[Mrs. Don-o]

Not so. Mary was preserved from the corruption of Original Sin. As for personal sin, she, though sinless like original-Eve, could have sinned, like Eve, if she had chosen to.

She was a person, not a predestinational sock puppet.

[ealgeone]

Not so. Mary was preserved from the corruption of Original Sin. As for personal sin, she, though sinless like original-Eve, could have sinned, like Eve, if she had chosen to.

Mrs.D...I will say this. Roman Catholicism has done a very good job indoctrinating you.

Sadly though, Roman Catholicism's understanding of the Scriptures on "all have sinned" have not been.

I'll post it again though.

The texts cited by Roman Catholics do not support the claim of sinlessness on Mary's part.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

Roman Catholics like to claim their beliefs are grounded in Scripture. Yet, here we have the CE admitting there is no support in Scripture for the IC.

Even "Tradition" is called into question as some very notable ECFs say Mary sinned.

So obviously this was not a universal teaching passed down from the Apostles.

A serious question. Why do you continue to persist in this belief when the CE admits it is not found in Scripture and is not part of "Apostolic" Tradition?

[metmom]

If God kept her from sinning, she had no choice.

And if she did not have a sin nature and had never sinned, she did not need a Savior nor was she capable of being a recipient of grace. Grace is only in effect when sin is present.

If there is no sin, there is no need for grace.

And grace does not mean sinlessness on our part. God giving us grace is Him giving us what we don’t deserve.

If Mary had no sin nature and did not sin, then she did deserve everything God did for her and what she had was NOT from grace but what God owed her.

Nor was she capable of experiencing the mercy of God.

[MHGinTN]

It is amazing to see so clearly that your imaginings are so real to you, as if truth. Yet THE standard for Truth contradicts your unending assertions from the imaginings of men. The amazing thing is that you are completely unable to see it!

[boatbums]

Not so. Mary was preserved from the corruption of Original Sin. As for personal sin, she, though sinless like original-Eve, could have sinned, like Eve, if she had chosen to. She was a person, not a predestinational sock puppet.

Okay, hypothetical question, then. If Mary had the free will to both sin and refuse the purpose of God for her life, would her "preservation" from original sin (having an inherent sin nature) be revoked? I can't help but see some logical disconnects here not to mention the contradiction of Scripture that tells us clearly ALL humans have sinned and fall short of God's perfect holiness - the ONLY exception being the God/man, Jesus Christ.

When we have NO Scriptural verification for these Marian dogmas developed by the Roman Catholic church, it seems there has been a virtual free-for-all through the years by those devoted to the Virgin Mary to outdo each other in their ecstatic praise, imagination and hyperbole. I've even read statements that say one can NOT honor or praise her too much. Are there any limits? Can you understand why many Christians are taken aback by what clearly comes across as unscriptural and anti-scriptural doctrines where Mary is concerned and the appearance of the "sharing" of glory that belongs to God alone?

I do honor Mary and respect her faith and example. She is truly blessed among women and will be for eternity. Just because the Marian dogmas are rejected it doesn't mean the true Mary is hated, dishonored or insulted. I certainly don't and I have yet to read any comments from others that they do, yet, that is the impression many have communicated when any disagreement is expressed by non-Catholics. I sincerely hope that we can avoid offending each other over doctrinal differences in the future.