was mary sinless?

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

captainmike

Guest
the bible says (somewhere): “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.” how is mary exempt from this?

also, is mary’s lack of sin one of the church’s infallible teachings? i know that her immaculate conception is an infallible teaching, but that’s different from her living a sinless life, isn’t it? when did the church first teach that she was sinless? where in church teaching is it most authoritatively taught?

am i correct about this: mary had to be sinless b/c if she wasn’t she would have passed original sin to jesus (who was fully human)? is that part of what the church teaches?

thanks
 
captainmike said:
the bible says (somewhere): “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.” how is mary exempt from this?
Click to expand...
Captain Mike,

You are referring, I think, to Romans 3:23 (I’m operating from memory so I may be off). The way that Mary is exempt from this is that “all” does not mean absolutely every single one. Elsewhere Paul says “in Adam all die,” but we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die. So there are exceptions.

Sorry I can’t help on your other questions.
  • Liberian
 
This is in response to your question as to “where in Church teaching is it most authoritatively taught.”

The doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception. The following is a quote from Dr. Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:

(Re: ORIGINAL SIN)
"On the 8th December, 1854, Pope Pius IX, in the Bull “Ineffabilis” promulgated the following doctrine as revealed by God, and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful: ‘The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.’ "

(Re: PERSONAL SIN)
"The Council of Trent declared: ‘No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin’. … Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclica “Mystici Corporis” of the Virgin Mother of God, that: ‘she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.’ "

Regarding the infallibility of Mary’s freedom from personal sin: I’m not sure if the above teachings would be considered infallible. Someone else will have to answer that.

As to when it was first taught, “Fundamentals …” quotes St. Ephrem (306-373 AD) who says: “Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain”.
And also St. Augustine (354-430 AD) who says that all men must confess themselves sinners, “except the Holy Virgin Mary, whom I desire, for the sake of the honour of the Lord, to leave entirely out of the question, when the talk is of sin”.

Your last statement about whether Mary had to be free from original sin because otherwise she would have passed it on to Jesus is not part of Church teaching to my knowledge. I’ve never heard it before. “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” has nothing about it in its background and neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you have a copy of the Catechism, you may wish to read the section on the Immaculate Conception - paragraphs #490-493.

Hope this helps, captainmike.

Nita
 
Nita said:
Your last statement about whether Mary had to be free from original sin because otherwise she would have passed it on to Jesus is not part of Church teaching to my knowledge. I’ve never heard it before.
Click to expand...
That surprises me. I thought that was the whole point of the doctrine of the immaculate conception–or at least one of the points.
 
From our human standpoint it seems impossible fro anyone to be sinless but with God Nothing is impossible.

From lhuman perspective,
If we believe tha Jesus the Christ is both human and Divine, (and if you are God) would you permit Jesus to be formed in the womb of a “woman with sin” or a “spotless womb”, ?

Gn 3:15 (RSV)
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel

=====
Here is a reflection and teaching by Dr Scott Hahn & his team.

Q) In Hebrew thought, men have “seed,” not women.
The phrase, “her seed,” is highly irregular.
-What question does it lead you to ask?

R) Can this mean, God’s creation of Mary?
Mary’s virginity and immaculate conception?

The question this phrasing provokes is:
Why is there, no husband mentioned in this scenario?
The only “he” is the seed of the woman not her mate.
How can a woman have a child without a husband?

Happy thinking & God Bless
 
captainmike said:
am i correct about this: mary had to be sinless b/c if she wasn’t she would have passed original sin to jesus (who was fully human)? is that part of what the church teaches?
Click to expand...
No. This is not part of what the Church teaches. If the Virgin Mary needed to be sinless in order not to pass Original Sin to Jesus, then that would imply that Mary’s parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., also needed to be sinless in order not to pass Original Sin to her. Since Mary was conceived immaculately despite having parents with Original Sin, Jesus could have been conceived immaculately even if His mother, Mary, had Original Sin.

