Was Mary without sin all of her life?

[Matt14]

Lazerlike42:

This is changing the issue. The issue is, “isn’t it true that no one is righteous, and can’t I use this verse to prove it?” The answer is no. Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous, Noah was called so too. The context of Psalm 14 speaks about a whole group of righteous people. In short, the point is that this verse has to be thrown out as a proof text.

I didn’t use Romans 3:10 in my post.

The passage quoted was Romans 3:23, “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

There is a difference between never committing a sin, and being considered righteous because one lived a faithful life.

Mary, Noah, Elijah, Enoch, etc., etc., being the latter, not the former.

This is exactly what the Church teaches (other than the word “considered,” but that’s a whole other thread). Mary was freed from sin just as we all will be through and only through Christ’s sacrifice. In fact, everyone who gets to Heaven will receive the same gift of sinlessness that Mary had. She simply got it early. I could say, “God loves us all, why didn’t he make us all the mother’s of Christ?” Or, “why didn’t He just plop Christ down so as not to give Mary and favortism at all?” You might ask why, if He loves us all, would He give this to her early. Well, we will all meet God, but he let Moses and Elijah meet Him early. He let Peter and Paul and James actually walk the earth with Christ… why not me?

If Mary had no sin, she had nothing for Christ to atone for on the cross. Therefore, she must have been saved by a special act of grace, and not Christ’s sacrifice.

1Ti 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

He came to save sinners, not those without sin. Therefore, if Mary had no sin, she was not saved by His sacrifice.

Seems to be what the scriptures say, anyway. But again, that’s just me.

 

[Matt14]

Lazerlike42:

Christ spoke Aramaic. We can see this from passages like John 1:42. In Aramaic, there is no word for cousin. This alone is enough to show that these men are not necessarily His biological brothers. What’s more, many of the people are identified elsewhere in the Gospels as children of people other than Mary. This is more evidence that not only says they could be unrelated to Christ, but that they in fact are unrelated to Him. It’s also important to ask why is it that we need to say that Christ meant biological brothers. The Bible is one of the biggest places in the world to see the word “brother” being used to refer to Spiritual brothers as opposed to biological brothers. On top of this we can add the fact that Christ gave Mary to John to protect on the cross. In today’s world, and especially in the culture of the time of Christ, the responsibility for caring for a woman would lie on her family. If these men were His actual biological brothers, it would be not only unneccessary but also incredibly rude to say this to John and to pass over Mary’s other children. On top of this is the fact that when Gabriel tells Mary she is going to have a child, she says, “How can this be as I know not man?” Obviously she hadn’t known a man. But Mary is acting like she will never know one. If she had plans to engage in intercourse with Joseph, she’d have no reason to be surprised at this. A very, very early document called the Protoevangelium of James gives us the answer: Mary was sworn to be a temple servant as a child. This is roughly equivalent to a cloistered nun today. She was to serve the temple and pledge her virginity her entire life. Joseph was an older widow of the city that was chosen to protect her, as unwed women needed protection from bandits and the like in those days. This was a common practice.

These are all interesting points you present. Unfortunately there is too much to address in one post. Perhaps another thread? I’ll mark this post, and perhaps create a thread for each specific issue you raise.

Until then, be blessed.

in Christ,

Matt14

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

Zechariah and Elizabeth walked in the commandments and ordinances of God. This would necessarily mean that they took advantage of the sacrifices for sin according to the Law of Moses. So yes, they were considered righteous and blameless, but not because they didn’t sin!

Likewise, through Christ, and through Christ ONLY, can man be considered righteous, because He will atone perfectly for our sins if we take refuge in Him.

He loves us all. Why would He create one woman sinless?

Mat 12:49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!

Just a thought…

I believe Lazerlike delt with this in post #17…

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

If Mary had no sin, she had nothing for Christ to atone for on the cross. Therefore, she must have been saved by a special act of grace, and not Christ’s sacrifice.

1Ti 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

He came to save sinners, not those without sin. Therefore, if Mary had no sin, she was not saved by His sacrifice.

Seems to be what the scriptures say, anyway. But again, that’s just me.

She was save from sin (preserved from sinning I should say) by the application of the merits of Christ’s sacrifice. We are all saved by grace.

