Correct me where I am wrong, but the RCC story about Mary is that she was uniquely preserved from original sin in the womb to be kept as a perfect vessel for Christ. Why wouldn’t/couldn’t God just uniquely preserve Christ? Why did He need a perfect vessel?



We don’t claim that God “needed” Mary to be without sin, but only that it was fitting.

My own view is that if Jesus was to be the perfect unification of God and Man, then it was fitting that, just as He derived His divine nature from Perfect God, so He would derive His human nature from Perfect (wo)man. When viewed in that light, as the full and complete unification of the divine and the human, how could it really be otherwise?


Well, God cannot dwell where sin is present. Since you cannot seperate the divine and human natures of Jesus (two natures, one person) the vessel that carried Jesus had to be free of sin, not to make her special so much as to maintain the perfection that is God. That’s why the gates of Heaven were closed for so long; the dead had sin on them still, and the sacrifice to attone for that sin hadn’t arrived until Jesus was crucified, so the sinners could not be with God.

Has anyone ever pointed out for you (or have you seen it yourself) the parrallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?


He did not ‘need’ a perfect vessel; He ‘chose’ a perfect vessel.

God is perfect. He is eternal. He is unchanging.

When He entered the Ark of the Covenant, He ‘chose’ to have it made as perfect as possible. No ‘plain wood box’.

For the birth of His Son, He ‘chose’ a mother made as perfect as possible. For that, He chose to redeem her before her conception, much as a man might ‘save’ a person from drowning by stopping them before they accidentally walked off a bridge.

Mary was redeemed by Christ just as we are, but ‘before’ her conception, in order to be the New Ark of the Covenant. . .because God does not change.


We don’t claim that God “needed” Mary to be without sin, but only that it was fitting.

My own view is that if Jesus was to be the perfect unification of God and Man, then it was fitting that, just as He derived His divine nature from Perfect God, so He would derive His human nature from Perfect (wo)man. When viewed in that light, as the full and complete unification of the divine and the human, how could it really be otherwise?

That actually makes sense. Though it still seems very contradictory to John the Baptist being the best human ever and that all humans have fallen.

Well, God cannot dwell where sin is present

He dwelled on a sinful Earth in a fallen creation.

Has anyone ever pointed out for you (or have you seen it yourself) the parrallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?

Elaborate please.



The Ark of the Covenant was created through very detailed instructions, and was held in very high regard by the Jews (read in the OT anywhere where the Ark was stolen how the Jews reacted). Inside was the staff that sprouted(I think it was Aaron’s), some manna, and the law.

Mary is held in very high regard by Catholics, and she carried the living vine, the bread of life, and the new covenant.

That’s a very brief overview, but I’ve read some articles that get quite into it. A glance at what “Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant” brings up on Google might be interesting.


This website provides a wonderful scriptural breakdown


Not at all contradictory. No one born of woman is greater than John the Baptist. Does that include even Christ? Only if we understand that John’s greatness means his complete lack of sin. So all who are completely without sin are equally great on this scale, including both Jesus and Mary.

And I’m not aware of any scripture that says all humans have fallen.


That doesn’t literally mean every single one with no exceptions - after all, aren’t babies sinless? Wouldn’t an adult with the mental capacity of a three-day-old baby similarly be incapable of sin?


Why was Mary preserved from original sin? Because God wanted to restore mankind in a manner similar to the manner in which it fell. The fall of mankind came about through the disobedience of a previously sinless pair, Adam and Eve; the restoration of mankind came about through the obedience of another sinless pair, the new Adam and new Eve, Jesus and Mary. Adam’s sinful disobedience was, so to speak, balanced in the opposite scale by Jesus’ sinless obedience; Eve’s sinful disobedience was balanced in the opposite scale by Mary’s sinless obedience. Although Jesus’ sinless obedience by itself was sufficient to redeem mankind, God also wanted the involvement of a sinless woman, Mary.


all humans have fallen.

You are referring to Romans 3:9-10. It says:

"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

You might also find this quote in Romans 3:23: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

So, according to your argument these passages clearly show that ALL have sinned and thus that Mary logically couldn’t be sinless.

Now, let’s look at this passage a little closer and examine what it actually says. I don’t know if you are aware of it but Paul in these verses is actually quoting the OT. The passage even suggests that when it says “As it was written”. So what do we do now? Let’s go back so we can get the OT context in order to make sure that we are not misinterpreting the NT context.

Let’s look at Psalm 14:1-5. It quotes:

“1 The fool [a] says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
4 Will evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on the LORD ?
5 There they are, overwhelmed with dread,
for God is present in the company of the righteous.

(You will find a similar thing mentioned in Psalm 53)

It seems like Paul is really quoting the OT. So what do we read in these few verses? We learn that the passage is talking about evildoer, none of them do good, and that there are God’s people, the generation of the righteous. So the Psalm that Paul quotes, even though it says that there is no one that does good, is obviously not talking about all people but only those who are called evildoers. If it weren’t so and all indeed were evil doers, how come it also talks about the company of the righteous?

