Was Mary Sinless? Fav Arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter PietroPaolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Protestant ,some of the stuff about Mary bothers me. But what I know about Original Sin, and especially your explanation of it, I could probably go along with the Immaculate Conception. (Though I do wonder if Jesus is “fully God & fully Man,” how can He be fully man if His human nature was free of Original Sin, when no one else’s is?) But that’s a different problem.
Adam’s nature was human and he was created sin free. I therefore fail to see where being human contradicts being sinless.
As I understand it, the reason that Mary was assumed into heaven is that she was sinless when she died! That’s a lot different than Original Sin. Supposedly Mary was also Immaculate when she died, and therefore belonged in heaven rather than in the grave. And she’s not just a citizen of heaven, or a saint. She’s the Queen of heaven! That’s a lot more than a specially chosen woman. That’s closer to a goddess! Obviously, that’s not Catholic doctrine. But do the people praying to rather than withher believe? So was she sinless when she died? And if so, doesn’t it make her more than human?
Your understanding is not correct. Mary was sinless from the very moment of her conception in her Mother’s womb. God, being all knowing, knew she would say yes to being the mother of Jesus and so gave her the essentials for that role. So she was sinless all of her earthly life. We do not know whether she died or not. Catholic doctrine makes no statement either way. Some say yes but some say no. Being sinless death would have no power over her. I think one could make a convincing argument either way. As for being Queen of Heaven that is entirely scriptural. It never ceases to amaze me that protestants, like yourself, who are supposed to be bible based, dyed in the wool sola scripturists can’t see it.
 
All I can say regarding our knowledge & understanding of the immaculate conception is, thank you Father, for Jons Duns Scotus. If not for him, would we yet have this as a question? Perhaps by now we would, however, he is the one who illuminated the point.

Peace be with you
 
All I can say regarding our knowledge & understanding of the immaculate conception is, thank you Father, for Jons Duns Scotus. If not for him, would we yet have this as a question? Perhaps by now we would, however, he is the one who illuminated the point.

Peace be with you
And to think the modern insult “Dunce” is derived from John Duns Scotus, a brilliant (and much maligned) theologian.
 
Though I do wonder if Jesus is “fully God & fully Man,” how can He be fully man if His human nature was free of Original Sin, when no one else’s is?
Adam was created fully man and without the stain of original sin, which all his descendants have inherited as a result of his personal sin. Many Catholics believe Jesus did not contract the stain of original sin from his mother (a descendant of Adam) because she was preserved free from it. We inherit the state of deprivation of the original sanctity and justice from both our parents, not only from our fathers.
As I understand it, the reason that Mary was assumed into heaven is that she was sinless when she died! That’s a lot different than Original Sin. Supposedly Mary was also Immaculate when she died, and therefore belonged in heaven rather than in the grave.
Original sin is a state or condition - not a sinful act. Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven also because she never committed any personal sin in her entire life. Unlike Eve, she never fell from God’s grace. On the contrary, Mary’s soul magnified the Lord (cf. Lk 1:46). This means there wasn’t a trace of selfishness or inordinate self love in her which would have led to a sinful act. We read in the First Letter of John that fear has to do with punishment, whereas love drives out all fear of God’s justice. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel told Mary that she had no cause to be afraid, for she had found favour with God. If Mary had committed a personal sin and thereby tarnished the sanctity of her soul at some point in her life before the angel’s visit, he would not have appeared to her with the good news he brought, since she would not have been worthy enough to conceive and bear God incarnate. It was because Mary was predestined to be the mother of our Lord that she remained personally sinless throughout her life by the efficacious influence and assistance of God’s actual grace. The Divine Maternity is something eternally constant, both as the Divine Idea and its objective application in temporal reality.
And she’s not just a citizen of heaven, or a saint. She’s the Queen of heaven! That’s a lot more than a specially chosen woman. That’s closer to a goddess!
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, his acclamation, "Chaire kecharitomene, " was a deferential acknowledgement of her royal dignity. In ancient time, this salutation (Chaire/Hail) was formally used to acclaim royal persons in recognition of their highly privileged dignity. Only on one other occasion in the NT is it used, and that is when the Roman soldiers mock Jesus by placing a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his hand: “Chaire basilieus ton ioudaion;” “Hail, king of the Jews” (Jn 19:3). Mary is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King of Heaven (cf. Lk 1:31-33) just as the mother of the Davidic king was queen of the kingdom of Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 2:19-21; Mk 10:37-40).

