Dear Claire:

This misinterpretation of Protestants is based on their lack of understand of language conventions -- even conventions they use themselves, and they are ignorant of the Bible.

Have we ever caught ourselves saying, "ALL teenagers are irresponsible". Or when we can't find the keys to the car saying something like, "This happens EVERYTIME I need to go somewhere."

I am not suggesting the St. Paul is using that particular convention, but this does illustrate how we might say "ALL" when we really do not mean all.

What St. Paul did do is similar, however. St. Paul is saying that the normal human condition is to be a sinner. This does not exclude the exception to the Rule.

It is always a rule that ALL die, yet the Bible tells us the Elijah did not die but was taken up into heaven. Thus ALL die, if obviously not quite ALL.

We need to remember that an "exception to the rule" PROVES the rule. The fact that exceptions exist proves that the rest of us are indeed sinners - -otherwise the exception would not be an exception, but a norm.

In addition, St. Paul obviously does not literally mean 100% of all human beings sin. Jesus did not sin and Jesus was a human being. Yes he was also God, but he was also FULLY human and experienced human pain, suffering, and yes, even temptation, yet he did not sin. Therefore, just in the singular case of Jesus ALL is not quite ALL.

The Fundamentalist will then say, "well ALL except Jesus". That is a extremely disingenuous thing to say for a person who says they believe in what the Bible says and that we should not read into it things that are not there. St. Paul's words are ALL. He did not say "all but Jesus".

Lastly, while it is certainly true that all human beings sin UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, it is also true that God has the power to preserve a person from sin. God is God, afterall.

Mary was preserved from the original sin by a SINGULAR grace given to her alone. The only other person perserved from original sin was Jesus as he was born of a human mother but God as his father.

If one studies the bible and God's economy about the nature of the Sacred, then the Marian doctrines make sense.

Mary HAD to be preserved from sin because she was to be the ark of the New Covenant. The Old Testament shows us the nature of the sacred. If God is to reside in an ark that ark must be made sacred and pure and unblemished and untouched. Remember the story when the Ark was being moved to Jerusalem. It began to fall into the mud. A soldier put his hand on the Ark to steady it and was struck dead. He was well intentioned, but he touched a sacred and holy object without consecrated hands.

This nature of the Sacred is also seen in the sacrifice of the lamb. The lamb had to be a lamb (pre-sexual) to be pure and untouched, it had to be witout blemish. That is why Jesus had to be sinless and chaste in order to be the ultimate LAMB in sacrifice for our sins.

Since Jesus, who is God, was to reside in Mary's womb, she had to be pure, untouched, clean, and without blemish. She HAD to be without original sin or personal sin for that would have been a blemish. She had to be virgin for she had to be pure and untouched.

In addition, however, we learn from the Old Testament that once something has been touched by God in this way, been made sacred, that it can never again be used for normal purposes. It must remain only for sacred use.

Thus Mary HAD to remain a virgin because if she hadn't it would have defiled the sacred Ark of the New Covenant which is her womb.

Again, at the end of Mary's life, she HAD to be assumed into heaven because something sacred cannot be allowed to decay.

If people would actually study the bible, every single Catholic teaching would be as clear as the nose on their faces :)

God bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary