Of course. This is why I drew the distinction between St. Stephen and Our Lady. I agree that both were filled with grace at a certain time in their lives, and therefore their sin was washed away: Mary was filled with grace even prior to the Annunciation and St. Stephen -- at his electin as deacon and subsequent martyrdom. (And I was filled with grace this morning along with a couple hundred other people). The inference that Mary was filled with grace since her conception is made because otherwise we have to presume some oher moment in her life when that outpouring of grace had occurred, and the Scripture is silent on that. In the case of St. Stephen it is clear from context that he received the grace because of his faith just like he also received the blessing of martyrdom. Since he was an adult convert like all the deacons and bishops of the Early Church, we cannot presume anything of his life prior to the ordination. However, if you wish to believe, on the strength of the passage in Acts 6, that St. Stephen was sinless all his life, that would be a reasonable, especially for a Bible Alone Christian, interpretation. It just does not happen to come from the Catholic Holy Tradition.
I agree that if we were go by scripture alone, we would have some competing interpretations of Luke 1:28. But we don't go by scripture alone: the Church received the deposit of faith from the Holy Apostles in its entirety, which in due course produced both the New Testament Scripture and the infallible interpretation thereof. My task here as a Catholic is not to deduce the Catholic doctrine from the Scripture but rather explain the Scripture in the light of the doctrine received by the Church from the Holy Spirit directly.
the root caritow means favored, NOT sinless
The root is charis (χαρις), grace. "Favor" is an translation suitable in non-theological contexts; do a parallel search of "grace" in your preferred translation in the New Testament and you will always or nearly always find the Greek original say "χαρις" or an inflection thereof. "κεχαριτωμενη" means something like "engraced". The only reason Prtoestant translations use "favor" is to downplay the significance of Archangel's choice of words. Of course it does not mean "sinless"; sinlessness is an inference, not the text itself.
Romans 3:23
But Noah and, of course, Christ are described in the Scripture as free from sin. We know of sinlessness of others. For example, what sin did the babies massacred by Herod commit? Would not reason compel us to think that a two year old baby cannot sin?
Further look at the context of Romans 3. Not only have "all" sinned, they also do not seek God, none of them is righteous and in fact all are quick to shed blood. It is clear that St. Paul speaks in generalities in that passage. Indeed, the entire passage is a paraphrase of Psalm 14(13). But the next Psalm speaks of righteousless: "He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice: He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour", etc. Romans 3 is to be taken in the same way the relevant psalms are written, as a contrast between the sinful and the righteous, but not as a prooftext of universal sinfulness.
Wow! You are great in your explaaations. Were I only half that knowledgeable!
Thank you. So there is no scriptural claim that Mary was sinless, just an inference running counter to 2000 years of Orthodox tradition.
Mary could have been purified and filled with grace at any time from conception to a second before the angel's visit. We don't know - it is not stated as such.
Would it not be more logical - and consistent - to conclude that Mary was sinful until the point she was filled with grace when she was visited by the angel? She was clearly born with sin (Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12) like all people since Adam (see the Council of Trent).
Clearly this is a case where doctrine is ex scriptura; and in fact it requires conclusions that deny scripture to maintain itself (eternally chaste Mary in face of the overwhelming scriptural evidence to the contrary).
I am not stating this to say that the Catholic Church is evil or corrupting. Rather, I - like all men and all institutions of men in infallible! It's important to realize that; 2 Timothy 3 is quite instructive as well.
This is why we must constantly judge the claims of man against the scripture. When the two are in conflict, scripture simply must trump.
“My task here as a Catholic is not to deduce the Catholic doctrine from the Scripture but rather explain the Scripture in the light of the doctrine received by the Church from the Holy Spirit directly.”
Exactly. You use scripture to prove your views, rather than letting scripture speak for itself via the Holy Spirit.
If one assumes Mary was sinless, then any verse about her can be made to mean that, and any verse saying all have sinned can be made to mean all but Mary. If you assume Purgatory, then you can force it upon scripture.
Protestants just believe that is backwards. And we cannot agree on specific arguments without first determining if Scripture is the rule, or if Catholic teaching is true because it is assumed to be true.