The people of Tyre will sue your favour with gifts, the richest of people with all kinds of wealth.* I will cause your name to be celebrated by all generations***; therefore the people will praise you forever and ever.
Psalm 45, 12, 17

In Judaic tradition, Abraham’s wife Sarah prefigures the Davidic queen mother (gebirah). Abraham was to call his wife by this name on God’s command. “As for your wife Sarai, do not call her Sarai; her name shall be Sarah. I will bless her and give you a son by her. Him also will I bless” (Gen 17: 15-16; cf. Lk 1:42). In the Hebrew the name Sarai means “princess”. Abraham was to call his wife by her new name Sarah because it means “exalted princess”. A princess is exalted by becoming a queen. So ultimately Sarah prefigures Mary as the Queen Mother, while her son Isaac prefigures the Son of Mary, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose immolation for the sins of the world is prophetically veiled in Abraham’s faithful readiness to sacrifice his son at God’s command (Gen 22:2).

Sarah points to Mary’s continuity in the New Covenant with the Matriarch of the Old Covenant and of Israel who through faith, however imperfect at the start, overcame her barrenness by God’s miraculous intervention. Mary had also miraculously conceived a child because of her faith in God. Sarah prefigures Mary, the Matriarch of the New Covenant. Isaac was born of the free Woman of Promise and was the only son of Abraham and Sarah who was rightfully entitled to his inheritance: a great nation. Isaac became the father of Jacob, namely Israel, a nation set apart from all the rest as God’s chosen people. Mary is the free Woman of Promise who with the Holy Spirit had an only son, Jesus, the rightful heir in becoming the firstborn of many brethren in the new order of creation (Rom 8:29). Like Sarah, Mary was prepared by God to bear an only son who was to be consecrated to him. Both mothers were denied the liberty of naming their sons, for they rightfully belonged to God for his salvific purpose. And neither Sarah nor Mary bore children in bondage. Isaac was born free, unlike his step brother Ishmael who was born in slavery to Abraham and Hagar, the Egyptian maidservant of Sarah and Abraham’s concubine. As a type of Sarah, Mary, gave birth to a child who was free from slavery not unlike his mother – free from the slavery of sin.

PAX
:heaven:
 
Adam was created fully man and without the stain of original sin, which all his descendants have inherited as a result of his personal sin. Many Catholics believe Jesus did not contract the stain of original sin from his mother (a descendant of Adam) because she was preserved free from it. We inherit the state of deprivation of the original sanctity and justice from both our parents, not only from our fathers.

Original sin is a state or condition - not a sinful act. Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven also because she never committed any personal sin in her entire life. Unlike Eve, she never fell from God’s grace. On the contrary, Mary’s soul magnified the Lord (cf. Lk 1:46). This means there wasn’t a trace of selfishness or inordinate self love in her which would have led to a sinful act. We read in the First Letter of John that fear has to do with punishment, whereas love drives out all fear of God’s justice. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel told Mary that she had no cause to be afraid, for she had found favour with God. If Mary had committed a personal sin and thereby tarnished the sanctity of her soul at some point in her life before the angel’s visit, he would not have appeared to her with the good news he brought, since she would not have been worthy enough to conceive and bear God incarnate. It was because Mary was predestined to be the mother of our Lord that she remained personally sinless throughout her life by the efficacious influence and assistance of God’s actual grace. The Divine Maternity is something eternally constant, both as the Divine Idea and its objective application in temporal reality.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, his acclamation, "Chaire kecharitomene, " was a deferential acknowledgement of her royal dignity. In ancient time, this salutation (Chaire/Hail) was formally used to acclaim royal persons in recognition of their highly privileged dignity. Only on one other occasion in the NT is it used, and that is when the Roman soldiers mock Jesus by placing a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his hand: “Chaire basilieus ton ioudaion;” “Hail, king of the Jews” (Jn 19:3). Mary is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King of Heaven (cf. Lk 1:31-33) just as the mother of the Davidic king was queen of the kingdom of Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 2:19-21; Mk 10:37-40).

