The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Why I came to believe that Mary was conceived without sin

Most Catholic-Protestant debates surrounding Mary and beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception take place on a surface level, when the real issues concern bedrock: how we read the Bible and how Scripture informs theology.

This past Saturday’s Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception occasioned no little debate on social media as certain Catholics and Protestants who are co-laborers in many cultural and political endeavors­—publications, pro-life work, and the like—went after each other hammer and tongs in theological agonies, as various champions entered the virtual arena for the contest. Passionate but never ad hominem (at least in my feeds), ornery but not mean, the combatants sparred, parrying and thrusting, throwing out this argument, that Bible verse, this quotation, that rejoinder.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception

One serious evangelical Protestant called out a relatively popular modern image of Eve and Mary, with Eve downcast in red holding an apple, and Mary in blue and white comforting her, holding Eve’s hand on her swollen belly, pregnant with the hope of redemption, the Christ child. (The image was created by Sr. Grace Remington of Our Lady of the Mississipi Abbey, whose sisters belong to the Order of the Cistercians of the Strict Observance, following the Rule of St. Benedict.) In a tweet, he called it “heretical theology (i.e., Mary as co-redemptrix),” and followed up with a later tweet claiming “I’d have no objection to interpreting the image that way if the straightforward meaning (Mary crushes the serpent) wasn’t an entrenched heresy. Because it is, I just think it’s better to avoid confusion than hope all viewers read into it an orthodox meaning.”

Co-Redemptrix is not an official Catholic title for Mary, though many pious Catholics would like to see that move made. In my recollection, John Paul II once broached it with his prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger, who dissuaded him from pursuing the matter.

Being that as it may, for many the root issue is the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin through the retroactive merits of Christ. The Church found the doctrine necessary, I think, for two fundamental reasons. First, Christ needs sinless human flesh, for he cannot be a sinner, and second, he must take his flesh from his mother really and truly if he is to be fully human. Indeed, the Eve-Mary typology iconographed in the image assumes Mary’s sinlessness, for she has to be in the prelapsarian (i.e., pre-fall) position of Eve to be able to undo what Eve did. She obeys freely, where Eve disobeyed, in parallel to Christ’s obedience undoing Adam’s disobedience (see Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45–49).

And so that we may have the precise and mature claims before us, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§§ 490-93) teaches:

To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.” In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.” The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”

The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.” By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

The teaching summarized: (1) Mary was sinless from conception on (2) through the forthcoming merits of Christ so that (3) she could “give free assent” to her calling and (4) provide Christ with a sinless human nature.

How the New Testament fulfills the Old

I don’t want to rehearse the history of the development of the dogma, the controversies surrounding it, or the typical apologetic maneuvers each side makes. Rather, I want to engage a little bit in how I came to believe in the Immaculate Conception on my way to becoming Catholic. In doing so, I hope to contribute a bit to the discussion at a different level, as I often find people talking past each other. Most debates surrounding Mary (and indeed most Catholic-Protestant debates) happen on a surface level, when the real issues concern bedrock: how we read the Bible and how Scripture informs theology, in particular.

I was always fascinated with the Old Testament, even from childhood, but like most Christians today, had little idea what to do with it. In Sunday School I loved the Old Testament stories, but cannot remember what was said, if anything, about how they related the Jesus Christ in the Gospels. I got an RSV Bible as a Lutheran second-grader, and I remember a picture of an Old Testament priest before the altar in the book; What does that have to do with anything? I asked myself.

I started finally grasping how the Old and New Testaments related while yet a Protestant at Princeton Theology Seminary, taking a class with the late, great Don Juel on the Old Testament in the New. Therein I learned how the New Testament writers drew on everything from single words to grand narratives in the Old Testament in shaping their own stories and making their own claims about Jesus and the Church. In short, I began to learn about typology, how the New Testament fulfills the Old, and with that came an understanding of the continuity between the Testaments, and with that an understanding of salvation history. The same God superintends the story of the world form creation to end, and acts in the same ways in every age.

I was so fascinated with the question of the relationship between the Testaments that I pursued doctoral work to study that very question, working with Dr. Richard Hays at Duke University. Dr. Hays had written a famous work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, in which he demonstrated that St. Paul remained deeply concerned for Israel and her Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), over and against Germanic Protestant scholarship that painted Paul as a proto-Lutheran happy to leave Moses’ corpse on the far side of the Jordan. My own work under Dr. Hays concerned how the Gospel of Matthew employed the figure of Isaac to present Jesus as the final, decisive sacrifice. In writing that dissertation, I came to see ever more strongly that the New Testament writers were doing what the Church Fathers and medievals were doing. They all were interpreting the Old Testament figuratively, and indeed the New Testament writers were really doing what later would be called the fourfold sense. They were using not only the literal sense but engaging in typology (what Aquinas would call allegoria) between the Testaments, as well as the moral (tropological) sense and anagogical sense (which concerns the soul’s progress towards heaven).

Thinking of Mary in a deeply biblical way

When I was considering becoming Catholic, then, I was in a good position to think about Catholic claims about Mary in a deep biblical way. Jesus fulfills multifold figures from the Old Testament (Isaac, Moses, Israel itself, et alios), the Church is a new Israel, Paul likely understood himself as the suffering servant. Might not the New Testament writers have similar drew on the Old Testament in presenting Mary? Further, might not the logic of the story of salvation history require a certain understanding of Mary’s role therein?

In teaching Introduction to the New Testament in my first full-time teaching gig, I of course had to address the Gospel of Luke. And so I dug deep into the first couple of chapters, in which Mary figures prominently. What did I find there? In the first chapter, we encounter the aged priest Zechariah and his barren wife Elizabeth. Immediately our thoughts should turn to the original Holy Family, aged Abraham and barren Sarah, who eventually received the gift of Isaac. Moreover, Abraham was effectively a priest, like the other patriarchs. Often overlooked, Genesis is concerned with cult, as the patriarchs offer ritual sacrifice at significant moments. And the Archangel Gabriel tells Zechariah, “your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.” It’s the same pattern used in God’s announcement to Abraham in Genesis 17:19: “Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac.” But Zechariah does not believe Gabriel’s words, asking a doubt-filled question: “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years” (Luke 1:18). And so he is struck dumb because he did not believe Gabriel’s words until baby John is born. (Protip: When an archangel speaks, believe him.)

So we have a typology between Zechariah’s family and Abraham’s family. But it becomes a triple typology, a verbal triptych empaneling salvation history: Gabriel next goes to the Virgin Mary. He greets her, and declares that she will bear the Messiah, the Son of the Most High. Like Zechariah, she asks a question: “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34). But unlike Zechariah, she is not punished. Rather, the Archangel Gabriel answers her, explaining to her that she’ll give birth as a Virgin, conceiving by the power of the Holy Spirit. And she responds with her famous fiat: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). And of course she will bear Jesus, the new Isaac, to whom John pointed.

