Was Mary Sinless?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]

However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).

When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,

Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]

Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]

Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,

If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]

However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:

His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]

This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:

His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]

As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.

As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.

	Well, i stopped after 237 posts were made in about 2 hours. I would not consider the posted subject to really be a matter of salvation, but behind it is the foundational issue of authority, that of the only objective source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by God, (2Tim. 3:16) separated from the rest of tradition which class it is part of, versus an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), it being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly declared formula. Scripture has been employed here by Catholics, but their use of it cannot infer they see it as the means of ascertaining truth, as certainty can only come by implicit trust in the AIM, and by which a superior unity is claimed. That all being another debate, I went through and selected a representative sample from each side out of the many posts i saw, which i will try to place side by side with my brief comments. This also provides some idea of how different poster respond. Some simply reiterate the claims of their faith, or unsubstantiated views, or sometimes with a slew of links, while others provide some Scripture texts, and perhaps ancient testimony, with varying degrees of reasoning and responses, and some respond with indignation, immediately or after some of the preceding.
	Roman Catholic	Protestant	Comment
1	Luke 1:48 “Because He hath regarded the humility of His Handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” being full of grace allows no room for sin.	Mary herself offered a guilt offering to the priest. Christs line goes through Rahab The OT is all about CHRIST, not His mother..the ark was a type of CHRIST.	From what i see only Jn. 1:14 states that Jesus was “full [plērēs, which is used 17 times, all denoting “full”] of grace [charis=grace] The key phrase in Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6) Robertson’s states that, Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer). As for the underlying argument, see further below.
2	Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ. He saved her.	"All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"	It is true that “all” is not always inclusive, but many texts state that all men are sinners, and this the Holy Spirit is faithful to state more than once that Jesus did not sin. (Jn. 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:220
3	Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant -- carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless.	Using that logic, it would be logical to conclude that Mary's mother was sinless as well. We couldn't have the sinless "Ark of the Covenant" be carried in the womb of a sinful human, could we?	While the typology in this case might be permissible, though it is not mentioned (neither is Joseph in the O.T. as a type of Christ), the logic behind it limits God (below).
4	He needed a sinless vessel to bring the Savior	In Luke 2:47 Mary says “And my Spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”	The foundational logic necessitating a sinless vessel is not valid. If the God-breathed word of God came through sinners, then the word made flesh certainty can as well.
5	It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. . If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin.	1 john 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, Actually the Catholic church itself teaches that only Jesus could keep the whole law perfectly..and THAT is a description of sinless:)	The idea that man is born guilty due to something he did not do is one i do not subscribe to. (2Ki. 14:5-6; 2Chr. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; Eze.18:20) Adam;s sin did lead to condemnation, that of his own and his progeny due to man having and yielding to his a sinful nature, (Gn. 4:7) and he also and suffers the temporal effects if Adam's sin, but the final judgment is based upon one's own works. (Rev. 20:12) And one can be filled with their Holy Spirit, which is an aspect of grace, and yet be a sinner. And as argued below, if John the Baptist was made free from sin before birth, then God could have done the same for all.
6	So God didn't have the power to absolve her as has been described in Catholic canons?	If God could have simply absolved Mary's sin, He could do it for everyone. Then there would have been no need for Jesus to die.	The first part of the Protestant is valid, but God forgave sins prior to Jesus death under the rubric of the final atonement.
7	Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”?	if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here,	And consistent. (see #2),.
8	You should be concerned about YOUR salvation since you choose to disparage the Mother of Christ. She is much more active than a lot of other saints.	Making up stories about her being sinless, immaculately conceived, perpetually virgin, assumed and whatever else their fancy conjures up, and passing them off as truth does no one any favors,	Not thinking of any man of women beyond what is written is Scriptural. (1Cor. 4:6) The idea that the Bible supports prayers to the departed, or that Mary is capable of or needed to hear prayer is without warrant and is contrary to what is instructed and exampled in the Bible.
9	If Mary simple prodding of her son Jesus caused him to do something he originally did not intend to do and yet did it. That is Love for ones Mother and speaks wonders to have Mary petitioning Jesus for you	Mary's not the only woman who seems to have convince Jesus to do what he had not intended.	P response is valid, while the idea that we need a heavenly mother is a psychological and not a Biblical one. No insufficiency exists with Christ in terms of access or ability or compassion than would necessitate or advantage praying to heavenly intercessor.
10	Hey, if you find happiness by trashing the Mother of Our Lord and Savior, I won’t stand in the way.
11	The Catholic Church herself admits that much of Mariology lacks scriptural support. Fine.” Really I missed that update		Perhaps "The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there are “no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” is one that was meant. (Frederick G. Holweck, “The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), vol. 7, p. 242 http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception#II._THE_HOLY_SCRIPTURE
12	I do not intend to participate in yet another forum established for the sole purpose of giving you a platform for blaspheming the Blessed Virgin and Catholic baiting	Catholics are bashing God’s Word by their tradition of Mary and all their accolades the RCC bestows on her which are not in Scripture.
13	They have gone too far and I only appeal to God for mercy on their behalf for I will no longer be party to their sin.
14	The first time I've ever been this ticked off to leave. If I would have been in the same room with you, you'd be in the hospital, and I would be in jail.
15	I’ve got news for you. If you are a baptized Catholic you are still a Catholic even though you may not presently be a practicing one.		Serving two master would provide a false statistic on membership. “If someone lives an unrepentant sinful life and stops going to Mass, etc., this person is technically a de facto apostate, and is no longer really a member of the Catholic Church.” But as often is the case, formally it is not that simple. http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/how_to_stop_being_catholic.htm