Consequently, we say that it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the Virgin Mary was sinless, just as it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the stone tablets inscribed with the words of God (the Ten Commandments) in the Old Covenant should be carried in a dignified Ark that was covered inside and out with pure gold. Mary is sometimes referred to as the Ark of the New Covenant because she was the pure vessel that once carried the Word of God. (Revelation 11:19-12:5)

Also, it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the grace lost by the human race through a single act of disobedience by a previously sinless man (Adam) and sinless woman (Eve) should be, in human terms, restored through the life-long obedience of a sinless man (Jesus) and sinless woman (Mary). This comparison of the obedient Virgin Mary to the disobedient Eve was made by the earliest Christian writers, including St. Justin Martyr about A.D. 155 (, chap. 100Dialogue with Trypho) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons about A.D. 189 (, book 3, chap. 22Against Heresies., and book 5, chap. 19) and Tertullian about A.D. 210 (, chap. 17The Flesh of Christ).

Disclaimer: Of course, saying that both Jesus and Mary contributed to the restoration of the human race is not meant to imply that their respective contributions were of equal value or of equal necessity. Jesus was more than a man; he was also divine and because of his divinity his contribution to the restoration of the human race was necessary, of infinite value and sufficient in itself. On the other hand, Mary was only human and because of her humanity her contribution to the restoration of the human race was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary; it was of the greatest humanly possible value but finite and insufficient in itself.
 
Todd_Easton said:
No. This is not part of what the Church teaches. If the Virgin Mary needed to be sinless in order not to pass Original Sin to Jesus, then that would imply that Mary’s parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., also needed to be sinless in order not to pass Original Sin to her. Since Mary was conceived immaculately despite having parents with Original Sin, Jesus could have been conceived immaculately even if His mother, Mary, had Original Sin.

Consequently, we say that it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the Virgin Mary was sinless, just as it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the stone tablets inscribed with the words of God (the Ten Commandments) in the Old Covenant should be carried in a dignified Ark that was covered inside and out with pure gold. Mary is sometimes referred to as the Ark of the New Covenant because she was the pure vessel that once carried the Word of God. (Revelation 11:19-12:5)

Also, it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the grace lost by the human race through a single act of disobedience by a previously sinless man (Adam) and sinless woman (Eve) should be, in human terms, restored through the life-long obedience of a sinless man (Jesus) and sinless woman (Mary). This comparison of the obedient Virgin Mary to the disobedient Eve was made by the earliest Christian writers, including St. Justin Martyr about A.D. 155 (Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 100) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons about A.D. 189 (Against Heresies, book 3, chap. 22., and book 5, chap. 19) and Tertullian about A.D. 210 (The Flesh of Christ, chap. 17).

Disclaimer: Of course, saying that both Jesus and Mary contributed to the restoration of the human race is not meant to imply that their respective contributions were of equal value or of equal necessity. Jesus was more than a man; he was also divine and because of his divinity his contribution to the restoration of the human race was necessary, of infinite value and sufficient in itself. On the other hand, Mary was only human and because of her humanity her contribution to the restoration of the human race was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary; it was of the greatest humanly possible value but finite and insufficient in itself.
Click to expand...
👍
Thanks Todd Easton. You said it beautifully - far better than I could have.

Nita
 
Todd_Easton said:
Consequently, we say that it was altogether fitting but not absolutely necessary that the Virgin Mary was sinless
Click to expand...
If it was only “fitting”–but not necessary–that Mary be sinless, then why did the Church deem it necessary to infallibly declare her sinless nature?
 
captainmike said:
If it was only “fitting”–but not necessary–that Mary be sinless, then why did the Church deem it necessary to infallibly declare her sinless nature?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if “necessary” is the proper word. As a Catholic, I would say it was because, first of all, it is the truth; secondly, because God wanted it declared and therefore inspired the Pope to declare it infallibly (referring here to the Immaculate Conception). As you know from my previous post, teaching about Mary’s sinlessness began long before the actual infallible declaration. Different Scripture passages were cited as referring to this truth (either implicitly and/or typologically). If you’re interested, these can be given.

Nita
 
Of course Mary was sinless. If you lived with God all your adult life you can be sure you would be sinless. I think it is only common sense to arrive at this conclusion. Also common sense, if Mary and Joseph were the teachers of Jesus, as His parents, God would also make them worthy of this through many graces and inside knowledge so to speak. After being lost at the temple for three days, Mary and Joseph took Jesus home (age 12) and He grew in grace and wisdom.
 
captainmike said:
If it was only “fitting”–but not necessary–that Mary be sinless, then why did the Church deem it necessary to infallibly declare her sinless nature?
Click to expand...
It is also fitting, but not strictly necessary, that God redeem humanity through the Sacrifice of His Son. He could have simply filled us with Grace at His Will, but instead He decided to make His Will manifest in the most perfect and fitting way. Despite it not being necessary, it is the cornerstone of our Faith.