All this proves nothing. But it suggests everything. Why, I asked myself, is Zechariah punished, but Mary not? They each asked a question. The deference the Archangel Gabriel shows Mary is incredible. Without entering into philological and linguistic debates about the Greek word kecharitōmenē­—at least “highly favored by God” or (as Catholics believe) “full of grace”—the asymmetry between Zechariah and Mary in the tight triple typology of Luke 1 intrigued me.

It proves nothing, but suggests everything. Protestants in principle only want to believe that which Scripture expressly asserts with perfect clarity. Since nowhere does Scripture say Mary was conceived without sin, they find the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception unbiblical. But Catholics read differently. For Scripture does not only assert; it also implies and suggests. Catholics ask what the biblical stories—indeed, the overarching biblical story of salvation history—permits, encourages, requires. For us, reading the Bible is a matter of logic, of theo-logic. That Mary’s question receives an encouraging response instead of punishment is suggestive.

It fits, then, with theology, and offers us a model for how theology and Scripture support each other. It’s an assumption of Luke’s Gospel and indeed the whole New Testament that Jesus is sinless. Theologically, that implies—requires—that Mary must be sinless, for Jesus must take sinless flesh from his mother. If he were to take sinful flesh on, he wouldn’t be sinless—unless we want to be Gnostic or docetist (two heresies that go hand in hand), and suggest Jesus’ soul was sinless but body sinful. Apart from the problem that the Bible throughout bears witness that God cannot dwell in the direct presence of sin, this would mean there was no real Chalcedonian union of the two natures, human and divine in Christ. We might end up as some sort of Nestorians to boot, with the natures divided.

Theologically necessary, and theologically possible

So Mary needs to be sinless. How is this possible? By the Immaculate Conception. The later merits of Christ are applied to Mary proleptically. To the Protestant that sounds like theological gymnastics born of desperation. But it’s theologically necessary, and theologically possible. God is outside of time. And if one insists on biblical backing, the warrant is there in the example of Abraham. How, we might ask, was Abraham justified by faith (Genesis 15:6, a verse St. Paul draws on twice, in both Romans and Galatians, so foundational for Protestants), over two thousand years before Christ suffered and died for sins? Abraham must have been justified proleptically, and if God could do it for him, God can do it for Mary. Why not?

If theology demands Mary be sinless and Scripture shows that God can make people righteous well before Christ, then we can say that the story of Mary in Luke 1 fits with Mary’s sinlessness. The Immaculate Conception explains why Mary isn’t chastised but answered. (Of course, she asks her question, I think, because she’s taken a vow of perpetual virginity in accord with Numbers 30, and so wasn’t planning on having children, but that’s a discussion for a different day.) Scripture is of a piece; theology is of a piece; reality is of a piece; all superintended by God.

Some modern Protestant theologians have asserted that Christ took on sinful human nature (thinking of Thomas Torrance), and before them Protestant scholarship largely in Germany in the nineteenth century gave traditional Christian beliefs—from the divinity of Christ to the Immaculate Conception and most everything in between—the acid bath of higher criticism. Some found Mary so distasteful they suggested Luke didn’t write Luke 1–2; a later proto-Catholic wrote them and appended them to the beginning of Luke.

But earlier Protestants maintained many historic Marian teachings. Ulrich Zwingli wrote, “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” (quoted in G. Philips et al., De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Rome, Pontificia academia Mariana internationalis, 1962, p. 456). For his part, Martin Luther thundered, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin…God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil…God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God protected her from all that might be hurtful to her” (Luther’s Works, ed. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968).

The original Protestants knew what later Protestants, in their attempt to be biblical, have forgotten: that Mariology is a reflex of Christology, that beliefs about Jesus require believing certain things about Mary. As Jesus takes his flesh from Mary, Mother and Son are a package deal. And so sinless Mary was in a position to undo what Eve did. She cooperated with God, having that perfect Edenic free will that Eve surrendered in sin.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Dr. Leroy Huizenga 48 Articles
Dr. Leroy Huizenga is Administrative Chair of Arts and Letters and Professor of Theology at the University of Mary in Bismarck, N.D. Dr. Huizenga has a B.A. in Religion from Jamestown College (N.D.), a Master of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in New Testament from Duke University. During his doctoral studies he received a Fulbright Grant to study and teach at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität in Frankfurt, Germany. After teaching at Wheaton College (Ill.) for five years, Dr. Huizenga was reconciled with the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil of 2011. Dr. Huizenga is the author of The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew (Brill, 2012), co-editor of Reading the Bible Intertextually (Baylor, 2009), and is currently writing a major theological commentary on the Gospel of Mark for Bloomsbury T&T Clark’s International Theological Commentary series. A shorter work on the Gospel of Mark keyed to the lectionary for Year B, Loosing the Lion: Proclaiming the Gospel of Mark, was published by Emmaus Road (2017), as was a similar work on the Gospel of Matthew, Behold the Christ: Proclaiming the Gospel of Matthew (Emmaus Road, 2019).


  1. A great scriptural analysis applying “typology’ that strongly suggests Mary’s exemplary uniqueness favoring the doctrine Immaculate Conception while preserving the Mystery. A convert’s contribution over a teaching that Protestants dismiss and potential Catholics [as well as some Catholics] often struggle with. The doctrine supports the identity of Jesus Christ true God true Man whose flesh received from the Blessed Virgin conveys the fullness of the divinity, a truth Nestorius challenged claiming Jesus a human person subject to the Word. Her Immaculate Conception is consistent with the Word made Flesh.

    • The Catholic Church has to answer difficult questions such as this. However, they are not at liberty to contrive doctrines out of the flesh. Modern biology proves the blood of the mother does not mix with the fetus. This is just ONE of the blunders “tradition” has done to the body of Christ.

      • Are you suggesting that the isolation from mixing blood is what ensures sinless condition of Jesus?… Does this science fact take into account the use of Mary’s Ovum (a direct biological derivative of Mary, X-chromosome source)?

      • Ron what fundamentalists mistakenly refuse is Apostolic Tradition, which Christ informed the Apostles of knowledge they weren’t prepared for that would be revealed by the Holy Spirit, all consistent with the revealed Word. Remember Adam and Eve were born without sin. Why should we insist that the new Adam and new Eve not both be without sin? Furthermore, above all the arguments is the Word’s love of his Mother, and the desire that she be conceived sinless. If that was God’s wish by what logic is it impossible?

        • I suggest you read the Book of Leviticus chapter 4. A sin offering was offered only after their sin was made know to them!!

          Mary would have only offered a sin offering after She knew she had sinned!!

          I’m sure you would agree that Jesus followed the Law. So show me in the New Testament where Jesus offered a sin offering!!

