Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Huiou_Theou]

Doesn’t need to. That’s already been covered in Romans. And don’t forget, even infants and the severely mentally handicapped who may not have sinned on their own still have sin against them (thanks to Adam), unless you deny that original sin is sin.

I do deny it is sin, in the sense of an action. It is sin only by analogy, EXACTLY as the catholic Church teaches. It is well that you left the church.

Please show me in Lev 12:6-8 where the husband is mentioned in this, and why you don’t think it’s a “sin” offering when the Scripture clearly states that it IS a sin offering.

Please show me in the reference to that Law from the NT – where it says Mary offered it for herself ONLY and not Joseph. The two turtledoves or young pigeons is found MANY places in the OT;not just there in Lev. It is found for MEN who have touched impurity. Do you deny that Joseph may have handled Jesus’ placenta?

What does that have to do with Mary being sinless? She still made the sin offering (and we know she did because Luke tells us she did).

No,Luke doesn’t. Quote the exact words – and I’ll Quote the Greek in addition. I already mentioned this, and you are purposely being ignorant?

Nothing in Scripture indicates this was anything but a normal birth.

An angel was sent to Mary – clearly it isn’t a normal birth; it’s one of a kind.

Again, the Scriptures indicate He had a normal birth.

Quote it then, where does it say – he came out the “normal” way!

What??? Are you saying that only someone “possessed” by a demon has sin? I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Then read what I said again.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou, your comment, “It is well that you left the church.” certainly expresses your “Christian” love of others. I see no reason to attempt to carry on a further dialogue with you, but I will briefly state that Luke 2:24 says that they offered “a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). Lev 12:6-8 describes this sacrifice, which applies to the mother (note the use of the word “her” in these verses), and it clearly states that one of these turtledoves is a sin offering. In regard to the angel visiting Mary, I agree that the conception was supernatural, but an angel also visited the mother of Samson (who had a normal conception). I don’t see any reason to suppose he had a “miraculous” birth, as you obviously believe was the case with Jesus. As far as original sin being an analogy, I’d be very curious to know where this is taught in catholic theology (perhaps you could give the reference number so I can look it up in the catechism).

 

[Nicea325]

I like to comment to the person who excluded infants without sin - it’s apparant that this person does not understand that all, all are born under sin because of what Adam and Eve had done - the bible is very clear that there is no one who is righteous, no one is sinless - but except of course Jesus. Why is this difficult to see, We see that there are many scriptures in God’s Word that speaks of this. Anything that goes against God’s teaching is obviously not true. If you rely on God’s Word alone and not by any other teaching, you will understand the truth in it’s fullness. The Word of God is clear, to say that someone else was sinless is to try to equate that person with God = and no one is God other than Jesus Christ. The trinity is three in one, not four in one. All fall short of God’s Glory. I say this with great respect, but all of God’s people must rely only on His Word for truth. God sent his son to the earth and left his Spirit, and it is by his Spirit that we are led. That is it.

Not entirely true. If you are making the claim that the term “all” in Romans 3:23 is absolute and their is no exceptions,than it must also include Jesus since He too was human like us.

 

[cc42]

Sime that is a good point about good trees bearing good fruit.

I think that when the Bible says all have sinned it clearly does not mean Christ. If Mary is the Mother of Christ who gave Him is sinless flesh can we reallt separate her from Him?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou, your comment, “It is well that you left the church.” certainly expresses your “Christian” love of others.

Yes, it really does.
It would be better that you changed your way – but considering your long history here at CAF, and my continual past experience of you – I believe it is acceptable that you left until you have a change of heart consistent with being in the Catholic church. St. Paul says the same (and more violently than I) of some that he vehemently disagrees with as well – and his Christian love was quite firey.

I see no reason to attempt to carry on a further dialogue with you, but I will briefly state that Luke 2:24 says that they offered “a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). Lev 12:6-8 describes this sacrifice,

As DO OTHER places in the law concerning men.

Levit 15:14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the LORD unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest:

Touching blood, having a sore, even possibly a wet dream – could get one this penalty under law. It’s not a transgression – it’s a failing of the body which is most commonly the reason for it.

which applies to the mother (note the use of the word “her” in these verses), and it clearly states that one of these turtledoves is a sin offering.

They offered a sacrifice which is clearly NOT Mary’s sacrifice alone – it is also Jesus’.

When the Father of an un-emancipated family has an active sin – the ENTIRE family is considered legally liable; the children and wife are liable to punishment for what the Father did or does. If there is any real sin at all, then one can’t escape that the law actually applies to Joseph and for this reason Jesus too had to make a sin offering. Otherwise, it is nonsense to include Jesus in “Them” as Luke clearly DOES do.