Something does not have to be strictly necessary in order to be a Dogma, it merely has to be a fact that has been shown by God, and which speaks a deeper Truth about the Faith.

Peace and God bless!
 
Nita,
I haven’t read the links provided by HailMary, so I may be just repeating what were in those links. Never the less, if you re-read the CCC section on the Immaculate Conception, it does refer to the necessity of Mary being born with out Original Sin. Unless she was free from the effects of Original Sin, Mary would have been unable to give free consent to becoming the Mother of Christ. On that point alone one could say that the Immaculate conception was necessary (If you just look as the brief summary from #509 through #511 this is not brought out directly but in #490 it states it clearly).

Also, though it may not state it as clearly as some would want, in #504, the CCC does state that from the moment of His conception, Christ’s humanity (Human Nature) was filled with the Holy Spirit. Had Christ received a fallen human nature from his mother, this would not have been possible, unless the Immaculate Conception was the name of the mystery of how Christ was conceived. But since the Immaculate Conception was how Mary was conceived, then we can understand why it was necessary based on the two principles I wrote about above (Freedom of Consent and Christ taking on a sinless human nature).
 
TOME said:
Also, though it may not state it as clearly as some would want, in #504, the CCC does state that from the moment of His conception, Christ’s humanity (Human Nature) was filled with the Holy Spirit. Had Christ received a fallen human nature from his mother, this would not have been possible, unless the Immaculate Conception was the name of the mystery of how Christ was conceived. But since the Immaculate Conception was how Mary was conceived, then we can understand why it was necessary based on the two principles I wrote about above (Freedom of Consent and Christ taking on a sinless human nature).
Click to expand...
I thought that was part of it. If Mary was a sinner, then Christ would have inherited original sin from her, unless . . . . Christ was immaculately conceived. Somebody–either Mary or Jesus–had to be immaculately conceived, or Jesus would be a sinner. Right?

Here’s another question, though: Since Mary was immaculately conceived, was she truly fully human?
 
captainmike said:
the bible says (somewhere): “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.” how is mary exempt from this?

also, is mary’s lack of sin one of the church’s infallible teachings? i know that her immaculate conception is an infallible teaching, but that’s different from her living a sinless life, isn’t it? when did the church first teach that she was sinless? where in church teaching is it most authoritatively taught?

am i correct about this: mary had to be sinless b/c if she wasn’t she would have passed original sin to jesus (who was fully human)? is that part of what the church teaches?

thanks
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of reasons why the ‘all have sinned’ doesn’t literally mean no exceptions. Christ himself being the most important and obvious exception - he was fully human as well as fully divine, yet didn’t sin.

What about babies who die young, do they sin? Or people who, for whatever reason, never develop sufficiently mentally to be able to comprehend the concept of sin or consent to sin? Clearly there are exceptions to the ‘all’ when Paul says ‘all have sinned’.

And the Immaculate Conception has everything to do with her having lived a sinless life. Being fully human and lacking the divine nature that enabled Christ to remain sinless, Mary could not have remained without personal sin her whole life unless she was aided by not being subject to original sin.

Think of Adam and Eve - even BEING created without original sin they still personally sinned, did they not?
 
captainmike said:
I thought that was part of it. If Mary was a sinner, then Christ would have inherited original sin from her, unless . . . . Christ was immaculately conceived. Somebody–either Mary or Jesus–had to be immaculately conceived, or Jesus would be a sinner. Right?

Here’s another question, though: Since Mary was immaculately conceived, was she truly fully human?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve weren’t even concieved and they were human.
 
Captainmike,
When you think about it, Mary, having been conceived without original sin was truly fully human. Being in sin is not the natural state of humans, when God created us He created us in a sinless state. Sin entered into human nature through the free choice of Adam. Adam’s sin corrupted the state in which we were created. So the the Immaculated Conception, Mary was created in the human stated God willed for us. Hopefully this makes some sense.
 
captainmike said:
Here’s another question, though: Since Mary was immaculately conceived, was she truly fully human?
Click to expand...
Well, Adam and Eve were originally without sin; were they not fully human?

For more information on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, here is the text of Ineffabilis Deus, in which Bl. Pope Pius IX defined the doctrine. He starts out by tracing its history and its significance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top