    • To expand on the comment, submitted by Ron (MARCH 17, 2019 AT 1:30 PM), I wonder what the Catholic Church’s opinion would be about the idea if Mary’s conception was not a literal use of her own Ovum being fertilized through the Holy Spirit… If the “conception” is a miracle of creation by God (through the Holy Spirit), where Jesus is the new Adam in fact – Jesus a new creation of Man, sinless as Adam was sinless… The heritage of David, being derived from a physical birth from the Virgin Mary, where Mary and Joseph are both surrogate parents… Jesus is born with no inherited sin (Adam) and Mary conforms to the passage that mankind is sinful and ALL fall short of the glory of God?… God didn’t throw away His ability to create Man, when Adam came on the scene.

    • Following the logic that Mary had to be sinless in order to birth a sinless son, then was Mary’s mother sinless? How far up the line would the sinlessness have to start? Jesus inherited his heavenly father’s bloodline and that was the bloodline that was sinless. That means that his blood alone was acceptable as a sacrifice because not only was our Lord sinless but so was his bloodline. His blood never touched Mary’s in her womb. Romans 3:10 tells us, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one,” and Paul is quoting Psalm 14:10-12.

    • Mary was never call “Full of Grace” in the Greek New Testament!!

      Only two people was called that, Jesus in John 1:14 and Stephen in Acts 6:8.

      Also, being “Full of Grace” does not imply in anyway that someone is sinless!!!

    • Mary does not pass original sin to Jesus. Her moment of sancification in the womb is no bearing on Christ. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
      St Augustine who defined original sin does not say anywhere in his writings that original sin is passed on from mother to child. It is passed on only from father to child. Hence in Romans 5, St. Paul clearly says sin entered in the world through one man.
      Eve was taken out of Adam and not the other way round. By forcing Mary in this role you would need to reword St. Paul, reword Genesis’ account of creation, and change the definition of original sin.
      The politics of Immaculate Conception was primarily to throw St. Thomas Aquinas out of seminaries and add doubts to his writings, divinize Mary as co-redemptrix, and eventually declare humans as co-redeemers.
      If the mother (Eve) also passed on sin to the offsprings that means you would need a co-redemptrix; and clearly Christ is the sole redeemer.
      Very sad to see such low resolution thinking and dragging the Blessed Mother’s name into mud and against Christ’s salvation.

    • I can’t believe I read this. I can’t believe that people who have read the Bible, let alone studied it, can come to this conclusion. Man is making assumptions, inference, implications as to what Scripture says. Scripture speaks plainly. Jesus is the ONLY person born sinless and remained sinless through obedience. You make Mary on the same plane as Jesus. She is not.

  2. “Like Zechariah, she asks a question: “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34). But unlike Zechariah, she is not punished.”

    I looked up the translation of the original Greek, and it says that Zechariah said, “By what shall I know this?”, whereas Mary asked, “How will this be done?” There’s a big difference between asking an angel who has just told you your wife will have a son something along the lines of “Yeah, you say so, but how do I know it’s true?” and asking an angel who has just told you you’re going to bear the Son of the Most High, “How will this be done?” One is expressing skepticism, the other is not expressing any doubt, just asking how it will be done.

    • Good point, Leslie.

      In addition to that:

      As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel.
      — Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 17

      And the messenger answering said to him [Zacharias], “I am Gabriel, who have been standing near before God, and I was sent to speak unto thee, and to proclaim these good news to thee, and lo, thou shalt be silent, and not able to speak, till the day that these things shall come to pass, because thou didst not believe my words, that shall be fulfilled in their season.”
      — Luke 1:19-20

      It is also interesting to note that when Samson’s parents were informed by an angel that Samson would be born to them, and that God would use him to “begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (Judges 13:5), his parents are instructed to raise Samson as a Nazarite. And the angel Gabriel instructed Zacharias, regarding raising John, that “wine and strong drink he may not drink.” Mary received no instructions whatsoever from Gabriel regarding how to raise Jesus. I think this was because Mary had preternatural knowledge lost to those with a fallen nature, and didn’t need any instructions.

          • The primary idea of the law of Leviticus 12:1-6, would seem to have been that of witnessing to the taint of imperfection and sin attaching to every child of man, just as that of circumcision (its merely physical aspects being put aside) was that of the repression or control of one chief element of that sinfulness. Here neither was necessary; but the whole mystery of the birth was not as yet revealed to Mary, and therefore her act was simply one of devout obedience to the law under which she lived.

  3. Excellent discussion. My confusion comes with the claim “Jesus is sinless. Theologically, that implies—requires—that Mary must be sinless, for Jesus must take sinless flesh from his mother.” If God is able to make Mary sinless from conception yet preserve her human flesh, it would seem to follow God is able to do the same for Jesus: grant sinlessness from conception and yet preserve his human flesh. If Mary doesn’t need to take sinless flesh from *her* mother to be sinless, why require that of Jesus? (This isn’t a question doubting the conclusion about immaculate conception; it’s a question trying to understand the reasoning for the necessity of that conclusion.) Thank you.

    • The Old Covenant Ark had to be pre-sanctified before holy items were placed within it. See Exodus 30:25-26,29. (The holy items were manna, the rod of Aaron, and the tablets of the law). The Ark of the New Covenant — Mary — had to have never even been in need of sanctification, for she was to contain God, the very essence and source of all holiness.

      As Adam was made clean from the soil of the earth, Mary was made clean from the soil of original sin (of her parents).

      As the virgin Eve took her flesh directly from the immaculate, virginal body of Adam, not through normal human generation, Christ, the New Adam, took His flesh from the body of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, the New Eve, not through normal human generation.

      Adam and Eve sinned. The New Adam and the New Eve did not sin.

      “And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.”
      — Irenaeus

      A knot is untied by doing the reverse of what was done before. Irenaeus got it right. Mary had to be immaculately conceived from the soil of original sin in order for what had been done before to be undone, in order for the reverse of what had happened to happen, in order to untie the knot.

      • If we need Irenaues to dicipher the gospel hundreds of years later for us simple minded folk, seems to me then, “Jesus died for us……but we can’t forget about the redemptive qualities of Mary”, sort of thing. What can Maryology add to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

    • I was struggling with the same question. So I would love to insert this analogy and try to explain it: Imagine a King(Jesus) trying to get through one of the doors(Mary) of a certain kingdom(the world). That door then needs to be clean and free from any dirt or inconvenience. So servants(Mary’s parents(or rather the Grace of God)) need to clean/clear the door and make it ready for the King, who should not be impeded by the inconvenience at the door.
      Hope this helps. Thanks

  4. Hi, Nick. Just my speculation, but I would answer “hypostatic union”. Mary was sinless through grace. Jesus is sinless by divine nature. The difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Nativity. God’s greatest creation, our “solitary boast”, yes, but yet a creature.