 

[Della]

If Mary had no sin, she had nothing for Christ to atone for on the cross. Therefore, she must have been saved by a special act of grace, and not Christ’s sacrifice.

1Ti 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

He came to save sinners, not those without sin. Therefore, if Mary had no sin, she was not saved by His sacrifice.

Seems to be what the scriptures say, anyway. But again, that’s just me.

You seem to have forgotten (probably because Mary’s Magificat is something you haven’t meditated upon) that she herself declared that God was her savior: "And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (Lk. 1:46-47)

Mary, like everyone else, was saved only through the merits of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. But, she was accorded this grace at her conception. How can this be, you ask?

Because God can do anything he wants to do. So, if he wanted to save Mary from sin before she could ever have sinned he could have done so, but still dependent on Christ’s sacrifice–because she, like those in who were born, lived and died before Christ’s birth, were looking forward to the redemption he would bring to them and to the world, which is how they were saved. So, it is not impossible that God could have and would have saved Mary in this way, anticipating the death of her Son on the cross.

 

[Eileen_T]

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Her womb contained the Word of God just as the original Ark contained the Ten Commandments ( word of God).

Mary identified God as her Saviour in the Magnificat, God, Who knows all things, knew that of all women in all generations, Mary was the One who was worthy to be the mother of God the Son.

God intervened to ensure she was born free of Original Sin. This was necessary because God cannot be touched by sin.

I can’t imagine any Christian disputing that.

The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history and Tradition that awows to the purity and sinlessness of Mary. There were enemies to the Faith even then who tried to denigrate the Catholic Christian teaching.

Catholics have always held to the fact that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, body and soul. They have always held to the truth that she was sinless and pure.

As a Catholic, 2000 years of Catholic teaching is good enough for me. For anyone else who needs more I suggest you turn to my favourite Catholic apologist, former Protestant minister Scott Hahn.

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html

 

[copland]

I have heard it said recently by I think Scott Hahn, “If you were to create your Mother, would you not create her without sin?”

 

[Matt14]

Eileen T:

God intervened to ensure she was born free of Original Sin. This was necessary because God cannot be touched by sin.

I can’t imagine any Christian disputing that.

It depends on what you mean by “touched” by sin. Jesus Christ touched many sinners while healing them, and I have no doubt that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh.

Therefore, why would it be impossible for Jesus to have been born of someone who wasn’t sinlessly perfect? Are you implying that there is something about human flesh itself and contact with a sinful person that “rubs off” on another?

Sin is a spiritual condition, not a physical condition.

The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history and Tradition that awows to the purity and sinlessness of Mary. There were enemies to the Faith even then who tried to denigrate the Catholic Christian teaching.

So am I an enemy of the faith because I believe Romans 3:23 means ALL?

Catholics have always held to the fact that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, body and soul. They have always held to the truth that she was sinless and pure.

That’s interesting, because someone told me in another thread here just today that this doctrine was up for debate, that not all believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Do you believe one that holds that she died normally is not holding to the catholic faith?

Thanks!

 

[Della]

So am I an enemy of the faith because I believe Romans 3:23 means ALL?

No, but taking a verse out of the context of the rest of the epistle, the Bible and the whole of Sacred Tradition, is very bad indeed. Why? Because it leads to false conclusions upon which people base their faith.

If you were to do a very quick scan of the word “all” in Scripture, you would see that it doesn’t always mean all people at all times everywhere, as those who interpret Romans 3:23 that way want it to mean. It doesn’t mean that. It only means that BOTH Jews, who may think they are exempt, AND Gentiles are sinners not just Gentiles as many Jews wanted to believe. That’s all it means, not that all persons absolutely are sinners merely for being born a human being. If this were so even Jesus would have to classified as a sinner since he was as fully human as you or I.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

That’s interesting, because someone told me in another thread here just today that this doctrine was up for debate, that not all believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Do you believe one that holds that she died normally is not holding to the catholic faith?

From the CCC:

**2853 **Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

**966 **“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

“In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.”

 

[Matt14]

Della:

No, but taking a verse out of the context of the rest of the epistle, the Bible and the whole of Sacred Tradition, is very bad indeed. Why? Because it leads to false conclusions upon which people base their faith.

