Was Mary sinless?

Tomorrow, Thurday, December 8th, marks the Feast of the Immaculate Conception ofiv Mary on Catholic calendars. The Catholic church teaches that Mary was conceived without a sin nature and that she did not commit one single sin during her entire life. This teaching defies God’s Word, which says there is not one human being who is without sin. The claim that Mary was sinless began to gain traction in the 4th-century. In 1854, pope Pius IX defined Mary’s immaculate conception as infallible, binding dogma.

Because Mary’s immaculate conception is a binding dogma, Catholics who do not believe it commit mortal sin. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is one of the Catholic church’s “holy days of obligation.” Catholics are obligated to attend mass on Thursday. If they fail to attend mass without a valid reason, they commit mortal sin and are doomed to hell if they do not confess the sin to a priest.

Relatively few Catholics take their church’s rules seriously. Only 35% of U.S. Catholics “always,” “frequently,” or “usually” attend mass on holy days of obligation. The overwhelming majority, 65%, either “seldom” or “never” attend mass on holy days of obligation (see the cara link below).

My heart is saddened for Roman Catholics who venerate/worship Mary and attempt to merit their salvation by obeying the Ten Commandments (impossible!) and church rules as they’ve been taught. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and come out of religious legalism. Worship God alone.



Click to access masseucharist.pdf

21 thoughts on “Was Mary sinless?

    1. Thanks, Wally. Yes, way way back when I was a Catholic, we were somewhat amused that a good number of Protestants thought that the Immaculate Conception referred to the Virgin Birth. Nowadays I would guess that a large number of Catholics are confused about the term also.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Brian. One of the biggest shocks I had in reading the New Testament for the first time as a 20-something Catholic was the total lack of emphasis on Mary.


  1. Gen 3:15 says that the devil and his seed will have enmity with the woman and her seed. All Christians believe that Gen 3:15 is prophecy, i.e. the woman refers to Mary and her seed is Christ – BOTH are in enmity with devil. If Mary a sinner then she cannot fulfill this prophecy because according to 1 John 3:8 whoever commits sins belongs to the devil.
    How about Romans 3:23? The Greek word “all” does not always means absolute all with no exception. For example in John 12:32 Christ said that after He was lifted up, ALL men will be drawn to Him. In reality not all men will be drawn to Him. 1 Cor 15:22 says: “For as in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive”. The first all refers to all men without exception but the second one does not. Titus 2:11 says “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of ALL men”. Reformed tradition understand that ALL men in Titus 2:11 means only the Elect, not absolute all – thereby exempts not just one, not even a few, but billions of people from “all men” to support Reformed double predestination. In contrast Catholics only exempt ONE person from Romans 3:23.


      1. Please, no shouting. Gen 3:15 in my Bible reads, “I will put enmity between you and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and her (Eve’s) offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Sorry, I don’t see a reference to Mary there. Mariolatrists have forced-fit a few bible verses like this one and developed a vast belief system regarding Mary. It’s all idolatry.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. My apology for shouting. Read carefully the following (copied and pasted from your reply. “I will put enmity between you and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and her (Eve’s) offspring”. There is enmity between the woman and the devil and between her seed and devil’s seed. If her seed is a prophecy referring to Christ to Christ and the woman is Mary. Eve was not in enmity with the devil – she was the one who sinned first and then lured Adam to do the same. Who bruised the devil’s head has nothing to do with immaculate conception.


      3. If you agree that her seed refers to Christ then the woman is Mary. There is neither presupposition nor Marian extrapolation here. Of course, you disagree that her seed refers to Christ (which you are entitled to), then the woman does not refer to Mary. If this is the case, then according to you “he who bruises devil’s head” is not Christ.


      4. The seed refers to Christ, Eve is the progenitor. Thanks for your comments. No sense in continuing to go round and round with this.


  2. As I read this a thought occurred to me: Catholic Apologists make much of their arguments that Sola Scripture is new and began late and therefore is not true. But then that same kind of argumentation would apply even more with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Jim. Early Mariolatrists had to work backward. If Mary was to be worshipped as the sinless, semi-deified, Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix, and Co-Redemptrix, which was their goal, they had to find some kind of supporting Scriptural evidence. They argued that Mary’s sinlessness is taught in Scripture via one poorly translated verse – “Hail Mary, FULL of grace…” Mariolatry’s complex set of beliefs was extrapolated from just a small number of Bible verses including Jerome’s mistranslation of Genesis 3:15.

      There’s the concept of Mary being the mother of all Christians taken from John 19:27 and the ark in Genesis as a type of Mary, etc. So the status of Mary as the new mother-goddess was a given among her followers, they just had to “find” justification and convince others in the church and that took time. While the pope didn’t formally declare the dogma until 1854, it was widely taught many years prior to that. But as you say, the early church “fathers” didn’t know anything about the complex tenets of latter day Mariology.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. So recently a friend of mine has been on the anti-Christian warpath. She keeps lumping me in with fundamentalists and evangelicals while knowing nothing about how I practice my faith in my daily life. So I looked up the definitions and from what I can tell, she must think I’m dogmatic and believe she will spend eternity in hell. This is the kind of stuff that gets us into trouble– touting that we know the rules and the actual judgements. I have assured her that my beliefs are simply mine and I have no intention of second guessing where she’ll end up. I’m not that smart.


    1. I’m very dogmatic when it comes to the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Either you accept Christ as your Savior by faith or you don’t. That’s not a matter of me being smarter than someone else, that’s what God’s Word declares.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s