  5. It’s a good article. But still nowhere does scripture tell us Mary was sinless. As far as the typology is concerned. I think you can go to far with it. Typology is good, but some can take it so far that they start expecting to see everything as a type, and thus it then has to be the reality. Typology has a way in my opinion to make us more prone to want to believe something is true when it’s not. Where does one stop with typology? We can make a type out of anything then? I think the strongest evidence against it is just the simple, but profound statement by Mary herself when she called God her Savior. Also too, I have no problem with the fact Jesus was born with a sinful Mother. I mean the Holy Spirt takes up residence in sinful, but righteous, born- again men. Why can’t Jesus take up residence in a sinful, yet righteous Mary?

  6. I don’t imagine Mary *had* to be sinless. Being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost could have washed her clean in and of itself. And wear does the sinless requirement end? Mary’s mother was tainted.

    But it’s easy to imagine the Lord simply wanted and saw it fitting to make her sinless. It pleased Him to make it so: it’s an honor in the same league as that of being chosen to bear His Son.

    But the idea of someone being sinless is one that also tends to obliterate that person’s humanity: it is in fact very hard for me as a fallen man to try to visualize a a 100% human as also sinless. The only available counterpart is Eve, and she is portrayed as an easily duped player. So there’s the challenge. Of course Jesus is hard to comprehend: He’s God. But Mary is human, but also a 100% foreign entity in that she doesn’t know what it’s like to sin. A bit of a conundrum.

  7. Mary had to be sinless.

    The whole narrative of Adam and Eve and the Fall would not be theologically or spiritually coherent without a sinless Mary. Let alone logically.

    A sinful Mary could not bore a Divinity. Even God could not reconcile such a scenario.

    God’s thoughts are not OUR thoughts.

    • So by that logic, then everyone who was an ancestor of Mary needs to be sinless.

      Romans 3:10 – so, how many are righteous then?

      Or are you calling God a liar?

    • Reading a lot of comments, we miss out the simple science veiw. If Jesus was only of Mary’s flesh and therefore she required to be sinless he could not be a man, since women do not have Y chromosome. She could only produce XX offspring. So Jesus could be half Mary and she provides one X and God provides the Y, a sort of God and human mix. The other possibility is that Jesus was a whole new creation created in the same way as Adam and Eve. The Zygote containing the XY made by God and placed in her by the Holy Spirit. That method would not require Mary to be sinless. More over if God could make Mary sinless at her conception, what is the point of Christ he could that for all of us. Also as hinted Mary could have been crucified as an atonement for out sin as well.

    • I beg to differ. Scripture clearly declares believers are in Christ and he in us. Some much for a sinless vessel. Total fabrication. Jesus himself said MORE BLESSED than his mother is he who hears the word of God and follows it.

  8. Christ came both to redeem humankind from its sins, and to establish His Church in the New Covenant ratified in His Own Blood. The Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ. This being the case, the Mystical Body of Christ would be expected to manifest a mystical mode of operation. Mysticism points in turn to the three ways of Contemplative Prayer, the Purgative, the Illuminative, and the Unitive. In a purely human contemplative the way of Contemplative Prayer starts with the Purgative Way, which leads to the Illuminative Way, ending in the Unitive Way, the summit of which St. Teresa of Avila calls the Spiritual Marriage of the Seventh Mansions.
    When we look at the life of Christ it is the mirror image of this progression. His life in mortal flesh starts in the unique union of the Hypostatic Union at the Incarnation and ends in purgation with His Passion and Death on the Cross at Calvary.
    To me the Incarnation is a Prayer of Union. We Catholics call Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. This agrees with the Spiritual Marriage of the Seventh Mansions. The Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Seven Sorrows satisfy the Purgative Way. When you add in Mary’s fiat at the Annunciation this produces the full conformity of wills that makes it possible for her being to be fully illuminated by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit during the Incarnation. During the Incarnation there was a supernatural exchange from the Holy Spirit to Mary. For the Incarnation to be an act of pure supernatural love Mary had to be able to give herself over to God freely and completely without reservation. Any sin would make the Incarnation an act of imposition and domination and not one of loving union.

    Like Christ, Mary’s publicly recorded ministry starts in union with the Incarnation, and she participates in the Purgative Way with Christ with her Seven Sorrows which ends with Christ’s Passion and Death. Christ and Mary’s lives follow a similar mirror image path. The Last Supper and Christ’s Passion and Death are a mirror image of a normal Passover Seder of the sacrifice of the lamb followed by the Seder. This mystical analysis appears to agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching as to mode of operation of the Immaculate Conception. It all centers on the Death of Christ on the Cross. All points converge on the Cross.

  9. If Mary was “made” sinless…why isn’t everyone made sinless? Why need a Savior Jesus dying on the cross for sin at all? Everyone could just be “graced without sin” like Mary.

    Romans 5:12 “by one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN, for that ALL HAVE SINNED”

    Did Mary die? If so, why did a “sinless” Mary physically die? Death is the penalty for SIN…obviously Mary died because she sinned like the rest of us.

    It really is ridiculous the lengths Catholics go to worship the created being (Mary) rather than the Creator.

    • ” If so, why did a “sinless” Mary physically die? Death is the penalty for SIN…obviously Mary died because she sinned like the rest of us.”

      You mean like Jesus died, so he couldn’t have been sinless?

      • An excellent response, Leslie. Thank you for posting it.

        Dr. Huizenga’s understanding of the Old Testament resonates well with a fine new book by Dr. Brant Pitre entitled “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary.”

        Dr. Huizenga provides many important insights on the Immaculate Conception. I’m not sure, though, how to understand his claim that “Co-redemptrix is not an official title for Mary.” Two popes (Pius XI and John Paul II) have publicly referred to the Blessed Virgin as Co-redemptrix. During the pontificate of St. Pius X, the Roman Curia approved three prayers invoking Mary as “Co-redemptrix.” This letter to the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provides more details about the liceity of invoking Mary as “Co-redemptrix:”

        • As soon as I read about it, I bought Dr. Pitre’s book. It was clearly written and informative and well-organized. If anybody has been considering buying it or borrowing it and reading it – do!

      • Except Jesus became a curse for all mankind, or did you forget that part? He literally became sin, that’s the reason He had to die. If He didn’t choose to go to the cross, He would have legally been able to live forever on earth because He was sinless.

        Ignoring the rest of the most important objections in the comment that dismantles this heresy, though?

        If Mary was “made” sinless… why isn’t everyone made sinless? Why need a Savior Jesus dying on the cross for sin at all? Everyone could just be “graced without sin” like Mary.

        Romans 5:12 “by one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN, for that ALL HAVE SINNED”

        Then you have Romans 3:10… according to this, how many are righteous?

        Or are you calling God a liar?

        • “Except Jesus became a curse for all mankind, or did you forget that part? He literally became sin, that’s the reason He had to die.”

          That’s an interesting religion you practice. Too bad it isn’t Christianity.

          You seem not to understand that God is outside of time. He is able to apply the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice to Mary at the time of her conception. I can’t remember who it was who compared it to saving someone from falling into a mud puddle as opposed to lifting someone out of a mud puddle after he’s fallen in.

