Do Catholics believe Mary was sinless?

Most things can be traced to a writing or a tradition. Was this an oral tradition? An assumption because no sins were mentioned in Biblical text? Otherwise, where did this belief originate?

Yes, Catholics believe Mary was entirely without sin, due to God’s grace and her complete cooperation with that grace. This is part of the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles.

Can you say more about the Deposit of Faith? Is this an essential teaching of the Church or is it debated?

Yes Mary was born without sin by the merits and grace of Her Son Jesus Christ. At Lourdes she gave the name “I am the Immaculate Conception” it is part of Her very person.

Adam and Eve were sinless and fell

Christ the new Adam and Mary the new Eve were both sinless and glorified God the Father.

It is a doctrine of the Church, to which all Catholics must give assent. BTW, the Orthodox also believe that Mary was without sin.

THis is all assumed by her being the mother of Christ. There is no doctrine that says this or Christ did not say this correct? It is assumed? Not to imply that it is untrue

I think the best summary of the history and theology of this teaching can be found in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (by Pope Pius-12). This is what dogmatically defines the teaching, and it cites many sources.

No, it is not assumed, it was taught by God to the Apostles.

Taught by God through spoken word or inspiration? Not looking to tear anything down just real apologetics. I hope I’m not coming across disrespectfully about the blessed mother.

Sorry, didn’t see that post. I’ll read that with the hope I can understand it.

Both, I’d imagine, but Catholic teaching does not distinguish between the two.

This is a topic that has been discussed in many threads here … did you conduct a search? You really should …

You will find discussion centered upon the biblical passage “Hail, Full of Grace…” … Mary was “Full” of grace because she was preserved from the stain of ‘original sin’ by Christ at the moment of her conception and remained free of personal sin … the Angel’s greeting and the theology is discussed in great detail in many threads …

The Early Church Father’s came to understand that Mary was the Mother God and appropriately addressed as such during the debates centered aorund the heresay over whether Jesus was only a Man [Human]; only God [Divine] or both [Fully Human and Fully God] …

The Doctrine was ‘codified’ [for lack of a better term] on December 8th, 1854 … but it was believed from the earliest …

All of these points - plus the teachings and beliefs of many of the original protestant reformers [Luther Calvin and Zwingli for example] held that Mary was sinless and perpetually a virgin - also discussed in many threads

In these threads are a multitude of quotes and links to articles and refences …

Read the threads, go to you local library and read about the subject - and have fun doing so :slight_smile: - Good Luck :thumbsup:

I get it…

Drop the subject. Do your own research and don’t ask those kinds of questions about our faith.

No Problem. Moving on…

I don’t think that’s what they were suggesting. You are more than welcome to ask. Yada was just saying that there is an enormous wealth of discussion and information on the topic already on the forum that can be accessed with the search feature. Sometimes prior posters have expressed thoughts and linked to other websites that we don’t know about, so it’s always a good idea to do a search on a topic. I do it all the time. The main part of the website, probably has a lot of information on this too since it is a very important dogma.

Actually it’s in the Bible: Genesis 3:15. Sorry that you got a bad impression.

I read the Papal Bull and I saw what the Pope at the time had to say about it. For me it’s a stretch but I’m not bound by those rules of being required to believe every Papal Bull. I love so much about Catholicism. I just have a hard time when there are things that I can’t believe but I would have to believe it anyway to be a “true” Catholic. Anyway, that part’s of topic. God Bless.

I realize the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not defined and made “official” until the 20th century, so I can understand if you get hung up on that being so long after Christ’s time on earth. There are actually many doctrines that have been believed all along, but never put into an official context as something that must be believed by all the faithful until later on. Sometimes that comes when a belief is challenged, such as Christ’s divinity, which was challenged by the Arians. Obviously Christians believed that from the beginning, but it wasn’t made an “official” doctrine until there was a challenge to it in the 4th century.

What Catholics believe about the Immaculate Conception is that Mary pre-emptively, so to speak (since God is outside of the restraints of time), received the merits of Christ’s sacrifice at the moment of her conception, so that she was born without the sin of Adam and Eve. In that way, she could be the perfect, spotless Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus) and carry our Savior (who of course was completely without sin) inside her womb. Would, or could, God have had an unclean Ark for his Son?

Also, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, but as Catholics we don’t have to believe every Papal Bull. We are only required to believe things that have been infallibly defined. Just an FYI.

How is the Immaculate Conception a “stretch”?

Christ applied His merits to Her at the moment of Her conception.

Look at the bible. Before His death, Christ showed His glory on the mountian at the Transfiguration.

At the Last Supper, He gave His body and blood in anticipation of His Sacrifice on the Cross.

He walked on water, changed water into wine,

Christ has power over all things and he could apply his merits when and where he wanted.

Consider yourself corrected. Catholics are expected to believe (or, at least, accept) everything that the Church authoritatively teaches. The distinction of whether a particular doctrine has been defined “infallibly” is really of interest only to theologians.

I’m not sure what “Papal Bull” is being referenced. A Bull is a fairly low-level teaching. If you are referring to MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, then that’s an Apostolic Constitution (the highest level of Papal teaching). FWIW, the subtitle of the Constitution is, “Defining the dogma of the Assumption.” The term “dogma” indicates that this is to be regarded as an infallible teaching,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit