone tryng to understand more about Catholicism…

EDIT: If I am misunderstanding something here, please feel free to correct me.

Wolf,

I am the ‘lowly schismatic SSPX-puke’ I referred to. I understand that these questions are not your own. However, each of these boards were set up so that certain topics would be discussed among folks with an interest in a narrow scope of topics. Traditional Catholicism in general discusses issues relating to the practice of the Roman Catholic faith generally centered around the TLM or Extraordinary Form of the Mass and sacraments.

The apologetics board discusses matters related to articles of faith and most offen, explanation of the catholic faith to those who are not Catholic and are seeking to understand the basis of Catholic teachings. They do it 24x7 and will have at their fingertips, the list of bible verses and quotes that will answer questions by non-Catholics like your friend whose only spiritual guide is the bible, how they interpret their particular version of the bible, and how it strikes them on an emotional level. That is the only thing that they basically understand since they, in general, throw out all apostolic tradition and the magisterium of the church as irrelevant hearsay. We (sorry for painting with such a broad brush) usually don’t have those handy chapter and verse refutations for every Protestant challenge to Catholicism - but the apologetics board does and they are experts at it - more so than the Traditional Catholics. The reason for that, IMHO, is that on this board, you are more likely to get a response from a traditional Catholic similar to my initial response to the extent that we believe and accept the absolute authority granted to the Papacy in defining dogma. We don’t need to understand the biblical foundation for dogma because Christ gave the Pope the authority to canonize dogma and we are bound to accept them.

So, arguing with non-Catholics about what they ‘feel’ Jesus meant according to their bible which most likely doesn’t even contain the same chapters as a Catholic bible is something that requires patience that only exists on the Apologetics board. With some good examples to the contrary, we have very little patience on the Traddy Board.

Sorry if my impatience came through as irritability, or worse.

Finally, wrt your friend, her final statement that she “doesn’t think Jesus ever sinned” demonstrates that she only knows and loves Jesus on a human and emotional level. This is the result of a soul starved for the sacramental grace that is the only tonic that can refresh and renew the soul, found in participation in the Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion. With that nourishment, Jesus will become her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and she will know Him in a manner whereby even the ghost of such a thought would never take shape in her mind. So, you have an important job to get her to that place.

God Bless,

GTO

 

[chessmane4e5]

It seems that friend first needs to understand more about Jesus, before they try and tackle questions about Mary. Playing “middle man” is probably going to be too challenging for you, so could you ask your friend to come and reply themselves here. That way you could still participate, even if you just read what is said.

 

[MIKE46]

So I was explaning to one of my friends that Catholics to not worship Mary. In this discussion, her ‘lack of’ Original Sin came up a well as Mary’s asumption into Heaven. In this arised a question or two, which I’m going to directly copy here:

My comment was copied from the 'Catholicism for Dummies book:

Her response:

I’m not trying to convert her, only teach her more about Catholicism, since we enjoy reigious discussion.

Any help you guys could offer in explaing this would be great, as would Bible verses…

I will pose one question to you to ask your friend. It concerns the Assumption of Mary.

The early Christians were enamored with relics and became more so as the years went by. Everything from Jesus Foreskin to branches from the burning bush of Moses were displayed prominently in early churches.

Yet no relics of the Virgin, no bones, no hair, no blood was ever displayed or even claimed to be in existance. Surely had relics existed they would have immediately been seized upon, yet they never were. It makes sense that in the early Christian world such relics would have held tremendous importance and would have been eagerly sought out and if not found counterfeited if not for extremely unusual circumstances. In fact the only relics of the Virgin Mary that exist or ever existed were hair, clothing and oddly enough breast milk, which undoubtedly was faked. There was also the umbilical cord of Jesus but I’m not sure if is still in existance In fact in 451, when the bishops gathered at Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the bones of Mary to Constantinople, from Jerusalem. The patriarch explained that there were no relics of Mary, that Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later,was found empty. The apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

So, it does appear that such relics, bones, skin, blood were never displayed or sought after because there were none to be had and everyone was well aware of that fact.

So if there were no bones, skin or blood which could be used as relics, where were they? Short of being stolen or maybe eaten by wolves there seems only one explanation. Assumption bodily into heaven.

Food for thought.

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

Wolf,

I am the ‘lowly schismatic SSPX-puke’ I referred to. I understand that these questions are not your own. However, each of these boards were set up so that certain topics would be discussed among folks with an interest in a narrow scope of topics. Traditional Catholicism in general discusses issues relating to the practice of the Roman Catholic faith generally centered around the TLM or Extraordinary Form of the Mass and sacraments.