Quote Leviticus all you want – LUKE doesn’t tell us that Mary was ACTUALLY impure. The reason for the sacrifice can only tied to the childbirth through the timing of Mary’s separation and the presumption of the law; This Law, arguably, gave her this time in order that she be able to heal – and the healing would be needed whether or not she gave birth normally. She made a long Journey while in her ninth month of pregnancy and that was very hard on her physically.

The law itself does stipulate a reason for the sin offering – the reason is impurity. If personal impurity does not exist, Mary is exempt from the sin offering – plain and simple. I leave it to you to find anything which would show she committed sin; You’re a daredevil anyhow.

Concerning that Joseph himself who could not help being ignorant of certain things attending the birth of GOD himself – the Law had a prophecy:

Levit 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
Levit 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

And then it says, Generically, as a summary:

Levit 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
Levit 5:7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

The prescription in Luke applies to the Father of the family as well.
If Mary is Sinful – then So is Jesus according the technical issues in Luke.
It’s an all or nothing deal. To be blunt, you have no case based on a technicality.

The devil must hate it too… He accuses based on such things as this; even regarding Moses’ body being his to corrupt. But Moses, too, gets off on a technicality…

In regard to the angel visiting Mary, I agree that the conception was supernatural, but an angel also visited the mother of Samson (who had a normal conception). I don’t see any reason to suppose he had a “miraculous” birth,

Sampson was not God; Jesus IS God. Big Big Big difference. It is a reason, although not a clear proof. Considering the private parts of Jesus’ mother are under discussion, it isn’t surprising we aren’t given more evidence that we really don’t have any business asking about.

There are psalms, VERY specifically messianic – which do not talk about a natural protection; but rather a supernatural delivery of the messiah at childbirth:

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
…
Psalm 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb:

This is the very Psalm Jesus quotes upon the cross. Here too, the scriptures don’t prove a natural birth – but they DO show the messiah was specially taken care of at his birth. Unless you propose Mary had a C-section (which was known at the time – but usually ended in death of the mother) – there is no natural explanation which even potentially agrees with the Church’s teaching regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Her virginity, the church Teaches, was not violated in its integrity before, during, or after childbirth; and it would be silly to conclude that the church is worried merely about sexual intercourse during birth; they are speaking of a perfection (virginity) in the fullest sense.

There is also reason to believe that Mary was exceedingly young – and there is no evidence she was wide of hips, or well prepared for giving birth. The messianic psalm, however, indicates that Messiah had a danger associated with childbirth that God circumvented.

as you obviously believe was the case with Jesus. As far as original sin being an analogy, I’d be very curious to know where this is taught in catholic theology (perhaps you could give the reference number so I can look it up in the catechism).

Sure, and I’ll quote it explicitly:
CCC (Second Edition), Section 7; no 404: (and it can not be not found…)

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state (Cf Council of Trent,DS 1511-1512). It is a sin that will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

 

[Augustine3]

Huiou Theou, your comment, “It is well that you left the church.” certainly expresses your “Christian” love of others. I see no reason to attempt to carry on a further dialogue with you, but I will briefly state that Luke 2:24 says that they offered “a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). Lev 12:6-8 describes this sacrifice, which applies to the mother (note the use of the word “her” in these verses), and it clearly states that one of these turtledoves is a sin offering. In regard to the angel visiting Mary, I agree that the conception was supernatural, but an angel also visited the mother of Samson (who had a normal conception). I don’t see any reason to suppose he had a “miraculous” birth, as you obviously believe was the case with Jesus. As far as original sin being an analogy, I’d be very curious to know where this is taught in catholic theology (perhaps you could give the reference number so I can look it up in the catechism).

Father Pacwa explained this in one of his homilies that the sin offering does not necessarily mean the person is dirty, rather in this case the woman that had just given birth has entered the realm of God’s creative power and by cooperating through procreation the woman is exalted into God’s divine power. This sin offering is made as a result of entering back into the Israelite community. In a sense humbling herself back down after being exalted into God’s divine nature of creation.

Just food for thought…

God bless you.

 

[Sime]

Just to add my 2 cents worth, Scripture tells us plainly that Jesus was “tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” (Heb 4:15 DR). Scripture does not make this declaration of anyone else. As for those who have been declare righteous in the Scripture, I doubt it means they were without sin their entire life (look at King David - he committed adultery and murder, but was later declared by God to be a man after His own heart); even Elizabeth’s husband was struck mute because of his unbelief. For myself, I find it interesting that Mary made a sin offering (possibly many) in her life (we are told that after her purification she sacrificed the 2 turtledoves. A look back at Leviticus shows that one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering. Also, this same type of offering (2 turtle doves) was required 7 days after the end of the menstrual cycle). To date, nobody has satisfactorily answered the question - How can someone without sin make a sin offering?