No Mary was human and born of man and woman and like all of us sinned. Christ tells us something interesting.

Matt ch 12 46As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers were outside, wanting to talk with him. 47Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you.” 48Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 49Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “These are my mother and brothers. 50Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”

What does Paul say about sin?

Romans Ch 3 22We are made right in God’s sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done. 23For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins. 25For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.

Only three beings we know for certain existed before the Creation of this world. GOD, Christ, and The Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity.

A verse in scripture shows Christ saying to His Disciple John here is your mother and to Mary saying here is your son. He only said it to John not even to Peter. Why? Because in those times widows were basically left to poverty and the mercy of the Temple which at that time used them. John took Mary into his home and I believe the significance of that was honoring The Ten Commandments. Honor Thy Father and Mother. This was to make certain His Disciples did not let her live in desolation which was common in that day for someone in her position.

Mary is our Sister In Christ just as Peter, James, John, Paul, Sister Belle and Brother Smith at church are our brothers, sisters, and mothers.

Luke ch 11 v 27 also tells us who is more blessed. Mary was blessed indeed above all women but she was also human. The first chapter of Luke says plainly whom Mary is. She was a human being born of a man and woman. Because she believed GOD would do what He said He would do she gave physical birth to the Savior of Mankind. Indeed an honor for her and a blessing for her and all mankind to come.

Mary needed Christ for her salvation. Why? Because she lived when Christ came. Her righteousness came from her obedience to GOD up to that point as Luke ch 1 states. However that doesn't mean being without sin. Example is Abraham. A sinner if one ever existed. Yet Abrahm was righteous because of his faith and finally after several stumbles his obedience to GOD.

Luke ch 1 42Elizabeth gave a glad cry and exclaimed to Mary, “You are blessed by God above all other women, and your child is blessed. 43What an honor this is, that the mother of my Lord should visit me! 44When you came in and greeted me, my baby jumped for joy the instant I heard your voice! 45You are blessed, because you believed that the Lord would do what he said.” 46Mary responded, “Oh, how I praise the Lord. 47 How I rejoice in God my Savior!

Now take the verse "45You are blessed, because you believed that the Lord would do what he said.” and then remember what Christ said in Luke ch 11 27As he was speaking, a woman in the crowd called out, “God bless your mother—the womb from which you came, and the breasts that nursed you!” 28He replied, “But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.”

Elizabeth the Priest wife understood this & Mary understood it as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.