Immaculate Conception

A commenter on NBC for today’s canonization, I think her name is Kathleen, said that Jesus was the only human being who didnt sin. Isn’t Mary the other one who didn’t sin?

I guess we could forgive her since its Divine Mercy Sunday. :wink: I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue during the course of a different dialogue. I can’t imagine any new Dogma was defined by NBC. What do you think?

A reporter for a secular new media made a mistake :rotfl: … somehow that doesn’t surprise me…

as another poster said… it is Divine Mercy Sunday :smiley:

This is commonly held Protestant view. Perhaps it is that the commentator is Protestant.

Jesus’ not sinning is fundamentally different than Mary 's though. Right?

The only one we know of, yes.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that being “blameless before the Lord” is not the same as being sinless. But if one were to want to make that equation, a quick Bible search would show several folks who were:

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=blameless&qs_version=NIV

Yes, Jesus’ sinlessness is different from Mary’s.

As a** human **person, Mary was subject to original sin but God intervened; she needed to be “saved”. God did this by infusing the life of sanctifying grace into her soul at the moment of her conception; thus she was “immaculately conceived” free from original sin.

As the 2nd Person of the Trinity, Jesus was never subject to original sin. He did not have to be “saved” from it. His very Person is “life” – it is IN Him, He did not need to have it infused from the outside.

There have been millions!!!

Any Baptized person who dies before reaching the age of reason (discernment) dies without sin.

Anyone to whom the Grace of Baptism is imparted by martyrdom (Baptism of Blood) dies without sin.

It isn’t “blameless before the Lord” that is the support for her sinlessness. It’s the fact that she is κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē).

Yes, I am 100% with you.

Sometimes the argument is made that Mary could not have been without sin because “there are none that are righteous/blameless, no not one…” (Rom 3:10). This verse gets slung around by folks who might not be aware that Paul was actually quoting Psalm 14, which talks about evil doers and the righteous who contrast them. A simple word search in biblegateway (or any other searchable format) shows a mind-boggling number of people in the Bible who are righteous and/or blameless…much to the surprise of a person who had just thought that “there are none who are righteous…no not one” which was their “proof” that Mary could not have been without sin. :slight_smile:

And of course, it’s convenient to point out that baptized babies are also without sin…especially to a protestant who doesn’t believe they need baptism to begin with, because “babies can’t sin”. :wink:

:slight_smile: Sometimes I wish the forums had a “like” button.

I’ll give you another one:

St Padre Pio :smiley:

Well, he never claimed it but apparently those who knew him best did :slight_smile: I believe it

Not according to St. Augustine. He reasoned in his Confession that he sinned as an infant in his mother’s arms.

-Tim-

St. Augustine was the original Peck’s Bad Boy, and he was also precocious. So it’s not unreasonable to think that he achieved the age of reason a little quicker than most; and a Roman was an “infans” until after he was done nursing. Two or three years old and able to sin? Probably not impossible.

That said, St. Augustine was not infallible, and just because he thought he had sinned back then doesn’t mean he did. If being ashamed of rulebreaking and meanness equaled the capacity to sin, there’d be a lot of shamed and sinning dogs out there.

Even if that were true (I haven’t checked) and St. Augustine were correct, it would be venial. There is no way an infant can form perfect knowledge, understanding, and intent.

I don’t see how it matters. Everyone contracts the consequence of the fall. The children before the age of reason are bought into the world in this state-original sin.

Before the age of reason they are not understanding of their actions.

So Augustine is talking about actual sin, not original sin.

So when the argument is made that Mary could not have been without sin, what sin are we talking about and how is this in relation to the Incarnation of the Word of God.

They are left to explain this, and unless they have “another” doctrine aside from the LOoooonnng standing Hypostatic Union, Nature of Christ, Mother of God, Baptism. Then they have “new” doctrine.

God has no sin, never did, never will, Mary was sanctified “sinless” in order to be the God Bearer who IS sinless. Pretty much the story of mans redemption.

So Mary could not have been without sin, leave’s you to resolve the Incarnation of the Word of God.

The idea Mary was a vessel and sinner that God passed through like a straw while not touching sin, is illogical and heresy.

Last, No-Where does Mary being a sinner appear in scripture. So historically and Biblically I see no valid argument. Perhaps a long drawn out debate, but not with merit.

Even evangelical fringe outskirt protestants believe in “sanctification” by God as the elect. They call it “amazing grace” she was “sanctified”.

Let’s not forget Venial sins are still sins! They separate us from God! You just don’t need to go to the confessional for forgiveness.

I tend to hear a lot Venial sins being equated to nothing!

You suffer in purgatory if you die with venial sin

You go through purgatory if you are not completely removed from all attachment to sin. Not just if you have venial sins, but if you are not a full blown saint.

The act of contrition in mass is where we receive Gods forgiveness from venial sins.

Yeah :smiley: temporal punishment :stuck_out_tongue:

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