The people of Tyre will sue your favour with gifts, the richest of people with all kinds of wealth.* I will cause your name to be celebrated by all generations***; therefore the people will praise you forever and ever.
Psalm 45, 12, 17

In Judaic tradition, Abraham’s wife Sarah prefigures the Davidic queen mother (gebirah). Abraham was to call his wife by this name on God’s command. “As for your wife Sarai, do not call her Sarai; her name shall be Sarah. I will bless her and give you a son by her. Him also will I bless” (Gen 17: 15-16; cf. Lk 1:42). In the Hebrew the name Sarai means “princess”. Abraham was to call his wife by her new name Sarah because it means “exalted princess”. A princess is exalted by becoming a queen. So ultimately Sarah prefigures Mary as the Queen Mother, while her son Isaac prefigures the Son of Mary, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose immolation for the sins of the world is prophetically veiled in Abraham’s faithful readiness to sacrifice his son at God’s command (Gen 22:2).

Sarah points to Mary’s continuity in the New Covenant with the Matriarch of the Old Covenant and of Israel who through faith, however imperfect at the start, overcame her barrenness by God’s miraculous intervention. Mary had also miraculously conceived a child because of her faith in God. Sarah prefigures Mary, the Matriarch of the New Covenant. Isaac was born of the free Woman of Promise and was the only son of Abraham and Sarah who was rightfully entitled to his inheritance: a great nation. Isaac became the father of Jacob, namely Israel, a nation set apart from all the rest as God’s chosen people. Mary is the free Woman of Promise who with the Holy Spirit had an only son, Jesus, the rightful heir in becoming the firstborn of many brethren in the new order of creation (Rom 8:29). Like Sarah, Mary was prepared by God to bear an only son who was to be consecrated to him. Both mothers were denied the liberty of naming their sons, for they rightfully belonged to God for his salvific purpose. And neither Sarah nor Mary bore children in bondage. Isaac was born free, unlike his step brother Ishmael who was born in slavery to Abraham and Hagar, the Egyptian maidservant of Sarah and Abraham’s concubine. As a type of Sarah, Mary, gave birth to a child who was free from slavery not unlike his mother – free from the slavery of sin.

PAX
:heaven:
Beautifully and very well stated. Solomon when he became king after David’s death made Bathsheeba, his mother, queen of Israel. Every Davidic king thereafter did likewise.
 
Solomon when he became king after David’s death made Bathsheeba, his mother, queen of Israel. Every Davidic king thereafter did likewise.
The Bible does not record the name of David’s mother, but in ancient Judaic tradition the Talmud does (Baba Bathra, 91 a.). Her name was Nitzevet (Nisbeth), the daughter of Adael. The name Nitzevet derives from the Hebrew word nitzav, which means “to stand”. We find the source in the Hebrew Bible: “ For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf rose [nitzbat] upright; and behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf” (Gen 37:7). Solomon apparently was the first king to grant his mother a high place in the administration of his kingdom which he rightfully inherited from his father David. However, David’s mother accompanied him to his coronation and stayed close to him during his reign to encourage and counsel him when facing his enemies in turbulent times. Nitzevet stood upright alongside her son and never deserted him while he ruled. She served as a precursor to what would become a national institution in Solomon’s reign. Her name foreshadows the deference with which even the king’s wives were to approach her. Unlike the queen mother, the king’s wives were not granted the prerogatives of a counsellor or an advocate, but were merely assigned the task of bearing and raising the king’s children, notably his sons who might become eligible heirs to the throne. The gebirah was the most important woman in the kingdom of Judah and wielded the greatest influence over her son the king, more than all of his wives combined. She was the sheaf which all other sheaves made obeisance to.

PAX
:heaven:
 
I recently wrote a blog detailing a few of my favorite arguments for the Immaculate Conception. If interested, you can read the post Here:[

Was Mary Born without Sin?](Nathan Barontini's Blog: Was Mary Born without Sin?)