          “If Mary was “made” sinless… why isn’t everyone made sinless?”

          Because that is not how God planned it. Hard as it may be for you to believe it, you don’t know better than God does.

          Regarding Romans” “consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No, they haven’t (see Romans 9:11)! Or, how about the mentally challenged who do not have the use of their intellects and wills? These cannot sin because in order to sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. Right there you have millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8.”

          “Or are you calling God a liar?”

          No, I’m calling you ignorant.

          It’s a real pity that copyright laws didn’t exist in the early Church. The Catholics who wrote the Bible could have copyrighted it so that proud and disobedient people couldn’t decide that they could interpret it better than the Church, whose written Tradition it is.

      • Jesus willingly took on the sins of the world while on the cross. Before his crucifixion, He was sinless. His body bore our sins, not His own. That’s 101, every Christian should be able to answer.

      • Jesus gave up his life, no one took it from him. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:18

    • Fine – believe that if you want with the zero evidence toward your belief. But then, what do you do with that information? Worship her? Pray to her? Repent toward her? Seek salvation from her?

  10. All these argument shows us fleshy perspective is futile:

    If Mary is indeed sinless:
    1- why scripture does not mention Mary as part of trinity, ie GOD. Since only GOD is sinless.
    2- Isnt Mary suppose to go on the Cross for the sinful mankind, which also bring the question of needing Jesus Christ to be born & on the Cross?

    By the same faulty augment, nowhere in scripture says Apostle John was sinful, unholy – John was known born and not to defile himself as well!

    • God saved Mary from sin. Therefore she is without sin, by the gift of God, not by her own power. She is not God. I point out that Adam and Eve were created sinless, and remained so – until they did sin.

      No, Mary isn’t supposed to have been crucified; her suffering was of a different kind.

      I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying. Are you claiming that Mary was sinful, but St. John the Apostle was sinless?

  11. In response to NICK’S question, GOD took Mary’s mother sinful humanity and cleaned it up for Mary but HE can’t do that for JESUS because it will be like GOD is saving our Saviour. And again Mary was saved by Christ’s merit on the cross, which person’s merit was Christ saved by? I don’t know if this is satisfactory!

    • In reply to Collins, you are saying that God’s plan of salvation is NOT for everyone, just for all of us with the exception of Mary, which is in direct conflict with Biblical scriptures such as Romans chapter 2, where it shows that God is no respecter of persons. His salvation is obtained in exactly the same way for us all, by grace, through faith in Jesus the Christ. Furthermore, Romans 3:23 states that ALL have sinned, as it also mentioned at least in 26 other Biblical references, yet there is NOTHING mentioned about Mary being without sin! Jesus is the only man, who was God in the flesh, who was without sin. Without Biblical substantiation we have only man’s assumptions.

      • No: Mary, like all who are saved, is saved by God. But she was saved before sinning, and was saved even from original sin. And if you think that’s impossible, I remind you that Adam and Eve were created without original sin.

        Also, what on earth gives you the idea that everything is in the Bible? And specifically in your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible?

        • Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

          LesLIE, your interpretation must be based of a very different Bible. The Bible does not mix words. Show me with proof where it says anything but that all men have sinned.

          Romans 3:10
          As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

          I could go on and on. Your Idiosyncratic interpretation needs work.

        • Why wouldn’t everything be in the Bible? How can we draw conclusions if we are pulling from from other sources? I don’t think we will truly know if Mary was sinless or not – but does she deserve to be worshipped? No one has answered that question. No where in the Bible does it state to pray to Mary. You’re argument about “not everything in the Bible” is not an argument at all – it’s because the answer isn’t in the Bible.

        • Mary was born of the flesh and therfore born with sin. Catholic doctrine is doctrine. Does NOT even come close to the word of God.

  12. A lot of the comments here are based on our fleshly understanding of God, man and His creation. Often in today’s culture people try to find materialistic explanations due to influences of materialism and naturalism (foundations of evolution), which exclude super-naturalism and the spiritual realm. But truth, logic, information, souls, mind, sin nature, and so on are not material entities.

  13. The Catholics and other churches may be trying to honour Mary as an epitome of Godly living and keep her in remembrance.
    But remember God should be given what belongs to Him, because He can never share His glory with any man.
    In the case of giving plaudits to Mary, it should not be as if she is God. She should not be taken as an object of worship, for God is a jealous God who alone deserves all our adoration to the fullest.
    All have sinned, and come short of God’s glory. Mary is never exempted. She has her own personal sins, as well as her ancestral sins. She is also inclusive in the world’s Adamic sin.
    The only person who was and is sinless is God. Jesus Himself, is God in the form of man, and the second person in the Holy Trinity of God. He was blameless, guiltless, and sinless, all through His stay here on earth.
    Conclusively, Mary, the Mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ the Righteous, was as well guilty of the infection, called sin.
    I am Goodluck Chineme Ezinna, a citizen of Nigeria, and an Anglo-catholic.

    • “In the case of giving plaudits to Mary, it should not be as if she is God. She should not be taken as an object of worship, for God is a jealous God who alone deserves all our adoration to the fullest.”

      Catholics do not worship Mary. If you think so, you are extremely misinformed or uninformed.

      “She has her own personal sins, as well as her ancestral sins. She is also inclusive in the world’s Adamic sin.”

      No, she doesn’t. She was preserved from original sin, and remained sinless.

      “am Goodluck Chineme Ezinna, a citizen of Nigeria, and an Anglo-catholic.”

      And I am somehow supposed ot beieve that you have more authority than the Church? Hardly.

      • Ok…great story, but for the millionth time (I see you have ignored many others), from a saved Christian to a Catholic (that’s you Leslie), could you provide ONE…just ONE scriptural reference, that CLEARLY states ‘MARY WAS SINLESS’ not ‘She was full of grace’ or some other biblical verse that the Catholic Church tries to twist and say ‘OH, this means she was sinless’, because it also refers to Stephen as being full of grace as well “And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Acts 6:8, and I don’t see the Catholic Church recognising him as holy and sinless. So please, I don’t want this to come across personally, just provide me ONE verse from the BIBLE not what some Pope said, as never in the bible does it say that Popes have any divine authority, in fact, they are not even mentioned at all. How interesting. Rather 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”…I leave you with that, have a good day.

        • Please provide one Scriptural reference that, first, tells us which books should be in the Bible, followed by a Scriptural proof that we can and should only believe those things clearly stated in Scripture.

          The problem for Fundamentalists such as you appear to be, is that they want to speak authoritatively while referring to a source of authority (the Bible), which they possess because of non-Scriptural authority (that is, Sacred Tradition) that they obsessively denounce. Just think of a cartoon character sawing off the limb they are sitting on. Same simple principle.