For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

 

[Sime]

I do not believe that Mary was sinless either.

She had a mother and a father through which the sinful nature that we all have was passed down to her all the way from adam and eve. No human being has escaped this. She was born under the curse that God had placed on all mankind and would one day die. Even the orthodox church dosent believe that Mary was sinless from birth. This immaculate conception of Mary was not official dogma of the roman catholic church untill 1854 when pope pius xiv declared it an official dogma. and was a hotly debated topic

The scripture teaches us that Christ is in us if we have recieved Him according to scripture. He comes to dwell in us through the new birth which is recieved through faith. How is it possible for Christ to dwell in me who has sinned when you say Mary had to be without sin and have never sinned at all for Him to be in her? Why would Mary after seeing the angel Gabrial and then going to see Elizebeth say that God has saved her? If she had never sinned what was it the God had saved her from? If she had never sinned why would she need to be saved?

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou, thanks for the catechism reference. I have looked it up and read 402-408. This has created more questions for me, but I don’t think this thread is the place for them.

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

Father Pacwa explained this in one of his homilies that the sin offering does not necessarily mean the person is dirty, rather in this case the woman that had just given birth has entered the realm of God’s creative power and by cooperating through procreation the woman is exalted into God’s divine power. This sin offering is made as a result of entering back into the Israelite community. In a sense humbling herself back down after being exalted into God’s divine nature of creation.

Seems to me that the catholic church doesn’t believe the Scriptures always mean “Sin” when it clearly reads sin (as in “sin offering”). Unless Mr. Pacwa can give sources for his assertion, I see no reason to believe him.

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.

Baptism was not required by the law. Also, this was a turning point for Jesus, from His private life into His public ministry.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

This is what Luke tells us was done. Notice, though, that one of the turtledoves was still a sin offering.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

The Law was given by God for a reason. If He required a sin offering for childbirth, there was a reason, and He certainly was aware that Mary would give birth to Jesus when He gave the Law to Moses. I see no reason to believe that Mary is some kind of exception to the Law. She obviously made a sin offering. Logically, she would either have to have had sin before the offering, or she bore false witness against herself (which is a sin) and was a sinner because of the offering. Of course, when you redefine “sin”, you can ignore the consequences.

 

[GraceSofia]

I do not believe that Mary was sinless either.

She had a mother and a father through which the sinful nature that we all have was passed down to her all the way from adam and eve. No human being has escaped this. She was born under the curse that God had placed on all mankind and would one day die. Even the orthodox church dosent believe that Mary was sinless from birth. This immaculate conception of Mary was not official dogma of the roman catholic church untill 1854 when pope pius xiv declared it an official dogma. and was a hotly debated topic.

The debate was not whether Mary was sinless; the debate was whether it shoul be made an official dogma because pronouncing dogma is taken very seriously by the Church. The Orthodox believe that Mary lived a holy life, free of stain or sin. They do believe she was sinless; it is just expressed differently.

The belief in Mary’s immaculate conception was generally held from the earliest days of Christianity, and we have writings from St. Justin (about 150AD) to witness to this. You might be surprised to learn that even Luther and Calvin believed in the Immaculate Conception. Yes, they did. All of these aspersions against Mary are very modern.

The scripture teaches us that Christ is in us if we have recieved Him according to scripture. He comes to dwell in us through the new birth which is recieved through faith. How is it possible for Christ to dwell in me who has sinned when you say Mary had to be without sin and have never sinned at all for Him to be in her? Why would Mary after seeing the angel Gabrial and then going to see Elizebeth say that God has saved her? If she had never sinned what was it the God had saved her from? If she had never sinned why would she need to be saved?

I believe someone else has responded to this quite well already.

 

[GraceSofia]

Nothing in Scripture indicates this was anything but a normal birth.

Again, the Scriptures indicate He had a normal birth.

Hhmmm… I would say, “Scripture indicates this was anything BUT a normal birth.”
The Incarnation?!! It’s is mind-blowing.

The Scriptures do not indicate that it was a normal birth. There are no graphic descriptions in the Bible, but Christians have always from the earliest days believed that Mary was virgin before, during and after giving birth for all her life, affirmed by the Council in Constantinople, and even Luther and Calvin.

Seems to me that the catholic church doesn’t believe the Scriptures always mean “Sin” when it clearly reads sin (as in “sin offering”). Unless Mr. Pacwa can give sources for his assertion, I see no reason to believe him.

His correct title is Father Pacwa. I hope you do not wish to be discourteous.