I was wondering, what are some of your favorite arguments for this dogma? Which ones have you found to be the most useful when talking to Protestants?
Really nice blog! My favorite Scriptural support for Sinless Mary is the connections with “Full of Grace.”

My favorite logical support for Sinless Mary is the following:
Since
-I believe God is creating an unlimited number of humans
-God has given them rules to live accordingly
-and to sin is to disobey God,
then surely one created human will be most perfectly obedient to the rules. The created human who is most obedient of us created is Mary.

Thanks for sharing your excellent understandings and the questions!
 
Couldn’t the same just be said about Jesus then? I don’t understand why this is so important to Catholics.
Hi DRonald,

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is a Catholic Church doctrine that is required for our belief to be truly Catholic. That is why it is important. We want to be united to the Catholic Church and thus believe in its required teachings.
 
I also don’t find the doctrine of “Full of Grace” bearing the complete removal of sin in a person who confesses the need of Savior.
Eve was not conceived in sin, as plainly stated in scripture,nor Adam.
Hi Shortfuse,

If one is full of grace there is no room for ANYTHING else. Thus, being full of God’s grace there is only room for goodness and love and no room for filth or sin. Remember who said “Full of Grace”. It was the Angel Gabriel. What do we know about good angels. They are not capable of sin so they cannot lie. Case closed. Hope this helps.
 
all of what i see and hear of Mary doctrine is nowhere in the OT or the NT. From what my Catholic friends tell me it is tradition & church teaching, they don’t say that its any where in Scripture .
I appreciate your dialogue on this topic. If I could show you scripture from both the OT and the NT, would that soften your heart to see what the scriptures actually do have to say about Mary? Others have addressed some scripture here already, (MarcoPolo in #9, dmar198 in #11, Good Fella in #31, #41, #43)

I think it is VERY fair to start from the beginning - where PoorKnight was in #30. I won’t rehash all that PoorKnight covered there, but suffice to say that it was very well put, and if you prayerfully read that scripture and pray about what each word means, I am confident that you will see that the Catholic view on Mary is entirely rooted in sacred scripture and flows perfectly from it, not outside of it or against it as you would allege.

Gen. 3:15/Rev. 12:1 - Scriptures begin and end with a woman battling Satan.

Exodus 25:11-21 - The Ark of the Covenant is made from the purest of gold. Would Christ, the fulfillment of everything that the old covenant had to offer, enter this world (or if you’d like, be carried by) via anything less than TOTAL PURITY? What did the Ark hold in the OT? THE testimony from God Himself. Do you believe that Jesus is the embodiment of that testimony? The Catholic Church always has and always will. It isn’t that far of a ‘jump’ to therefore say that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and thus must be a completely pure vessel in every way, including the stain of sin.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the familiar account of Uzzah touching the ark (with fully ‘good’ intentions, yet he is still not worthy to touch it) Why is he not allowed to touch even the outside of the ark? Because he is a sinner right? We would agree on this I think. God made no special provision for anyone but those He appointed to touch the Ark in even the most well-meaning way.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - If you are ‘with me’ so far, then this will make an even stronger connection - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. Pray about these accounts more please. They lay the groundwork about “WHY” Mary is so important. It is clearly established that nothing unclean** can touch the ark or its contents. Do you agree? Thus, for God Himself to dwell within Mary the Ark, she, as the Ark, must be completely pure in every single way (full of Grace if you will ;)) and nothing can be allowed to change that or defile her in any way. (This leads us off topic slightly in that herein is the case for Mary being ‘ever-virgin’ - which Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley and many others all believed and taught). But the bottom line is this equation: God Himself is 100% pure, devoid of even a hint of sin (or else He isn’t really God then is He?). God therefore WILL NOT ALLOW Himself to be touched, or otherwise affected by sin, or sinners, unless He makes a special provision for it (ex. the men who actually assembled the Ark, the priests who placed things in it, or took things out of it, etc.). Thus, God would NEVER allow for even a slight chance that Satan (the embodiment of sin) might come into contact with Him. Thus, Mary, the Ark for Christ, could not have come into contact with sin either, lest Satan be able to claim that sin touched Christ.

