HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

the bible god wrote to affirm that the virgin mary is a sinner

The Bible calls Mary a sinner and is not ashamed to say it. The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary, by virtue of her being conceived without original sin lived a fully sinless life.

Jeremiah 1:5 has Jeremiah being sanctified from the womb. It seems this could mean he was cleansed from original sin before birth or that he was not but was merely set apart for a holy job in the womb.  If the Bible speaks of a cleansing here like Mary got it does not say such cleansing could go back to conception.

Mary made an offering according to Luke 2 to fulfil the Law that the uncleanness of childbirth had to be removed by offering a sacrifice (Leviticus 12). The Church says that does not prove that Mary was a sinner for a holy person could be dirty in the eyes of God. It also says because her giving birth was so pure that she didn’t need to make the sacrifice. The Bible says the cleanness laws were not just about being clean before God but about reminding you to keep your heart clean. Sacrifices were no good unless the heart was clean. So Mary offering the sacrifice then needed reminding to keep herself clean. She testified by her action that she was a sinner. That is the most straightforward understanding. It is the one then we must take.   Would it be right for a sinless person to bother the priest going to confession? If not then Mary sinned in offering the sacrifice if she was sinless.

When a man called Jesus good, Jesus told him that no one was good only God alone (Mark 10). In other words, if you want to look at a good example consider only God. Mary then was not sinless. The Church might reply that she was only working in the quiet and it was her role to be an example. But that contradicts the Catholic teaching that your lamp cannot be put under a bushel. That teaching came from Jesus. Also they are using speculation to interpret the Bible their way. That is neither fair nor honest.

When the man called Jesus good, Jesus told him that no one was good only God alone (Mark 10) so Jesus knew that his mother was a sinner and that he was one himself. Rome denies that this proves that Mary was sinful. Rome says that when the man knew that Mary couldn’t sin he knew that Jesus didn’t mean her. The man did not know Jesus well for he didn’t know his main teachings so he wouldn’t have known of Mary being sinless and besides are we to believe she went about advertising it?   Rome’s interpretation is wrong.

Christians say that the man meant Jesus was humanly good and not good like God is good – which would be infinitely good and that was why Jesus rejected his compliment. So if Jesus had been called as good as God he would have accepted the compliment. That is twisting the words to avoid admitting Jesus never claimed to be sinless. When a man talks about a cat in his backyard and you say there is no cat in it nobody can say that the man means a domestic cat and you mean a tiger. Words will be made to mean anything if the Christian “explanations” are adopted. Jesus was denying that he was sinless and that his mother was sinless.

Paul says that all sinned and none avoids sin in Romans (3) and since he was speaking to a Church that was so ignorant that it did not understand his foundational doctrine that faith alone saves as in that grace is strongest where there is the most sin so all must mean literally all except Jesus who Romans seems to say never sinned. That shows Paul would have expressly stated that the Virgin Mary was exempt if she had been for when they did not know the important doctrine they would have taken him to mean that Mary was declared sinful too.

Rome does not worry about that, contending that Mary is an obvious exception and that we are meant to except her. Even if the Bible had to be supplemented by tradition it would make it clear that the exception is in itself. The Bible can be made to teach almost anything if people are going to assume that this general statement has such and such an exception and so on.

Paul wrote in Mary’s lifetime that all are sinners and nobody does good. This seems to refute the Roman doctrine that Mary was sinless all her life. The Church answers that Paul was just making a general observation and didn’t mean Mary for she was an obvious exception. This is false for it took the Church centuries to work out her sinlessness. And the only way she could be an obvious exception is if she had to be free from original sin in order to give birth to a sinless son, Jesus. Also, if Mary was an obvious exception then so were her parents! We need a chain of sinless ancestors going right back to Adam and Eve! The Church says they were sinners and to blame for the mess the whole world is in. So its attitude to Mary rejects that by implication.

The Church says that Paul was quoting a Psalm of David which says nobody does good and David wrote that God is with those who are righteous and blameless. The Church says that David and Paul were not being too literal. But the text means that nobody is completely good all the time. A blameless person will have been a sinner at some point.

The book of Revelation, 5:3, states that there was a scroll in Heaven and nobody in Heaven or earth or anywhere was allowed to look into it for they were not worthy. Only Jesus was allowed to. The same chapter speaks of saints in Heaven being present. The scroll symbolises God's plan. It is written on front and back meaning there is no room to add anything into it. Then after the scroll is opened by Jesus all the creatures in existence sing his praises. This seems to hint that all creation will turn to God and worship him. But it doesn't really say that. Revelation is well aware of people who pray without meaning it. But it does indicate that all creation will know of God and Jesus. The text is sometimes used to argue that all people will go to Heaven but that is mistaken. The text affirms that nobody is sinless and worthy but Jesus. And it is an angel who looks for the worthy person. Why didn't God do it? He is spoken of as the one on the throne holding the scroll. The angel who cannot know things like God does has to do it. The worthy person then is somebody so good that even an angel whose knowledge is nothing like God's can see who that person is. This excludes anybody being sinless only Jesus. This teaching forbids canonisations where men try to judge people worthy of Heaven and of being able to administer God's plan. The Catholic saints including Mary are claimed in Catholicism to be able to influence God and administer his plan. This teaching is unbiblical nonsense.

The Church says all humankind needed and needs redemption through Jesus Christ. It claims that Mary was redeemed by prevention. But when we inherit sin at the first moment of our existence from Adam and Eve, and sin is disorder and not meant to be, it follows that
 
If the doctrine is true, it would be mentioned in the Bible especially when God would have known there was a chance that many Christians would start saying that only the Bible is the word of God. Bible only is the cardinal doctrine of Protestantism.

The teaching of a sinless Mary is not just absent from the Bible but contrary to it.
 
ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications, Bucks, 1993
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
MAKING SAINTS, Kenneth K Woodward, Chatto & Windus, London, 1991
OBJECTIONS TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Ed by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable, London, 1964
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, San Diego, California, 1999
REASON AND BELIEF, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
SERMONS OF ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Tan Books, Illinois, 1982
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg, BD, APCK, Dublin, 1928
THE VIRGIN, Geoffrey Ashe, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London, 1976
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London, 1996