The citation for that sentence points to John 8:46, which could certainly be used as a prooftext for Christ's sinlessness, but not the idea that sinlessness is his exclusive prerogative.
So your church has a major error in its teaching? Men can be sinless?
"Only Christ is sinless on his own account. Mary was rendered sinless on account of a prevenient action of God, applying Christ's future merits and perfection to her. Mary did no work to make her a sinless vehicle for God-in-the-flesh. It was purely on account of God's grace, and the work of Christ, that Mary was made sinless.
That means Mary sinned as do all men, but she was declared righteous by a work of Christ as are all born again, (saved) men,http://www.churchyear.net/ic.html
2 Corinthians 6 >> 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 Peter 2 >> 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
Hebrews 10 >> 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our [1] conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
2 Corinthians 5 is about the sinless life of Christ.
This is YOUR Catechism. It was vetted by the Magestrum and pope that acts infallibly in matters of faith according to you.
If they are wrong here, perhaps they are wrong elsewhere.
578 Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments".330He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.331 On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts.332 This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."333
579 This principle of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many Jews of Jesus' time to an extreme religious zeal.334 This zeal, were it not to lapse into "hypocritical" casuistry,335 could only prepare the People for the unprecedented intervention of God through the perfect fulfillment of the Law by the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.336
580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son.337 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".338 Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant".339
"............. 582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ."346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor,348 which his own healings did."
Here is the bottom line. Only one that never sinned could take the sin and the curse on himself , Mary could not have done that because like all the saints she was freed from the guilt of sin ONLY through the death of Christ.
She was a sinner like all of us, to be consistent in its doctrine in this area is a problem for your church
T:Like a laser as always !
She was a sinner like all of us, to be consistent in its doctrine in this area is a problem for your church
Amen!
My husband said he stopped being a Catholic when he realized the church doesn't really believe many of its own teachings.
As an altar boy he said he learned that although sins are supposedly forgiven through the confessional, it is not necessary that the confessional be utilized.
Imagine that, he reasoned. Men can actually seek and receive forgiveness from the only mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.
The jig was up.
Typical response.
“She was a sinner like all of us, to be consistent in its doctrine in this area is a problem for your church.”
Hmmm, no. She IS the Mother of God. She committed no sin in her time on this earth. There is not problem with the Catholic teaching of this mystery. The problem lies with those who are ignorant; willingly or unwillingly so.
The catechism is not an infallible document.
It expresses infallible teachings, but there are certainly errors in it.
It's been through a couple of editions, you know. They don't make new editions of something that's already perfect.
Yes it is the Catholic Catechism, but I fail to see how you don't see that the two statements (Paragraph 578 and the statement from the other website, here) aren't contradictory.
Paragraph 578 states that it was by Jesus' own ability He was able to be free of all sin, but rather, the statement from the website clearly states that the only reason Mary was able to stay sinless was because of God (Jesus), NOT Her own ability. So there's no contradiction.
Also, the reason this all started was because you compared two catechisms with each other, the newer one today (cited here and the Baltimore Catechism cited here). The Baltimore Catechism is older, thus, not as complete in its explaination as the newer.
Now I'll grant you you can make a case similar to the one above you did using the newer Catechism alone, however, this again does not help your case as the relevant portion from the new agrees entirely with the statement from the other website you posted above.
You probably won't accept this rebuttal, but I'm posting this anyway for others' benefit and also mine (so I can save these links at home; I've always meant to get an online copy of the Baltimore Catechism but never got around to it. hehe)
By the way, this is a perfect example of what Campion was saying when he said the Catechism as a whole is not infallible. That is, as a document unto itself it is not infallible; only the doctrines/dogmas DESCRIBED there are infallible. Depending on what version you read (unless it's the latest, and probably even in the latest, although no serioius ones have been detected yet; however I suppose one could make a case for 578 compared to 492 in terms of unintentional ambiguity), there are bound to be errors, not in previously stated doctrine/dogma, and not even necessarily in grammar or pronunciation (although there can be those), but in the WAY the dogmas/doctrines are DESCRIBED, by the authors and editors of the Catechism, (NOT the original infallible pronouncements the descriptions are sourced from but the descriptions themselves), there can be mis interpretations (as you have done) of the sentences, words, paragraphs, etc.
This points to a need for a LIVING Magisterium (not merely words on a page, but actual, living human teachers) even more. Thanks for helping point that out. ;)
That means Mary sinned as do all men, but she was declared righteous by a work of Christ as are all born again, (saved) men,...
I don't see how it means that she sinned. What it explicitly says is that, through no work of her own she was made sinless by "prevenient" grace. How does it mean she sinned?
Here is the bottom line. Only one that never sinned could take the sin and the curse on himself , Mary could not have done that because like all the saints she was freed from the guilt of sin ONLY through the death of Christ.
Yes. Correct. No argument there. She was sinless, as the above quoted passage says, through the grace of God and the work of Christ.
When we say it's all gift, and our interlocutors don't believe that we mean it, what can we do? We keep saying "full of Grace" and we are told we MUST mean full of good works. We say, the declaration (name slips my mind) of the Immaculate Conception explicitly says Mary was made sinless through the grace of Christ. And to Him and to the Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit always be the glory.
BTW, this is an incorrect view of the atonement, one popular among Protestants but which Catholics rightfully reject.
It actually minimizes what Christ really did, and makes the atonement less that what it was.
St. Anselm argued that every sin is an infinite insult to the Divine majesty, and requires an infinite propitiation. He further argues that only an infinite person, that is, a Divine person, could offer an infinite propitiation.
Hence the atonement did not merely require a person who was sinless, but a Person who is Divine.
This is aside from the fact that Mary was sinless only through God's grace, not by her own power. According to St. Anselm's argument, even if there had been a human person available who was without sin by their own power (notice: Mary does not qualify), his death would not have been sufficient to completely atone for the sins of anyone else, much less everyone else.