          The Church has always upheld and taught the absolute uniqueness of the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. Further, the Church states, “Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it” (CCC, 964). And her union with her son is unique, as she alone was impregnated by the power of the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the Incarnate Word. Which is why she is able to exclaim, even before giving birth, “For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48).

          • Problem is Jesus himself said MORE blessed, NO, OR RATHER ( Depending on translation) are those who hear GODS WORD and follow it ? When asked it his mother was blessed.
            Jesus put NO emphasis on his earthly mother. He never once called her mother in scripture.
            You need to abandon the idolatry and stop the blasphemy.

          • Jesus called Mary Mother endlessly. You just don’t hear it.

            “By name I have called you”: He knew Mary as Mother from all eternity.

            The Spirit foretold that the Virgin will be with Child.

            John said Hid Mother was with Him beside His Cross.

            On the Cross He committed us to her and He did not commit us to everyone.

            She reminds Him that Joseph is His earthly father.

            You have a type of a deafness and only Jesus will heal it.

        • “(that’s you Leslie), could you provide ONE…just ONE scriptural reference, that CLEARLY states ‘MARY WAS SINLESS’”

          You have not proivded any evidence that everything has to be explicitly stated in the Bible.

          We’re happy to share the New Testament which was written by Catholics and whose canon was established by the Catholic Church, but really, as a special favor could you quit misinterpreting it?

        • Saved Christian: You write of Scripture: “they [the popes] are not even mentioned at all. How interesting.”

          But then, this about the first pope: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). And then “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19). (Praise the Lord (!), these quotes are from the Protestant King James version!)

          It is possible to consider and accept, through “the laying on of hands,” that the popes and other validly ordained bishops are successors of the Apostles, given this early record, too, also from Scripture: “And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

          Beginning some time after the 16th century, many would read these lines differently. Especially considering the record of human corruption, but that is a different matter and one that does not cancel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit dating from Pentecost forward. To say that the above lines do not exist in Scripture is at best an oversight. A very early instance of today’s festering cancel-culture. Peace.

  14. This belief is based completely on assumptions. Where are the Biblical references that support the belief that Mary was without sin? She was born just like we all are, she would have to be born of an immaculate conception herself to have been born without sin, otherwise there would have been Biblical references proclaiming her perfection in the Bible, yet, there is not one such reference to be found. It is also assumed that Jesus was conceived with the use of Mary’s ovum. I am not foolish enough to make an assumption one way or the other myself, but I will put forth the fact that God, in His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence could just as easily placed Jesus in the womb of Mary. The fact is that the Bible simply does not address this detail. The Bible states in Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” we do not find an addendum in the scriptures surrounding this verse, nor in any scripture in the entire Bible, for that matter, stating that Mary was the exception to this verse. In fact, the Bible repeats the fact that all have sinned 27 times! Romans 3:10 “As it is written there is none righteous, no, not one:” states exactly the opposite; that Mary is indeed included. Only God has never sinned. Jesus was always God, existing even before his incarnation in human flesh. We do know for certain that God used Mary to fulfill His prophecies given for His plan of salvation for mankind, and in so doing, she was, without any doubt, blessed for this reason. She did nothing to earn this blessing, or be good enough for it, any more than the rest of us can do anything to earn His free gift of salvation. For anyone to assume that she was without sin, is an attempt to make us believe things that the Bible cannot substantiate.

    • Tracey Shook,
      This— —- nicely develops point by point why the evil one should not have the least hold over the Holy Mother of God. St. Proclus states, “Jesus felt it no reproach to hear himself called by the Jews the son of a poor woman: “Is not his mother called Mary?” for he came on earth to give an example of humility and patience. But on the other hand, it would doubtless have been a reproach to him if it could have been said by the demons: Was he not born from a mother who was a sinner, and once our slave? It would be considered most unfit that Jesus Christ should have been born of a woman deformed and maimed in body, or possessed by evil spirits; but how much more unseemly that he should be born of a woman once deformed in soul, and possessed by lucifer.”
      And further you can read:
      “Ah, that God who is wisdom itself well knew how to prepare upon the earth a fit dwelling for him to inhabit: “Wisdom hath built herself a house,” “The Most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle.” “God will help it in the morning early.” The Lord, says David, sanctified this his habitation in the morning early; that is, from the beginning of her life, to render her worthy of himself; for it was not befitting a God who is holy to select a house that was not holy: Holiness becometh thy house: ” Domum tuum decet sanctitudo.” And if he himself declares that he will never enter into a malicious soul, and into a body subject to sins,” how can we think that the Son of God would have chosen to inhabit the soul and body of Mary without first sanctifying her and preserving her from every stain of sin? for, as St. Thomas teaches us, the eternal Word inhabited not only the soul, but the body of Mary. The Church also sings: Oh Lord, thou didst not shrink from the Virgin s womb: “Non horruisti Virginia uterum.” Indeed, a God would have shrunk from incarnating himself in the womb of an Agnes, of a Gertrude, of a Theresa, since those virgins, although holy, were for a time, stained with original sin; but he did not shrink from be coming man in the womb of Mary, because this chosen Virgin was always pure from every guilt, and never possessed by the infernal serpent. Hence St. Augustine wrote: The Son of God has built himself no house more worthy than Mary, who was never taken by the enemy, nor robbed of her ornaments.”

      So after reading this discourse one can see why Almighty God, not limited, would prepare a pure vessel for his Incarnation.

  15. Mary was a wonderful role model for us who have received His free gift of salvation, but she is in no way any more gifted with anything than we are as born again believers. She did accept and obey the calling of God, and her demonstration of faith throughout her life was wonderful. She truly was blessed above all other women because she was the one to give birth the Jesus, our Savior. The mystery is in the fact that she was a virgin, Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit. That much we know. But we are privy to the exact same grace, mercy and power that she had, because for her, as it is for us all, was all obtained simply by virtue of simply receiving it. It is there for us as well. However, though she was honored by accepting the Lord’s plan to provide the perfect, sinless Son of God in human form does not mean that she, herself was perfect. There is nothing to indicate that she remained a virgin, or became Queen of Heaven, as some declare, or can in any way do for us as God can by way of prayer. There simply is no Biblical reference to anything of this sort. None of the Biblical references given in this article even hint at the accolades bestowed on her. This entire belief is based on the musings of people, not the Bible, as evident in the citations given by the author. There is only one that we as Christians are to pray to, and that is God. God would have instructed us to pray to her if this were not so. He DID instruct us how to pray, and to whom. We are to pray to God, the Father, in the name of Jesus. To ask her for help is futile, and is akin to necromancy. She WAS born in sin just as everyone else, and had to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus just like every other human ever born, except Jesus. There is no Biblical indication that she remained a virgin after Jesus was born. Jesus, of course, had to be born in perfect flesh in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sin, as His death, burial, and resurrection is the ONLY thing that can redeem anyone who has ever lived or will ever live from the law of sin and death. The Bible simply says that God’s Power overshadowed her and she conceived, meaning she became pregnant. It does not say that SHE conceived Jesus. Jesus could have been placed in her womb, already a complete flesh being by the Holy Spirit. To try to say one way or the other is merely speculation on our part. Be wary of accepting the traditions of man, regardless of their clergy title or status man has given them if they are not backing everything with God’s Word, the Bible. To pray to her, or any other human being who has died is in direct opposition to His instruction to us to look only to Him as our source for everything. He does use people to work through here on earth, but He NEVER instructed us to pray to another person for any reason, for anything. He declares Himself to be a jealous God, meaning He does not share His Deity with anyone, because He is the great I AM. To pray to her is NOT the same thing as asking someone alive for help, as I have often heard it explained, because to whom you pray is the one you also worship as God by virtue of the act of praying to them alone. God never told us to join our hearts with hers, he told us to join our hearts with Him. He never said in the Bible that Mary could bestow virtue of ANY kind on us, for do that, again, would make her God, which she is not. Jesus did instruct one of His disciples to care for his mother as He was dying on the cross; the “Mother” statement in John 19:26-27 was Jesus directing the care for His mother, Mary, after His death, not for her to be a “Mother to us all.” These beliefs are simply not grounded or supported in any way by God’s Word, the Bible, but are supported by the “logic” of men. Joshua 24:3

