To comment on this, while not starting up another fruitless argument:Claire, who is a Catholic, and who wanted her name on this quote even though the context of the quote clearly doesn't require it because all I'm doing is using the quote to illustrate a belief and comment on it, and I'm always very careful to give credit to quotes when the context requires it, but since she's upset about it I edited the post and put her name in, wrote:
Additionally, I suggest you read Ex. 25. There's parallels between the ark of the covenant and Mary, and the ten commandments and Jesus. God desired the creation of a perfect ark to contain His written word. So, why would He create an imperfect ark to contain His word made flesh?
I agree with Chap that nowhere does the Bible say that Mary was created sinless, so IMO to come out and have such a strong opinion on that, as the RCC does, is WAY overstepping bounds with an unsupported extrapolation that is completely unnecessary. Jesus saves, whether or not Mary was sinless, so it's an irrelevant point anyway.
I don't recall God saying that the ark was perfect. It probably had some wormholes in the wood. But it was designed by God for its purpose. I'd even be willing to say that it was perfectly designed for its purpose. And if I had to make an extrapolation and give an opinion on the subject of whether or not Mary was created sinless, I'd say that the perfect option is that she was NOT, because that demonstrates even more clearly that Jesus understands the human condition. I think it's beautiful how Jesus came down to live among us, eating and drinking and talking with us, even weeping with us. It's beautiful that the God of all creation came to live among us, and to bring us back to Him, all while having to deal with what it means to be born of a woman with a sin nature. I think that's the more beautiful and "perfect" opinion on the subject, as well as the more supported opinion, given that the Bible DOES speak about the matter of all people sinning (Romans 3:23). But I also realize that it's an opinion and no one can say for sure either way (although again, of the two opinions, the position of the RCC is LESS supported).
I suppose one could argue that Mary was born without a sin nature but sinned anyway, but one could argue just about anything, so I think it's best to not state as fact something that the Bible doesn't speak to. I think the RCC should temper its position on this issue. I think they spend way too much time and energy on Mary, which takes away from time and energy that could be spent loving God and loving others, the things that Jesus says to do.