Was Mary without sin all of her life?

[MariaG]

ChristianWAB:

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.

But I hope you can see that while it is not explicit, ie, Mary was born without sin, in the Bible, it is implicit. Full of Grace. And the early Church talked about it at length.

So no, a person does not need to forgo the Bible, it is in there and with proper interpretation, very clear.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mlchance]

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?

Why mention it at all? Neither you nor I nor any of the billions of other people in the world then, now, or tomorrow are the Virgin Mary. Saint John wasn’t writing his epistle to Mary, was he?

Let’s cut straight to the bottom line. There is nothing in Scripture that says the Virgin Mary ever sinned. There is Scripture that be interpreted to infer both her sinlessness and her sinfulness. The question then comes down to whose interpretation is correct, to whose interpretation is authoritative.

Last time I checked, Jesus gave authority over his word to the Apostles and the Apostles’ successors, who are the bishops of the Catholic Church.

Are you a bishop of the Catholic Church? If not, you have no authority to speak against that which the Church has authoritatively defined.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Regarding the church’s teaching on Mary, I have a question… Why did the church have such a hard time coming to the conclusion on some of it’s teachings on Mary? See below…

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe.

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic. But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic.

I am just very curious as to which is the truth… Is the teaching of Mary’s assumption heretical or not?

 

[Genesis315]

Singinbeauty:

Regarding the church’s teaching on Mary, I have a question… Why did the church have such a hard time coming to the conclusion on some of it’s teachings on Mary? See below…

I am just very curious as to which is the truth… Is the teaching of Mary’s assumption heretical or not?

Please provide the actual documents that condemn the Assumption. There was a book written called the Assumption of Mary which people tried to claim was canonical. This book and it’s adherents were declared heretics around the time frame you are mentioning. There were other books condemned as heretical at the same time, one called The Infancy of Chirst and it was about Jesus as a child. So just becuase a book iabout an event is heretical, doesn’t mean the general event is.

 

[Veritas41]

Just to reply to a couple of comments made. Like noted in earlier posts, we don’t have to find the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her sinlessness explicitly mentioned in Scripture for it to be true, since the Bible itself doesn’t claim to have all truth in it. But, there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts this teaching and there are passages that support it. The first mentioned was in Luke 1, where Mary is addressed by the title “Full of grace.” The second is in Genesis 3:15, where God says he will put enmity between the Woman and the Serpent. Enmity means total opposition, which would be difficult for Mary if she had been born with a sinful nature and had sinned during her life. Also, as pointed out by James Cardinal Gibbons in his book, “Faith of Our Fathers,” at the Fall we had a man (Adam), a woman (Eve) and an angel (a fallen one, Satan). At the redemption we had a Man (Jesus), a woman (Mary) and an angel (Gabriel). The first three all sinned, the second three didn’t. If Mary had been the only sinner in the second three, she wouldn’t have quite fit in, would she?

As for the passage in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” I always ask people if they believe unborn children, infants and very young children are capable of personal sin? Millions of humans have died before birth or in infancy or very early childhood, so if this verse is applying to every human without exception, then we must conclude that even these tiniest of humans are guilty of personal sin. So, if we conclude this verse doesn’t apply to everyone without exception who has ever lived, then we can certainly conclude the possibility that Mary could be excluded as well.

John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb (Luke 1:15). It seems if God could do that for St. John, He could do that for His very own Mother.

 

[Genesis315]

Genesis315:

Please provide the actual documents that condemn the Assumption. There was a book written called the Assumption of Mary which people tried to claim was canonical. This book and it’s adherents were declared heretics around the time frame you are mentioning. There were other books condemned as heretical at the same time, one called The Infancy of Chirst and it was about Jesus as a child. So just becuase a book iabout an event is heretical, doesn’t mean the general event is.

I just wanted to add another tidbit. It’s backers also claimed the 'Assumption of Mary" was written by St. John the Apostle, I think, which would also have contributed to why they were in error. Also, when I say canonical, I mean they claimed it was divinely inspired.

 

[mlchance]

Singinbeauty:

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic. But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic.

There’s a commandment against bearing false witness.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Writer]

Genesis315:

I just wanted to add another tidbit. It’s backers also claimed the 'Assumption of Mary" was written by St. John the Apostle, I think, which would also have contributed to why they were in error. Also, when I say canonical, I mean they claimed it was divinely inspired.

Isn’t it true that the assumption of Mary could have taken place after her death? A priest explained that the assumption could be understood either way, and that it is indeed a mystery. If this has already been covered here, I am sorry. I’m short on time and scanned some comments…

 

[Genesis315]

Writer:

Isn’t it true that the assumption of Mary could have taken place after her death? A priest explained that the assumption could be understood either way, and that it is indeed a mystery. If this has already been covered here, I am sorry. I’m short on time and scanned some comments…

Yes, there is no offical Church teaching on whether or not she died. All we know is that at the end of her earthly life she was Assumed body and soul into Heaven.

 

[MariaG]

posted by SinginbeautySo 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…

Quote:
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.

I think your question was missed.

I am not positive, but I think it has to do with the original language it was written in. Although in english it appears to be the same, the text has different implications in Greek.

As well as Stephen was full of God’s grace and Mary was Full of Grace. While we know the grace was from God, there are deeper implications here than just word choices.

But I reprint your question in hopes that someone more knowledgable can answer it or help you to research more on your own.

There is a pamphelet from CA those touches on this, but does specifically address your question. But is the reason I say it probably has something to do with the original writing word choices.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

From CA Library

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.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mlchance]

ChristianWAB:

You’ll find mention of a perpetually sinless Mary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only

.

That must come as an enormous surprise to all of the Orthodox as well as oodles of Christian writers whose words don’t appear in any catechism anywhere.

It’s also be news to Lutherans, at least circa 1580. From the Book of Concord (emphasis added): “That the Son became man in this manner: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, without the cooperation of man, and was born of the pure, holy, and virgin Mary.”

Or there’re the words of Martin Luther himself: "[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[E.E.N.S]

ChristianWAB:

You’ll find mention of a perpetually sinless Mary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church only.

Unless you take into account the faith and writings of the early Church Fathers, for example:

“The Book [the *Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Origen - Commentary on Matthew 2:17 A.D. 248]).