I’m pretty sure that’s the whole point. We would be lost without the help of God. Man alone=not sinless. Man with grace (divine intervention different from Christ’s sacrifice)=able to overcome sin. I’m also I’m sure I’m not expressing this very well.
It is rather funny when people don’t know where the protest part of Protestant comes from.
In other words, people can’t choose to be sinless.
In Catholic doctrine, forgiveness and grace are both dependent on the crucifixion. It’s not a different kind of intervention, it’s the same intervention.
The doctrine is that the reason people can’t be sinless under their own power is original sin. The crucifixion supposedly removed that stain and grants us the gift of grace.
But Mary was freed from original sin (and from the powerlessness to be free from sinning) without a sacrifice. If it could be done for Mary, then why couldn’t it be done for everyone?
So, as I understand it (and I am not Catholic yet, nor certainly a theologian, and have only a dim understanding of a lot of doctrines) Original Sin doesn’t remove free will, and neither does a state of Immaculate Conception, since Adam and Eve were sinless previous to the Fall. Original Sin predisposes us to personal sin, but does not force sin.
Since this is not Great Debates, and I am lazy, I’m not going to re-read the whole section on Mary. I don’t think that Mary was incapable of choosing to sin, I think that, assisted by the grace of God, she did not sin. This is not the same thing as lacking free will, any more than my thinking about, and deciding not to run over an annoying teenager on the way home is a sign of my lacking free will. It is purely me availing myself of the grace of God.
As to why God doesn’t remove Original Sin entirely, that’s a largeish question which leads into the problem of evil. The first quote I ran across referenced felix culpa.
My parents named their snake Felix, after felix culpa and the snake in the Garden. 
(You’re doing great by the way)
I heard a priest on EWTN one time say that Christ couldn’t sin. I couldn’t believe that was true, because the whole point is He was truly human and yet provides the perfect example of how to live, because He trusted in God completely. I guess the interpretation of what the priest said could be that theroretically Christ could have sinned but His will was so in line with the Father’s that He didn’t. And then there’s the whole part about Him being truly God as well.
OK, you win! 
I just am not very good at being religious, actually. I am Catholic because at heart I am a Christian, and after learning as much as I could about the various denominations, I think Catholicism makes the most sense to me theologically, and the style of worship works well for me. But as I said, I am not much of a theologian myself…I tend to have a more linear brain, not terribly well-suited for deep philosophical thoughts. I think of my priest like my doctor…I don’t know nearly as much as they do, but I know enough to be reasonably sure that they know what they are talking about! (Can’t be said about all priests or all doctors…sometimes it takes a while to really find a good one.)
I know on the SDMB, this may be a foolish admission…that’s why I generally stay away from theological debates. I don’t want to make it sound like I’m blindly following a religion, because it’s not quite like that, but I’m bad at remembering all the fine points of theology, and explaining them to others. Would make a terrible catechism teacher.
I freely admit that I follow blindly; I’m terribly imperfect and God and 2000 years of His inspiration know a lot more than I do. But I also follow because of my own religious experiences, and inspiration.
That about sums me up, as well.
In response to Diogenes’s first question, the Catholic doctrine is that Mary needed a savior as much as anyone else; the Immaculate Conception was a retroactive application of the Atonement, to make the Incarnation into “an unsullied vessel” possible. In other words, Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross atoned for the sins of the world, including making it possible for his mother to be conceived without sin 50-odd years prior to the Crucifixion. “He’s God; time means nothing to Him.”
W/r/t the second question, granted that Gabriel is spelling out God’s plan to Mary, and not presenting it as a question. But it’s very clear in Scripture that she willingly consents to what is proposed, in Luke 1:38:
Lieu and Jodi, could it be said that what God proposed to Mary at the Annunciation was the original Hail Mary Pass? 
And Catholicism, which customarily tries to make everything fit in one neat package theologically, is burdened by the baggage of holding to both free will and Augustinian determinism as contained in the anti-Pelagius original sin argument. It’s an unresolved paradox, removed by grace from being a practical matter, since with God’s help humans are free to refrain from sin entirely, with original sin lifted at Baptism. (And not being myself a Catholic, I don’t want to argue their POV any further than that. In their thinking, the Atonement did make it possible, through God’s grace, to live without sin; whether one could have chosen to do so without the Atonement is at best a hypothetical question.)
Why would you expect a Lutheran to know what Immaculate Conception means?
What can a perpetual virgin teach a woman about having sex? OTOH, I guess it’s on par with priests and divorcees giving marriage counseling
She may well have been explicitly taught that by her pastor. AIUI, the Church of Christ and other Restoration Movement churches claim that their roots are solely in the New Testament and that they are completely independent of any other historical development. Some pastors on the Calvary Chapel radio network have implied more or less the same thing.
I’ve just got to say that this thread and the one in the Pit about a disturbing event and which legal attachments may apply have resolved any hesitations I may have once had about this place. What a rational, educated, sharing group it is that has assembled here. We readers are blessed.
I am not among the faithful, so my opinion may be dismissed out of hand, but I’ll offer it anyway. Please understand that the following is offered with sincerity and respect:
One of the reasons religious people get pulled down the path of bigotry and hate is that they do not correctly understand their own theology. I don’t mean truly evil people who twist religion to mean something they want it to mean for their own gain, I mean ordinary people who just don’t understand. And one of the reasons for their not understanding is that many theological concepts were defined and, in some cases actually created, by intellectuals using terminology ordinary folks don’t use. Concepts such as trinity, immaculate conception and transubstantiation are frequently misunderstood by the very people who claim that these concepts rule their lives.
If you have a firm grasp on a concept that you know someone else misunderstands, I think it would be your duty to set them straight. Be gentle and kind, of course – be Christian about it, in fact. But do correct them. Jesus instructed his disciples to go out and make more disciples, and from that instruction comes the concept of witnessing. Pentacostals and fundamentalists aren’t the only Christians who are supposed to witness – all Christians are supposed to. One way you can witness is to gently nudge your fellow Christians back into a correct understanding of church doctrine and theology.
It’s what Jesus would do, isn’t it?
Yep, I’ve definitely done it with friends who are Catholic and should know better. But I shy away from getting into it at work.
Yeah, it seems a little counterproductive to have a party on a day of fasting! Maybe one of the Baptists was paying her off, so they would get all the good food…
I used to get pissed about our big boss putting out Easter candy on Good Friday. I had higher expectations since Easter is less secularized, and I thought people might know better.
What leads you to think it couldn’t have been done for everyone?
And as Polycarp says, it is done for everyone who is baptized.
A fact Dan Brown has ridden for pretty much all it’s worth. How many millions has he made off of re-packaging church history and theological debates? The whole buzz over The DaVinci Code would have been non-existant if most believers had even a basic overview of the origins and development of the church.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m arguing that it could have been done for everyone, therefore there was no need for a crucifixion.
I agree. God was not bound by some cosmic rule that only the crucifixion could have saved us from sin. That’s simply the way He chose to do it.