If Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless Jesus, then wouldn’t Mary’s Mother also had to have been sinless? If not, then why would Mary have to be Sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless? Thanks!
No, the comparision fails as for a start the Theotokos was a created being unlike her son who was both God and man.
Can you elaborate please?
The Church does not teach that our Lady “had to be” sinless, but that it was “fitting” (See Ineffabilis Deus, para. 2).
As Jharek pointed out, great as our Lady’s dignity is, our Lord’s is infinitely greater; therefore it is appropriate for the Mother of our Lord to receive higher privileges than the mother of our Lady.
Picture the accoutrements the priest uses at Mass. The veil covering the chalice he treats with care, but the chalice with even greater care because of what it contains and comes into contact with.
The theotokos is a created being and not a deity, she is the greatest of created beings in her role as the second Eve but she remains a creation whereas her son was both true God and man. The doctrine of the immaculate conception applies to Mary but that is only in relation to her. There is no need for all her ancestors to be sinless and indeed Christ’s ancestors in the House of David and other parts of his family tree include people who committed sins of all sorts. As pointed out Mary is sinless because it i fitting in her role as the Ark of the Covenant (in which she replaces the older ark) and because of what she carried.
Mary did not inherit her sinlessness from her mother and Jesus did not inherit His sinlessness from his Mother. Mary was conceived sinless because she was to be the earthly Mother of God’s DIVINE Son. She is the New Eve! The new Spiritual Mother of all. Eve was created sinless, but she failed. Mary was conceived sinless and she was faithful to her Heavenly Creator. She fully co-operated with God to bring us our Savior. That’s why Catholics love, honor and seek her help in our daily lives. We do NOT worship Her as some accuse us of doing. God Bless, Memaw
Okay thanks guys. I thought the Doctorine stated that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless in order to give birth to a sinless Jesus. I know I have heard a Catholic state that in the past, but perhaps he did so in error.
St. Thomas Aquinas said, “original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father.”
This is correct… Mary is more like us than like God… infinitely so.
Well… no one’s perfect…not even the good Dr. Aquinas…what an absurd notion.
Mary didn’t have to be sinless and she didn’t have to be a virgin. It is simply fitting that the mother of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings should be spotless and pure.
The logic that it is fiiting works for Mary being sinless, but not for her virginity… as being a virgin has no connection to a married worman being spotless and pure. In other words, a married woman who does not have sex, is no more ‘spotless and pure’ than a married woman that has sex. Having sex is actually part of the vocation of marriage…
Anyway, I’m not arguing against Mary’s virginity…She did not have to be a virgin… that’s just the way it was.
Being a virgin is higher than not being a virgin. This is visible about the dogma that the sate of virginity is higher then marriage and by Johns apocalypse (about the 144000).
Also it was a prediction that a virgin will born the messiahs, so it was necessary for Mary to be a virgin.