If you were to do a very quick scan of the word “all” in Scripture, you would see that it doesn’t always mean all people at all times everywhere, as those who interpret Romans 3:23 that way want it to mean. It doesn’t mean that. It only means that BOTH Jews, who may think they are exempt, AND Gentiles are sinners not just Gentiles as many Jews wanted to believe. That’s all it means, not that all persons absolutely are sinners merely for being born a human being. If this were so even Jesus would have to classified as a sinner since he was as fully human as you or I.

Della, do you believe it’s possible for a person to never commit a sin?

The Bible says there is no one alive that can make this claim. It was this way before Mary:

Ecc 7:20 Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.

And it is this way after Mary:

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

If Mary had never committed a sin, this would have been an appropriate place for John to mention an exception, wouldn’t it?

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

From the CCC:

**2853 **Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

**966 **“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

“In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=980421&postcount=75

 

[E.E.N.S]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=980421&postcount=75

I think you may be confusing the Assumption with her Dormition.

 

[ChristianWAB]

katholisch:

I am one of the RCIA coordinators at our parish. Last night in class the evenings’ presenter stated that Mary was without sin all of her life. One person asked where in scripture that statement can be found.
The presenter did not know and neither did I. We want to research this so we can give the class an answer next time. Can anyone point us to the right scripture passage? Thanks

You’ll find mention of a perpetually sinless Mary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only. If you’re looking for it in Scripture, you won’t find it. Scripture doesn’t really get into Mary’s life all that much and, unless I’m much mistaken, it says virtually nothing of what she did following Jesus’ crucifixion.

 

[MariaG]

posted by ChristianWAB

You’ll find mention of a perpetually sinless Mary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only. If you’re looking for it in Scripture, you won’t find it.

Wrong!
As mentioned by others, Go look up “full of Grace” and study that for awhile. And the Bible reference for that would be in the first chapter of Luke.

from CA Library catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

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.

also from CA Library
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Or here from our Church fathers expounding on Mary and her role in the church as the new Eve. Eve being created without sin.

Of particular interest in the following quotations from the Fathers are those that speak of Mary’s immaculate nature. We will all one day be rendered immaculate (sinless), but Mary, as the prototypical Christian, received this grace early. God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

Explicit in the bible? No. But in the Bible none the less as well as discussed by the Early Church.

Maria

 

[Genesis315]

ChristianWAB:

If you’re looking for it in Scripture, you won’t find it. Scripture doesn’t really get into Mary’s life all that much and, unless I’m much mistaken, it says virtually nothing of what she did following Jesus’ crucifixion.

So what? Until you show that all truth is to be found in the Bible, you have no argument

 

[Genesis315]

Also, notice Genesis 3:15 (woohoo) where the same emnity is put between the seed (Jesus) and evil and the woman and evil. Jesus of course was sinless and had perfect enmity between Himself and evil, therefore the woman also has this perfect enmity–the mother of the seed is Mary (it can’t be Eve because we know she sinned, therefore she did not have a perfect hatred of sin).

 

[ChristianWAB]

E.E.N.S.:

If you had the power to create your own mother, would you create her stained with sin, or would you save her from this?

If you had the power to create every human being, would you create them stained with sin, or would you save them from this?

 

[ChristianWAB]

Genesis315:

So what? Until you show that all truth is to be found in the Bible, you have no argument

I was just pointing out a fact about the Bible. I believe that the truth contained within the Bible is sufficient enough that, when heeded, will allow us to eschew eternal damnation. In my heart, respect is held for the mother of Jesus.

I sought not to argue about whether Mary did, in fact, go her whole life without sinning. I was just stating that, to find an explanation on the subject, one would need to forgo the Bible and consult the Catechism, for only those who drafted the Catechism felt that the issue was worth mentioning.

 

[Singinbeauty]

So I have a question…

One of the arguments for Mary’s sinlessness is that the angel says “Hail, full of grace” to Mary when He appears to her… correct? What about this passage…

Acts 6:8-9 (New Living Translation)
8Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed amazing miracles and signs among the people. 9But one day some men from the Synagogue of Freed Slaves, as it was called, started to debate with him. They were Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and the province of Asia.

So does this mean that Stephen was also without sin? This has perplexed me in regards to the catholic reasoning.