    • You haven’t addressed the issue: What gives you the idea that everything has to be in the Bible, and that your personal interpretation of the Bible is authoritative?

    • Tracy,
      Have you ever ask a friend to pray for you? Has anyone ever ask you to pray for them? I have ask others to pray for me and others have ask me to pray for them. I find no difficulty in asking the Holy Mother of God, likewise to intercede to her son for my intentions. After all, he spent his life with her and as mother she can tell him what is needed. She did so at the Wedding Feast at Cana. I don’t see that the relationship has changed. Anyway, that is my thought. All the best, R.

  16. First, the Holy Scriptures is the one and only source of the truth. As stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,’
    Romans 3:23 said,’For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ If that is true then it means ALL! Even beloved Mary recognised her sinful condition when she said in Luke 1: 46-48 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.” She said my Savior because just like the other believers, she was also waiting for the coming of the Messiah which was promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. She knew she needed a Saviour to save her from her sinful state. What does she need to be saved from? Just like you and me, we all need to be saved from our depraved condition.
    The disobedience of Adam and Eve, through that one action, sin entered their human nature and everyone borne carries the same nature.
    Romans 5:12-21 says, ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—’
    Mary doesn’t have to be declared to be sinless to justify the Lord Jesus Christ being sinless. The bible itself explains that Jesus’ birth was of a virgin birth, does not carry the seed of a man but was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit; thus He is sinless. More than anything else, He is God!
    Mary is definitely a model of faith, humility, grace and obedience and was favoured by God to carry His Son when He became flesh to save sinners. But we have to remember that Mary was born from parents who were also born carrying the same sinful nature of Adam and Eve, just like you and me and all of us mankind. The bible cannot be half truth and half lie when it said, ‘ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ The only one born in this world with no sin was the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s why the Lord Jesus Christ was born in a supernatural way and not the usual conception through a man and woman’s seed coming together. And of course, if the Lord Jesus Christ will be borne with Mary and Joseph coming together then Him being a sinless person would be in doubt and would contradict God’s word.

    • “First, the Holy Scriptures is the one and only source of the truth.”

      No, it isn’t. Not everything is in the Holy Scriptures.

      “As stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,’”

      It is all of those things. But you’ll notice that the verse doesn’t say that *only* Scripture is those things. By your reasoning, if St. Paul taught something, reproved or corrected someone, or trained someone in righteousness, that person should have felt free to ignore St. Paul because it wasn’t written in Scripture. In any event, at that point there *was* no New Testament; St. Paul was referring to the Old Testament, and I doubt that you would say that only the Old Testament has any authority.

      Romans 3:23 said,’For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’

      “If that is true then it means ALL! Even beloved Mary recognised her sinful condition when she said in Luke 1: 46-48 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my SAVIOR, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.” She said my Savior because just like the other believers, she was also waiting for the coming of the Messiah which was promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. She knew she needed a Saviour to save her from her sinful state.”

      She was never in a sinful state. Yes, she needed a Savior to save her from sin – and He did so before she sinned.

      “What does she need to be saved from? Just like you and me, we all need to be saved from our depraved condition.”

      Regarding depravity:

      “The disobedience of Adam and Eve, through that one action, sin entered their human nature and everyone borne carries the same nature.”

      Oh? Including Jesus? Or are you denying His humanity?

      He’s one exception. Mary is another, because God saved her from original sin.

      “But we have to remember that Mary was born from parents who were also born carrying the same sinful nature of Adam and Eve, just like you and me and all of us mankind.”

      Except Jesus. And Mary, by His grace.

  17. The most holy virgin was spared all the anguish of the sinful nature before the foundations of the world as a created being from the the time of her birth to her death ( or possibly sleep coma as she was assumed into heaven , her body has never been found ) she led a righteous life without sin , this would hav to b the case since she is the human mother of the God man Christ Jesus in order for her to raise him up from an infant , also God does exist outside of time and space as we know it , and can do as he pleases with his creation , so the son of God who is 100 % God n 100% man had to have a pure sinless vessel in order for him to enter into the world , as God cannot b in the presence of sin and vice versa , so in his creation of the mother of God she was spared that fault to become the woman who would crush the head of the serpent through her sinless nature predisposed upon her by the spirit of God , so yes the possibility of her being sinless in nature is highly likely and probably fact , and she is also assigned as an innercessor for us in our prayers Petitions-to the lord Jesus our savior, she has appeared many times in apparitions to some of the most worthy Saints to have lived and to the lowly as well , beyond a shadow of a doubt, the miracle of the son at Fatima in front of over 30,000 plus and the healing waters at Lourdes were thousands have walked away completely healed of everything imaginable r just 2 of the many examples of her exceptional sainthood in the realms of heaven and her message is always a warning and pointing to Jesus our savior as the one to be worshiped in how we think talk and act in our lives in obedience to her son and his will for us all , as she knows he is a God of mercy and grace , but also a God of judgement , and like her son , she doesn’t want to see her fellow human creatures suffer the wrath of her son because of sin and disobedience , but rather see us as her son would ,being Consecrated n sanctified through salvation to her son Jesus , in other words like a mother , she cares for us and our well being not our distruction in the depths of darkness and hell , she has no power to save , but has been given authority to warn and interceed on our behalf for the sake of our redemption and all that is good … spirit wisdom of all the ages … Dan

  18. Hmm, let’s see. Mary had to be sinless to birth a sinless Christ. If so, what of her own ancestors? Is there an endless progression of sinless people in her past so as to result in a sinless Mary? As a Christian of reformed influence I must confess to enjoying reading your site. Always interesting to see what’s happening on the other side of the fence.