 

[Cachonga]

GraceSofia:

Hhmmm… I would say, “Scripture indicates this was anything BUT a normal birth.”
The Incarnation?!! It’s is mind-blowing.

Seems to me you are confusing the miraculous conception with the birth. Not the same thing. His conception was, without a doubt, a miracle. It doesn’t necessarily follow that His birth was also miraculous (especially since God didn’t see fit to tell us that was the case in His written word).

The Scriptures do not indicate that it was a normal birth. There are no graphic descriptions in the Bible, but Christians have always from the earliest days believed that Mary was virgin before, during and after giving birth for all her life, affirmed by the Council in Constantinople, and even Luther and Calvin.

I think this is straying off topic, which has to do with sin, not virginity.

His correct title is Father Pacwa. I hope you do not wish to be discourteous

With all due respect, he is not my father. Perhaps I should have addressed him as Dr. Pacwa (he has earned his doctorate).

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

From Scripture Catholic.com:

Romans 3:23. Your reading of the verse is erroneous. Not all human beings sin. Babies, the retarded, the senile cannot sin. Paul means that all were born of original sin. Paul also tells the Romans that all have sinned, so all were made righteous. But not all were made righteous because not all people will go to heaven. This is because the Greek word for all is “pantes” and pantes does not mean every single one. In Romans 5:19, Paul says “many” (in Greek, “polloi”) have sinned, which means when Paul says “all,” he really means “many.”

1 Corinthians 15:22 provides an example of when all (pantes) does not mean “every single one”. In Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

The more one studies the Greek text, the more one discovers how the English translation falls just a bit short. It seems like the Greek language, just like the Scripture, needs to be taken in context. English translations just do not capture every nuance of the Greek text.

For example, when the angel greets Mary and called her “full of grace” the Greek word used is kecharitomene. Catholic Answers gives the following information about the word “Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.” This is fascinating because the Holy Spirit had not yet overshadowed Mary, but rather, she was in a state of being full of grace before the angel visited her.

Let us remember another thing regarding Leviticus. The text says “If a woman, having received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven days”; and consequently she is forbidden “to enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled.” But as St. Thomas Aquinas says Mary did not receive seed. She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not conceived the “old-fashioned way” so to speak. This element of the law did not apply to her. Thus, says Aquinas "Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification “according to the Law” were accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself.

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

Jesus is the second Adam and did not have Original Sin just like the first Adam. Likewise Mary is the second Eve and did not have Original Sin just like the first Eve.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

Jesus is the second Adam and did not have Original Sin just like the first Adam. Likewise Mary is the second Eve and did not have Original Sin just like the first Eve

Where in Scripture does it say that Mary is the second Eve or that she is sinless? Even if she had to be free of sin before conceiving Jesus (which I doubt was the case, but this is my personal opinion), that doesn’t mean she had to be sinless from birth (she could have been cleansed of sin just before the angel came and told her she would be the mother of Jesus).

 

[gcharles]

Assuming that I get to heaven, the application of Jesus’ saving work was applied forward in time to me. For those who lived before Christ and who made it to heaven, the application of Jesus saving work was applied backward in time to them, during their life and at their death. The same is true for Mary. Mary had a savior. Christ’s saving work was applied back in time to Christ’s Mother, to a time before she was born.

If Christ died in 33 AD, and if Joe Schmoe can accept Christ and be saved on June 16, 2012, then why can’t Mary be saved at the moment of her conception?

As to freedome from sin, I have been kept free from the sin of gambling. I have zero interest in gambling. I don’t hate it, I just feel no attraction to it. Stealing too. I never really felt an urge to steal anything. If God can keep me free from the sins of gambling and stealing, then why can he not keep the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity free from all sin?

I really don’t see why people struggle with a doctrine which says Mary was sinless, unless their beef is really with Catholicism.

-Tim-

 

[gcharles]

Jesus was sinless because he was God. Mary was full of grace and sin could not enter her. This was act to keep Mary pure. Before Jesus died those who kept the law went to Abram’s Bosom side of Sheoul. Their sins were covered by the blood of animals - not forgiven. It took shed blood of Jesus to be saved. Mary could not be saved until Jesus died and shed his blood. At that point the enmity between God and man was over.

 

[Nicea325]

Where in Scripture does it say that Mary is the second Eve or that she is sinless? Even if she had to be free of sin before conceiving Jesus (which I doubt was the case, but this is my personal opinion), that doesn’t mean she had to be sinless from birth (she could have been cleansed of sin just before the angel came and told her she would be the mother of Jesus).

And where in Scripture does it say everything must be said in Scripture? Care to show me where Scripture mentions the canon?