Please consult your Bible and compare 2 Sam. and Luke. You will find too many parallels to count - the words themselves are almost identical - which is one reason that the Catholic Church has taught about the Ark of the OT and the Ark of the NT in such similar fashions.

Mary does not save, just as the Ark of the OT did not save. That is all God’s work. ALL. GOD’s. WORK. But the Ark of the OT and the Ark of the NT are clearly set aside as special by God, and approached with only reverence by all those who understand God’s message. To treat the Ark of the OT with anything else, no matter how well you meant, led to death. Would the Ark of the NT be any different? The Church would say NO and even more - since the New Covenant is superior to the old, the new Ark is also superior to the old. If the old Ark deserved complete purity and total respect, why should the new Ark be treated any differently? So even though Catholics around the world ask Mary for help daily, they also all realize that it is only Christ who saves.

I have more, but that ought to be enough to get us started and continue the dialogue.

Peace in Christ always
 
I don’t understand the reason for this belief.
***Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity ***

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son – the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart – and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.

Pope Pius lX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854
It could be true, but it’s absent from Scripture so I don’t see how it could be proven.
***Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture ***

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” [cf.Gn 3:15] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

**The Annunciation **

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[cf. Lk 1:28] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”[cf. Lk 1:42]

**Biblical Figures **

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood (acacia; Ex 25:10) that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple (Ex 25:8; Hab 2:20), the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life – not of death – (Zech 2:10; Ps 132:13; Is 37:22) the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root (Is 11:1-10).

Ibid.
You gave a good example of “Christ died on a cross” but He also resurrected and won. His victory over death seems logical to me, as well as its attestation in history.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1,18


Christ’s death and resurrection don’t constitute an a priori truth, but are matters of faith, in spite of what is explicitly recorded in the Gospels. What we will to believe determines our intellect’s assent to any divine truth revealed in Scripture. Even accepting the veracity of the Scriptures is an assent of faith. If we accept any article of faith, including the Immaculate Conception, it’s because its content appears somewhat reasonable to us despite the intellect’s natural inability to grasp it. It’s true for us because we believe it must be. That it can’t be true seems unreasonable.

PAX
:heaven:
 
Hello catholic friends. I am sure that we could all agree that the bible is the word of God and therefore cannot contradict itself in any shape or form. Whether by allussions, direct quotations, explicit or implicit teaching… God cannot Contradict himself.

If mary was sinless based on the old testament and new testament proof texts people refer to in here, how come nobody bothered to tell the apostle paul about this. The apostle paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans that “ALL” have sinned. Unless mary does not belong to the human race i dont see why she is excluded from “ALL”.

This is an Unambiguous text. Very clear. There is no mental gymnastics that can be done here to go around it. It is explicit. “All”.

What you people did with the other verses was to read into the text what you wanted to hear. Those verses could and indeed have some other meaning other than refering to mary’s sinlessness. In doing so, you just made a liar out of the apostle paul who is suppose to be inspired by God himself.
 
Hello catholic friends. I am sure that we could all agree that the bible is the word of God and therefore cannot contradict itself in any shape or form. Whether by allussions, direct quotations, explicit or implicit teaching… God cannot Contradict himself.

If mary was sinless based on the old testament and new testament proof texts people refer to in here, how come nobody bothered to tell the apostle paul about this. The apostle paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans that “ALL” have sinned. Unless mary does not belong to the human race i dont see why she is excluded from “ALL”.

This is an Unambiguous text. Very clear. There is no mental gymnastics that can be done here to go around it. It is explicit. “All”.

