Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

I did not refer to infallible or non-infallible. Defined does not necessarily mean dogma. The Church teaches that Mary was free from original sin and did not sin personally during her entire life. THAT is the point. It is irrelevant if it infallible or not. We are BOUND by this teaching.
I really do not understand why some people want a list of infallible and non-infallible teachings because it is completely irrelevant.

I suppose the colloquial word “disbelieve” is confusing in the context of this discussion because it is not in the technical vocab used.

Clearly one may not dissent from this teaching. However it seems one may validly withhold assent, especially if one is a theologian.

Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is a much older doctrine and one shared by both Catholic and Orthodox.

To me there is a huge difference between believing something I know to be infallible and those things that could be erroneous. Also, defined does mean dogma

Vatican II taught fallibly, as Paul VI said: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

Also, Canon 752 says “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

I don’t know why the Church even bothers teaching fallibly. Can you imagine St. Peter doing this?

In 2000 years there has never been a change due to error of any non-infallible teaching.

the Incarnation and the Trinity have not been defined as infallible by the Church as the first Vatican Council propagated the doctrine of infallibility, but they are both infallible teachings of the Church.

a doctrine does not have to be defined as infallible by either the Successor of Peter or by a Ecumenical Council for a doctrine to be infallible.

2 questions:

  1. What makes you think God needs purity to himself remain pure? Christ was born into an impure world was he not?
  2. Where in scripture does it say Mary was full of grace? I’m having trouble locating it.

Thank you and God bless for answering

Mary couldn’t have been immaculate. She was afraid. A pure soul knows no fear. Fear is a consequent of sin.

Perhaps this is a testament to mans stubborn pride in himself.

How do we know what’s infallible if it hasn’t been deemed infallible by definition so that by a defined criteria we may judge a thing as such?

Man’s rejection of the truths dedined by God’s Church is a better testament to man’s pride.

Mary was “troubled” by an incredible grewting of an angel. That is perfectly healthy. Fear of God is healthy. Your last two sentences are baseless.

(1) It was appropriate that she who would bear God in her womb, who would serve as an ark of the new covenant for the true manna, true priest, and true law giver, be pure of sin. Why did God command that the ark be kept pure? Why was the tabernacle and the temple kept pure? Because they were holy because they were where the divine touched matter. Let’s not lose sight of the significance of that. Let’s not ever lose our awe of the divine. It is fitting that she shpuld be free from all sin and that she should be set apart for God.

*Ephesians 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. *

(2) Luke 1:28. The angel addresses her as kecharitomene. It is in the vocative case, perfect passive participle. Full of grace is actually rather weak (understated) at capturing the exact meaning.

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, p. 203:
*]In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

The Council of Trent declared: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin” (nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia). D 833. Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” of the Virgin Mother of God, that: “she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.”
Mary’s sinlessness may be deduced from the text: Luke I, 28: “Hail, full of grace!”, since personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace."

Look again the angel never once says Mary was full of grace. The phrase “highly favored” and or "found favor with God " is a far cry from it saying full of grace in equivalence.

Some Catholic versions have “full of grace.”.

The English translations are not as precise as the Greek which uses kekharitomene, translated by St Jerome as gratia plena. Greek perfect tense refers to a state of being from a past action which has effects felt in the present.

Unproven assertions and faulty logic I suggest.
Fear may be a consequence of sin. That does not mean fear cannot also be due to other factors.

You drink shallowly. Everything about Mary’s actions would be perfectly normal human reactions in a fallen world…by a fallen creature. Reread genesis. Adam and Eve had no fear of, nor need to fear, God until after the fall. Fear itself is a useful tool in a fallen world. But to classify fear as healthy is a misunderstanding of the state man finds himself in. By analogy we may consider Doctors very useful in a world subject to unhealthy conditions. This does not mean it is healthy to have Doctors. The need for doctors are an indicator of the existence of our fallen state. If we deem Mary born in a sinless state, untainted by the stain of Adam and Eves sin then we should expect any consequences resulting from their transgressions to not be found in Mary’s pure soul. Fear most definitely being one of them. A soul in perfect communion with God has nothing to fear. This is the “basis” of what you called my “baseless” contentions.

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.