Mary and Original Sin

I’m having a hard time understanding why God needed to redeem Mary of her original sin at her conception. Why was it important that Jesus be born from a woman who was redeemed of original sin?

Here’s the simple answer, I’m sure others will elaborate more.

Adam and Eve where created without original sin.
Christ is the New Adam, Mary is the new Eve.
So using typology, neither Christ, nor Mary, had orginal sin.

God Bless

I think we can only speculate on this. My feeling is that because Jesus is the perfect unification of the divine nature and the human nature, then God would choose to unite perfect human nature, as he originally designed it, with his perfect divine nature. It was fitting that the “ingredients” of the Incarnation be perfect and undefiled. It makes no sense for Christ to unite fallen human nature with perfect divine nature. Christ is among other things a sign and a reality of how things will be in heaven, and in heaven it will be perfect humans, not imperfect ones, who are united with perfect divinity.

Sure, I expect God could have done it with a sinful Mary, but then the symbolism would have been all wrong. In a sense then, if Mary had been fallen, Jesus would not have drawn his human nature from her at all, because his perfect human nature would not have been Mary’s fallen human nature. The entire Incarnation would have been a fake.

Thanks for the replies…I’m starting to understand now.

Let me ask YOU something:
**Why did the Ark of the old Covenant have to be blessed and purified? Why was is not even to be touched - by penalty of death? **All it carried were SYMBOLS of God. Stone tablets, manna, Moses’ staff.

NOW let me ask you - WHY wouldn’t Mary have to be purified before she ACTUALLY carried GOD within her? NOT a symbol - but our ACTUAL LORD and GOD.
To me - this is a no-brainer.

Now THAT is an Explanation! Thanks for that. Very good.

Did God NEED to do this?

I don’t think so.

Did He choose to do it?


don’t forget that this is also the argument from logic that defends Mary’s perpetual virginity. Only the high priest was allowed into the tabernacle… and Jesus is the High Priest of the New Covenant. As such, no one else could ever be in the womb of Mary without defiling her as the new Ark of Covenant.

Another thought is that Mary didn’t NEED to be perfect from conception, but that it was fitting for God to do that for his mother. If you could create your mother wouldn’t you have wanted to create her perfect and without sin? Well, God DID create His mother, so fittingly, He created her perfect and without sin.

Is that how Joseph died? He touched Mary by accident (like Uzza)?

Was Mary ever taken captive by the phillistines for 7 months?

Did Joseph ever dance naked in front of Mary, like David did in front of the Ark? :o
(sorry could’nt resist)

How far should typology go?

You’re closer than you think with the sarcasm…

After the Ark was gotten back by David’s armies, it was sent up into the hill country for 3 months…Mary, the ark of the New Covenant went up into the hill country to visit her relative Elizabeth for 3 months…

Joseph didn’t dance in front of Mary…but…
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s voice, the babe in her womb leaped for joy…So, it was John the Baptist that danced (leaped), not Joseph.

Get a good book on typology and you’d be amazed what of the OT is revealed in the New…

The problem is, you don’t have your own answer to that question. At least, not an answer that is more than a personal opinion. Whereas we have the full revelation given to the Church to answer that question.

And babies in the womb are naked… :smiley:

Sorry, the problem is typology, Mystical Theology, rationalized theology, and tradition that contradicts scripture and has nullified the word of God.


There you go again kaycee. Why do you bother coming here to tell us that we are wrong? You are wasting your time. You also twist Scripture and I shall quote Peter,

2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish and at peace. And count the forbearance of Our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. THere are some things in them hard to understand, which the IGNORANT (you) and the unstable (YOU) twist to their own destruction, as they do other Scripture.

I don’t understand why do come here. You apparently want us to leave the Catholic and go with the two pillars of Protestantism Bible Alone and Faith Alone. You can’t convince us.

In your religion there is no unity. That is why in your Protestant Tradition, you have gay bishops in the Anglican community… or bless gay marriage , or that some baptist Church allows abortions, and many of your Protestant sect accept contraception. It’s inconsistent because in the 1930s Protestants the majority of the reject contraception and view it as sinful, and then change their minds. Today, Protestants accept is morally right to use it


I think Aquinas sums it up beautifully here:

Summa Theologiae III:27:4):"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

"We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc. "

St John said that the Bible did not include everything that Jesus taught.
I was wondering why one would think that the Holy Spirit does not do any job to teach those things to us through the Church? :slight_smile:

St. John did not say that. John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. God provides what he wants us to know only in scripture.

and St. Paul said hold fast to what we had been taught either by oral or written. :smiley:

God provides what he wants us to know only in scripture

Foul, that’s ten points for an extra biblical statement:thumbsup:

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