So now that we see the OT context lets go back and look at the NT context. Again, is Paul really saying that ALL men without ANY exception really committed sin when he says “all man have sinned (turned away)” even though the passage he is quoting is not talking about all men? Perhaps he is referring to the original sin – how we suffer under its burden – instead of about how we all commit personal sins?

So, let me ask you a question: do you believe there is really no exception? Do you believe that infants, young children or those severely mentally ill fall into that category as well? That they all commit personal sins? If you are quoting Paul and saying that all men without exception committed personal sin you logically have to also believe that infants and young children have committed personal sin. Bible cannot contradict the truth after all, can it? No, all these mentioned here have never committed personal sin and thus in order for this passage to make sense one really have to consider that this interpretation is wrong. As I said, Paul is not talking about personal sin but original sin.

Now, when let’s look even further into this issue. Luke 1:6 speaks about the parents of John the Baptist quotes: “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Blameless? Blameless, meaning without personal sin.

Luke 1:15 speaks about John the Baptist: “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” Can one who is filled with Holy Spirit even before he is born commit sin?

Revelation 14:3-5 says: “No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.” And once again, could these blameless people actually commit sin?

And if the wages of sin is death as it is said in Romans 6:23, then don’t you think that it logically follows that Enoch and Elijah never sinned since they never died? We read that in Hebrews 11:5 and 2 Kings 2:11.


So we hopefully agree that infants don’t commit sin, we can read in the Bible that many people were sinless. How can the Bible contradict itself by saying that all, without any exceptions, have sinned? We can further see that the passage that supposedly is claiming that is a reference to the old testament (actually quoting it) in which it is clear that it is not all that have sinned. I think we simply have to conclude that not all people sin and that sinless people are possible, which therefore doesn’t rule out Mary being sinless.

So couldn’t possibly Mary also be an exception? In fact, doesn’t it make sense that Mary was without sin? I think you agree that it does make sense.

In Luke 1:28 we read: “And the angel entered to her, and said, Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed be thou among women.” Now the Greek word for “Full of Grace“ that is used here is kekaritomene, which means, among other things, much graced or imbued with special honour. One would say: Of course, the honour of bearing the Saviour! But no, this cannot be it. The word kekaritomene is a perfect participle and thus refers to something that was completed in the past. At that time Mary was not even asked to accept the role as Theotokos. Doesn’t that imply that she was sinless?
And let’s look at the prophesy in Genesis that I already mentioned. In Genesis 3:15 God says to Satan, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heal.” Who is he talking to? Satan of course. What’s Satan’s seed? Sin. What’s woman’s seed? Jesus. Who is the woman? Mary, the mother of Jesus. He God tells us that he will put enmity between Mary and Satan and Jesus and Satan. Well, if God was right and he really put ‘hostility between enemies” between Mary and Satan then how could she sin? If you sin, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan? I would say that if one sins he he actually taking Satan’s side? Therefore if God put enmity between Mary and Satan, how we you say that she ever sinned? That would put her on Satan’s side, wouldn’t it.


WOW, Gandalf, that was a very logical response. I applaud you. :clapping::clapping:


enmity- complete opposition to…what is the COMPLETE opposite of sin??? sinlessness!!


Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant
The Ark was the holiest object in the OT religion. It was sacred BECAUSE it carried the stone tablets of the Law that God gave to Moses at Mount Sanai. In Exodus 25, God gave meticulous instructions for constructing the Ark. It had to be made of acacia wood (incorruptible), plated inside and out with pure gold. It had to be kept free of all impurity and profanation. In 2 Samuel 6:6-7, God struck Uzzah dead because he dared touch the ark. From the earliest centuries Christians saw the OT Ark as a type of Mary.St. Ambrose, for example details several ways in which the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 26:33,40:20) prefigured Mary: The Ark contained the tablets of the Law, Mary contained in her womb the heir of the Testament. the Ark bore the Law; mary bore the Gospel. The Ark made the voice of God heard; Mary gave us the very Word of God. The connection is very clear. That Ark carried the written word of God, Mary carried the living Word. Mary is the living Ark of the Living Word. Hope that helps explain.


oh yeah and one more thing. If God took such care to presere the OT Ark from stain, defect, or profanation, how much more would He carefully preserve the NT Ark, which carried the even holier cargo of the living Wod, from all stain of sin??

Ot Ark: a cloud of Glory covered the Ark Exodus 40:34-35 Numbers 9:15

NT Ark Mary: And the Angel said to her" The HOly Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the mosthigh will overshadow you. Luke 1:35

Ot Ark: Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite 2 Samuel 6;11

Nt Ark Mary: Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth Luke 1 :26, 40

OT Ark: king David asked:" How can it be that the ark of the lord can come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:9

NT ark Mary: Elizabeth asked Mary, “why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke 1:43

Ot Ark: David leaped for joy before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem 2 Samuel 6:14–16

NT Ark Mary: John the baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived Luke 1:44


The “All” argument.

The bible uses three greek words for “All”

hapas - this one means “All without Exception”

The “All” in “All have sinned” utilizes the pas word.


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