The apologetics board discusses matters related to articles of faith and most offen, explanation of the catholic faith to those who are not Catholic and are seeking to understand the basis of Catholic teachings. They do it 24x7 and will have at their fingertips, the list of bible verses and quotes that will answer questions by non-Catholics like your friend whose only spiritual guide is the bible, how they interpret their particular version of the bible, and how it strikes them on an emotional level. That is the only thing that they basically understand since they, in general, throw out all apostolic tradition and the magisterium of the church as irrelevant hearsay. We (sorry for painting with such a broad brush) usually don’t have those handy chapter and verse refutations for every Protestant challenge to Catholicism - but the apologetics board does and they are experts at it - more so than the Traditional Catholics. The reason for that, IMHO, is that on this board, you are more likely to get a response from a traditional Catholic similar to my initial response to the extent that we believe and accept the absolute authority granted to the Papacy in defining dogma. We don’t need to understand the biblical foundation for dogma because Christ gave the Pope the authority to canonize dogma and we are bound to accept them.

So, arguing with non-Catholics about what they ‘feel’ Jesus meant according to their bible which most likely doesn’t even contain the same chapters as a Catholic bible is something that requires patience that only exists on the Apologetics board. With some good examples to the contrary, we have very little patience on the Traddy Board.

Sorry if my impatience came through as irritability, or worse.

Finally, wrt your friend, her final statement that she “doesn’t think Jesus ever sinned” demonstrates that she only knows and loves Jesus on a human and emotional level. This is the result of a soul starved for the sacramental grace that is the only tonic that can refresh and renew the soul, found in participation in the Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion. With that nourishment, Jesus will become her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and she will know Him in a manner whereby even the ghost of such a thought would never take shape in her mind. So, you have an important job to get her to that place.

God Bless,

GTO

Ah okay. Thank you very much for explaining this. ^^

And to the others, I’ll see what I can do to get her to join the forum…

 

[Echo_Angels]

I will pose one question to you to ask your friend. It concerns the Assumption of Mary.

The early Christians were enamored with relics and became more so as the years went by. Everything from Jesus Foreskin to branches from the burning bush of Moses were displayed prominently in early churches.

Yet no relics of the Virgin, no bones, no hair, no blood was ever displayed or even claimed to be in existance. Surely had relics existed they would have immediately been seized upon, yet they never were. It makes sense that in the early Christian world such relics would have held tremendous importance and would have been eagerly sought out and if not found counterfeited if not for extremely unusual circumstances. In fact the only relics of the Virgin Mary that exist or ever existed were hair, clothing and oddly enough breast milk, which undoubtedly was faked. There was also the umbilical cord of Jesus but I’m not sure if is still in existance In fact in 451, when the bishops gathered at Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the bones of Mary to Constantinople, from Jerusalem. The patriarch explained that there were no relics of Mary, that Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later,was found empty. The apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

So, it does appear that such relics, bones, skin, blood were never displayed or sought after because there were none to be had and everyone was well aware of that fact.

So if there were no bones, skin or blood which could be used as relics, where were they? Short of being stolen or maybe eaten by wolves there seems only one explanation. Assumption bodily into heaven.

Food for thought.

I’m new to Catholicism and trying to learn especially about Mary. Forgive me if any of my questions sound offensive.

If the assumption of Mary being sinless was made, why would you make the original assumption that Mary died?

To follow up on that previous assumption, do you agree of disagree that death is a consequence of sin?

If Mary was sinless, why would anyone assume that she had a bodily death?

I’m assuming that Catholics have the same idea of atonement as in Jesus provided the atonement for our sins because he was sinless. If Mary was sinless, could she had provided that same atonement? Or do Catholics believe that Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice?

Thank you.

 

[Echo_Angels]

If her question is why Mary had to be born without sin, it’s simply that she could not have carried and conceived Jesus any other way. God wouldn’t let a perfect and sinless Jesus be carried in a sinful body. Jesus had to be conceived in a worthy vessel - and since no sinful vessel would be worthy, Mary was conceived without sin.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. So in order for Jesus be sinless, Mary had to be sinless also.

If Mary was sinless, does that mean her mother had to be sinless also?

If that was so, does that mean that there exists an entire generation of humans since the fall that remained sinless?

To follow that logic, was Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit so that she would not be contaminated by man’s sin?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. So in order for Jesus be sinless, Mary had to be sinless also.

If Mary was sinless, does that mean her mother had to be sinless also?

If that was so, does that mean that there exists an entire generation of humans since the fall that remained sinless?

To follow that logic, was Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit so that she would not be contaminated by man’s sin?

No, Jesus could have been born of anyone and still been sinless.

We believe that it was fitting for Jesus to be born of a woman whom was sinless. This belief is backed up by Scripture, “Hail Mary Full of Grace”.

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being born sinless, although her parents did have original sin.

 

[Cristian_B]

…]
Can you give us the source of this quote? I thought we already established that no bloodshed was required by God for the forgiveness of sins?
…]

I first decided not to involve myself in this thread but what you said is wrong. Without bloodshed there is no forgiveness of sins, and the Bible cannot be clearer.

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]

As far as I know they “have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb”. This washing is the washing of sins.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 9:22[/BIBLEDRB]

And without shedding of blood there is no remission or forgiveness. This is clear. Bloodshed was required for the forgiveness of sins, and that was Christ’s blood. I really hope that you just made and error, and that you did not mean it. Without His blood there is no forgiveness (of sin). Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.