It is not at all unheard-of for a person to receive the Holy Spirit and be saved in their mother's womb (John the Baptist did; Isaiah and Jeremiah too, since they were made prophets in their mothers' wombs, and the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets.) In this manner, they foreshadowed or paralleled her. Did they or did they not receive the Holy Spirit as embryos and fetuses?
Like them, Mary was saved in the womb. And, as is fitting, to an even more wonderful degree: she was free from sin from her very conception, from when she was a zygote.
Prenatal reception of God's grace is a pro-life Biblical theme, my friend!
We say this because of the wonderful and unparalleled title the very angel of God gave her: Kecharitomene. The angel didn't call her "full of sin". He called her "full of grace". So Biblically, he did not address her as a sinner, but quite the contrary as one full of grace. And this was before she even became pregnant with God's Baby.
All glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, her Savior and ours.
No He didn't. He called her "favored with grace". Only Jesus and Stephen were referred to as "full of grace".
They did not.
You are a very kind person, I can tell from your soft and almost endearing remarks. Please do not take my severe remarks as directed in any way toward you. It is this veneration of Mary, which I (and many others) find absent in the Scriptures but ubiquitous in the Catholic organization. It is both unwarranted and dangerous. You may view us as disrespectful (or worse, attackers), but at least several here are concerned for the safety of those who pay inordinate attention to a human.
That being said, the great majority of the information posited by Roman Catholics (not just here at FR) claims Mary is a "Co-Redemptrix", a Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God, a Woman who is sinless. This is all patently incorrect. Nowhere does she assist in salvation, but Roman Catholics claim she does. These claims provide a framework wherein one is encouraged to view some humans above others, an error Paul and David debunk as untrue. There is none who are good, no not one. There is none righteous. There is none who understand (their true plight and God's real holiness). There is none who seek God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3)
If Mary was made righteous in the "womb" (a claim which is not mentioned in the Scriptures), then so was Jacob (Rom. 9). And, pre-dating Mary, he ought to earn a higher rank than her. But, Jesus put Mary in a very utilitarian perspective, noting that the crowd to which He spoke was more His mother than Mary, at that moment. Actually, according to Jesus, anyone who did His will was his mother (Matt. 12:46ff). How then does the Romanist organization claim that this woman demands extraordinary veneration ("hyperdulia") as "the most exalted of creatures"? Even under their own rules John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Jacob deserve equal veneration. This is all nonsense. Isaiah was man of unclean lips living among a people of unclean lips (Is. 6). Sinless because he was a prophet selected before birth? What happened along the way?
And, further, when called on this error, Catholics sort of, "Aw shucks, we don't really mean that she is all that. She is just all that, but not really all that." It's like trying to nail jello to a tree. Is she venerated as a Co-Redemptrix, the Co-Savior of the world, or is she "just a woman"? Because, yes, all the glory must go, and only go, to Jesus Christ the Messiah from Israel, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Great I Am, Yahweh, El-Shaddai, the Blessed Hope of Israel. There is no other...no other...no other.
There's not a single verse of Scripture that states that.
And being saved, does not mean automatically free from sin.
You can be saved and still sin. It's part of being human.
So since, Mary could (allegedly) be conceived sinless in the womb of a sinful mother and (allegedly) remain sinless for the rest of her life, although still in contact with her sinful mother for the entire 9 months of gestation, then why couldn't it have happened for Jesus being born of a sinful mother.
The same way God protected Mary would have worked to protect Jesus, if indeed the sin nature is absorbed by contact or osmosis.
But it's not. It comes from the father.
So there is no requirement for Mary to be sinless in order to carry Jesus.