What you people did with the other verses was to read into the text what you wanted to hear. Those verses could and indeed have some other meaning other than refering to mary’s sinlessness. In doing so, you just made a liar out of the apostle paul who is suppose to be inspired by God himself.
If you take Paul literally, then Jesus must also have sinned. He too would be included in ALL. But Jesus (according to the same St Paul in Heb 4:15) didn’t sin. Therefore, St Paul isn’t speaking literally. I deal with this argument on my blog (including giving examples of other people who haven’t sinned besides Jesus) here:

Was Mary Without Sin
 
all of what i see and hear of Mary doctrine is nowhere in the OT or the NT. From what my Catholic friends tell me it is tradition & church teaching, they don’t say that its any where in Scripture .
You must not being seeing much of scripture then. Much of Church doctrine regarding Mary comes from scripture. There are plenty of quotes in this forum and within this topics for you to study, consider and reflect upon just as the Catholic Church has done for over 2000 years. 🙂
 
are you aware that Jesus comes from a bloodline of sinners? David ,committed adultery,murdered a man, there is a prostitute in there,in the bloodline. Although He was sinless , how could Mary claim sinless? She confesses her need of a Savior .
Mary never claims herself to be sinless. She is sinless because of a single grace given to only her by God at the moment of her conception and this grace filled her for her entire life. She needs a savior as his grace was applied to her to save her from sinning. Think of it this way. Sin is like a dirty pool. Most of us choose to dive in. God/Jesus saved Mary from ever falling in or going into the muddy pool. Hope this helps. 🙂
 
There are tons of ways Scripture shows us that Mary was concieved without sin.

But let me point out this: Mary’s sinlessness was NOT necessary. God could have chosen a sinful woman to bear His son.

But instead God gave this as a free gift.

Let me show you one of the ways we know Mary was with out sin:

Let’s start with the question: What does “emnity” mean? According to dictionary.com it means ‘deep seeded hatred’ and ‘to be enemies’. According to one anti-Catholic source it means to be completely opposite and seperate from each other.

Are we, humans, completely seperate from sin and the devil? We’d like to say ‘yes’ but we have to remember that we still sin. So we cannot say we are completely seperate from satan.

What does Scripture say about Christ? Scripture says that Christ and Satan will have “enmity” between them. Does this make sense? Absolutely.

What does this have to do with Mary? In the same Scripture where it says that Christ and Satan will have “enmity” between them, it ALSO says that MARY and Satan will have “enmity” between them (Gen 3:15).

So, again, could Mary have had any sin but still have “enmity” between her and Satan?

Also we see in Revelations that Satan attempts to get at Mary (the woman) but Mary was taken “out of the serpant’s reach” (Rev 12:14).

Are we sinners “out of the serpant’s reach”? If we were honest, we’d have to say no.

On top of this, Scripture show that Mary is the New Eve, The New Ark of the Covenant as well as other things. See: catholic.com/radio/shows/mary-the-new-eve-4624
catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

As the New Eve was created with out sin, could the New Eve be any different?

As R.C. Sproul put it, the Ark was so holy that no sinful man could touch it. Is the New Ark any different?

Just food for thought.
God Bless you in your journey of Faith, :signofcross:
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church
Very well stated!! 👍
 
Hello catholic friends. I am sure that we could all agree that the bible is the word of God and therefore cannot contradict itself in any shape or form. Whether by allussions, direct quotations, explicit or implicit teaching… God cannot Contradict himself.

If mary was sinless based on the old testament and new testament proof texts people refer to in here, how come nobody bothered to tell the apostle paul about this. The apostle paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans that “ALL” have sinned. Unless mary does not belong to the human race i dont see why she is excluded from “ALL”.

This is an Unambiguous text. Very clear. There is no mental gymnastics that can be done here to go around it. It is explicit. “All”.

What you people did with the other verses was to read into the text what you wanted to hear. Those verses could and indeed have some other meaning other than refering to mary’s sinlessness. In doing so, you just made a liar out of the apostle paul who is suppose to be inspired by God himself.
Curious,

How can you hold to such a weak argument?? I can think of millions that have not sinned in the United States alone. Since 1973 Roe vs. Wade we’ve aborted 56 MILLION people. That’s 56 MILLION that have not sinned. Go worldwide and go back centuries and there are BILLIONS of aborted babies that have not sinned. Jesus didn’t sin. The severely mentally handicapped have not sinned. Young children that have not learned right and wrong have not sinned. It is quite clear St. Paul was not thinking of the numerous exceptions most importantly Jesus my friend. Very weak point!!
 
to pietropoalo and to all others.