    • Remember Almighty God is not subject to the wages of generational sin. God did prepare for his dwelling a sinless virgin, because it would be unfitting for a Sinless One to be conceived in a less than pure vessel.

  19. Mary did not need to be sinless to birth a sinless Christ. The idea that Christ couldn’t touch something sinful is contradicted in scripture as he laid hands on and healed sinful men Luke 4:40. He also said it is not what enters a man’s mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of it Mathew 15:11 to make it more clear Mathew 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. Sin originates in our heart not from the physical.

    • You are correct in that Jesus spoke of how sin defiles man, but we are not to discount OT scripture on the original sin of Adam. Original sin is transmitted to Adam’s progeny through human flesh. God joins His gift of a spiritual soul to human flesh at each person’s conception–At the same time, Adam’s descendent inherits Adam’s original sin. Mary and Jesus are the sole exceptions.

    • P.S.: Also, God is perfect and omnipotent. The idea that He could not or would not choose a clean vessel to house His only begotten Son is ‘not fitting.’ Numerous Church Fathers spoke of Mary’s sinless nature. They explained that it is not ‘fitting’ (appropriate) that a sinless human-divine person would develop and be birthed by a sinful creature. If God readily and pre-emptively could ‘save’ Mary from all sin by applying the future grace attained by Christ’s Salvific Action on the Cross, why would He not?

      If we could choose a daughter or son to be perfect, slightly less than perfect, horrid or horrendously evil, what would we choose? As we are made in God’s image, our intelligent analogies and reasonings can be used to understand God, particularly if we consider Him as Our Father.

  20. Certainly I don’t hope you don’t decide on truth by voting and declaring one to be a Co-Redemptrix. It is either true or it isn’t. If such a declaration could make it true then declaring one’s self to be God would also make it true. But we know that isn’t true and that’s not how truth works.

  21. “To those without faith,” says the Angelic St. Thomas, “no evidence is enough. To those with faith, no explanation is necessary.” It is a waste of precious time arguing with heretics, who are inspired by the devil.


  23. This is just ridiculous. You imply that Jesus couldn’t be sinless if He had a sinful mother, yet you somehow imply that Mary could be sinless if she had a sinful mother? What kind of logic is that? You’re telling me that Mary, a mere human, could be made sinless, but Jesus, who is God Himself, couldn’t be sinless despite having a sinful mother? Wow. Catholic logic makes no sense.

  24. Forgive me for coming a little late to the party, but as I see it: those of us who are believers in the One True God, cannot say with absolute certainty that Mary was sinless because God does not tell us this in His word the Bible, nor have we read elsewhere that the “Word,” ever uttered the phrase, “my mother was and is sinless.” We do know that His word tells us Mary was a virgin and that was the/a requirement for Jesus’ birth. (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 1:23)

    The person Jesus came into this world because the person God could not or would not stay after sin entered the world. (Not sure if this is relevant but you might notice in Genesis, Adam and Eve spoke with/were in relationship with God, but we don’t “hear God walking” in the garden until after the Fall.) Pre-incarnate Jesus walked the earth before his virgin birth numerous times and this is recorded in Scripture. Personally, I don’t believe Mary was sinless for three reasons that have already been mentioned in several comments already, so I won’t repeat ad nauseum the arguments, but 1. God’s word does not tell us this info; 2. she was a human born of two humans, not gods; 3. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” When Jesus says “All,” he means ALL. (God does not qualify this statement as “all, but. . . .”)

    Mary was certainly a blessed woman to have been given the gift of carrying God in her womb; but she was also gifted the burden of His purpose in coming to earth and watched as her son was brutally and horrifically murdered. I thank her for being a willing participant in God’s plan of salvation. God’s word nowhere indicates we are to worship or pray to Mary but we can certainly respect her as we often do respect priests, pastors, and other leaders in our lives. Several apostles as well as angels are recorded in Scripture as saying, (paraphrased) “Do not worship me or bow to me; this honor is reserved for God alone.” Regardless of which of the three persons of the Trinity we choose to name in worship/prayer/praise, Scripture is clear we are not to lift any name above His.

    Something else I noticed in reading the comments is there seems to be confusion between praying “to,” and praying “for.” Scripture is clear that as members of one body, in Christ, we are to always lift others in prayer (pray “for” others). Scripture is equally clear that we are not to pray “to” anyone or anything else. Doing this is having a god before God.

    I also saw it stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This is absurd, as Scripture clearly tells us that she had several children after Jesus; at least one of which authored a book in the Bible called “James,” and she was “known” by Joseph in Matthew 1:24-25. (Acts 1:14; Luke 1:47; John 2:12, Luke 2:7)

    Mary was not incarnate. Incarnate means: invested with bodily and especially human nature and form; embody or represent (a deity or spirit) in human form. Mary was assuredly a human being and not a spirit or deity. Jesus, however, was incarnate. Scripture tells us He took on flesh to be our atonement.

    We could spend days, weeks, or even years, arguing Jesus’ lineage in regards to Mary, but again, Scripture is clear that Jesus had to be born in the line of David. We believe, based on what Scripture reveals, that Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son. We believe, based on what Scripture reveals, that Jesus was Mary’s biological son. So, whether biologically in the line of David or not, all Scripture leads to Jesus’ human birth keeping him in the line of David, His father. (I intentionally used “based on Scripture,” because we cannot know what God has not revealed.)

    Something that all true Christians and believers in the One True God need to remember is we are to share the Truth with all people, we are not to ram it down their throat. We speak the truth in love and then let them work out the truth with their god. Our God will not allow His word to come back void. If we believe in Him and rely on His Spirit to give us wisdom, understanding, and grace in sharing truth, we need not worry about the outcome.
    “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.”

    In Christ,

  25. Jesus suffered on all points. He was tempted in every way, but without sin. He probably had a rough and tumble childhood and Mary made her mistakes despite her best efforts. Was Jesus temped to say, Mom you are mistaken? Did Jesus have misunderstandings with His siblings, did Joseph discipline Him when no discipline was required?

    Did the neighbours say, well your parents are just perfect?

    The rational behind this hypothesis is not born out by common sense nor does scripture validate the position of the author.

    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

    Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

    Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

    Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    All hail the name of Jesus.

    • Brian Young the only time up to late yesterday that anyone said “rough” on this page, is in your comment here. I’ll admit your comment is a head-twister that doesn’t resolve because it is “not born out” in common sense or scripture. Brian Young if we ever met in person I’d recommend a cup of camomile tea with scones and clotted cream and I would definitely steer conversation away from religion and I’d make sure there was good company besides me.

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. SVNDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  2. The Immaculate Conception Revisited – Catholic World Report
  3. The Immaculate Conception Revisited – Catholic World Report - Mama Mary - Our Loving Mother
  4. The Immaculate Conception Revisited - Catholic Daily
  5. The Immaculate Conception Revisited - Catholic Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.