Elsie:
Mary being “sinless” was not the result of her nature, it was the result of God’s Providence and Grace which overshadowed her and empowered her to receive Christ without ever hearing him, or being preached to by the Apostles, etc.
So God was sinless because he is Divine by Nature, encapable of sin, Mary was made pure and Holy by God’s Grace. And this is where again Catholicism, and the Orthodox understanding of Grace, and the Reformed, assuming that is the tradition you follow, part ways. In the Catholic understanding, Grace is given to and infused into the inner man, and God’s Grace results in a “real communion of Love” transforming the sinner into the image of man before the fall, this is what many of the epistles refer to, 2 Peter 1:3-4 “partake divine nature”, the 1st Episte of John 3:2 “we will be like him” and St. Paul Phillipians 3:20-21 “will change our lowly bodies to conform with his glorfied body”
On this question, Catholics and Orthodox part ways with Reformed theology which is a legalist forensic system of Grace, God only covers me, but there is no room for real communion of Love. How can a God that only covers me be a God that wants to enter into a real communion with us.
And Mary is the only woman who gaive birth to a Divine Son and thus God’s special Grace only was extended to her and given that I don’t believe that Mary had any other children, that is where it stopped, not that it would apply anyway as God giving a special Grace to Mary does not mean he gave it to any “hypothetical kids” that you think she had [and again, she did not have any other kids] and no I don’t need you to post the scripture passages about James the brother of Lord, or those other passages. The word brother had many meanings in that culture and nowhere do we read, they were Mary’s Kids.
There we differ, for I can read.
I feel that your 'belief' in this matter is colored by your organizations teaching on the subject: the NECESSITY to keep Mary 'sinless'.
God is no respecter of persons; that He should give Mary any 'special' grace.
There is nothing sinful in begeting children.
Then do not READ the following; as I'm sure that OTHERS may be interested in what the BIBLE plainly states.
Jesus had "brothers and sisters", as reported in Mark[3] 6:3[4] and Matthew 13:55–56.[5] The canonical Gospels name four brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, but only James is otherwise known. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",[6] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem[3] and Jesus' relatives may have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.[7]
The literal interpretation of what is written in the New Testament is that Jesus' siblings were children either of Joseph or of Mary or of both. That they were children of both was accepted by some members of the early Christian church, including Tertullian.[8] The orthodox later labelled upholders of this view as "Antidicomarianites" ("Anti-Mary"), when it was represented by Bonosus (bishop), Jovinian, and various Arian teachers such as Photinus. When Helvidius proposed it in the 4th century, Jerome, apparently representing the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin; he held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of her sister, another Mary, whom he considered the wife of Clopas.[8][9] The terms "brothers" and "sisters" as used in this context are open to different interpretations,[10] and have been argued to refer to children of Joseph by a previous marriage (the view of Epiphanius of Salamis), Mary's sister's children (the view of Jerome), or children of Clopas, who according to Hegesippus was Joseph's brother,[11] and of a woman who was not a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (a modern proposal).[8] Certain critical scholars say that the doctrine of perpetual virginity has obscured recognition that Jesus had siblings.[12]