You are correct to state that Jesus is also Man. But to infer that since he is exempted from the “ALL” (of mankind), therefore Mary could also be excluded from that statement is erroneous. That is taking the text out of context. The apostle Paul definitely didn’t have Jesus in mind when he used the term “ALL” (in the context of all of mankind) because of two reasons.
  1. He is aware of the Nature of Jesus as both God and Man and therefore cannot sin.
  2. He is aware of the nature of the atonement. Jesus needed to be sinless for the atonement because that will satisfy God’s wrath (payment for sin) and to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (pls see hebrews chapters 4 and 5, Romans 3).
If Mary was sinless, that means she lived a perfect life. That means she could actually be the atonement for our sins. Why then would the author of Hebrews (if you believe it’s not Paul) and Paul and all the other authors of the Bible labor so much that God had to send His own Son to die for us because he is the only one who could satisfy God’s demands? We might as well say that Jesus was just a redundancy in the redemption plan because Mary also accomplished what Jesus accomplished.

So you see, when Paul said “ALL” have sinned, it is clear that Jesus is an exception because Paul knows Jesus’ nature and purpose. But it cannot be said that Paul was aware of Mary’s sinlessness and is also exempted from the “ALL” because that will make his other teaching about the atonement just plain nonsense.

Jesus is not part of the “ALL” because…
  1. Theologically - Jesus is both God and Man and cannot sin. This cannot be said Mary.
  2. Biblically - The plain teaching in the Bible that Jesus is sinless. This cannot be said of Mary. There is no plain teaching in scripture that Mary (or any other human being) is sinless (unless you do all the mental gymnastics and clearly force meaning into a text.) On the contrary, the Bible is filled with teaching, clear teaching, that all have sinned and fallen short.
  3. Logically - The nature of the atonement. Mary cannot fulfill the requirements of the atonement. only Jesus. The prophesies from the old testament leads to only ONE who could live a perfect life and therefore fulfill the demands of God for eternal life.
 
to gmanlq,

to say that millions of aborted babies have not sinned is completely missing the point of properly understanding “ALL” have sinned. Even catholic apologist/teachers will correct you on your statement… no doubt.

All have sinned from the very beginning because all have original sin by virtue of us being from Adam… thus all of mankind. This is very clearly taught in sacred scripture.

Respectfully,
curious146
 
Hello catholic friends. I am sure that we could all agree that the bible is the word of God and therefore cannot contradict itself in any shape or form. Whether by allussions, direct quotations, explicit or implicit teaching… God cannot Contradict himself.

If mary was sinless based on the old testament and new testament proof texts people refer to in here, how come nobody bothered to tell the apostle paul about this. The apostle paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans that “ALL” have sinned. Unless mary does not belong to the human race i dont see why she is excluded from “ALL”.

This is an Unambiguous text. Very clear. There is no mental gymnastics that can be done here to go around it. It is explicit. “All”.

What you people did with the other verses was to read into the text what you wanted to hear. Those verses could and indeed have some other meaning other than refering to mary’s sinlessness. In doing so, you just made a liar out of the apostle paul who is suppose to be inspired by God himself.
Let’s not take Paul out of context here. If we do, we do violence to the scriptures by inducing error. When Paul said “all have sinned…” He was referring to two groups of people, Jews and Gentiles. He was attempting to show that neither the Jew nor the Gentile group was better than the other for both groups were sinners. The “all” is a collective referring to the group rather than each imdividual member of the group. The violence we inflict on the scriptures therefore is to remove the collective and introduce singularity so that “all” means each and every one. That obviously is error as not everyone has sinned. Jesus was fully human but scripture says “He was like us in all things but sin.” So right there we have scrippture contradicting itself. Also there is the problem of those people who die before achieving the ability to reason and therefore be unable to know and choose right from wrong. Generally this is reserved for children under the age of seven but would also include those individuals with mental and/or psychological impairments of such a nature that they are incapable of a free will choice of good or evil.

So the “all” in Romans cannot, as you claim, mean each and every one has sinned or else scripture is wrong, God has lied and you are wasting your time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top