|
|
 |
Chris wrote: |
|
Hi, guys—
I used to be a Catholic and it always bothered
me that Catholics claimed that Mary was sinless.
- Where is that exactly found in the Bible?
- Also, if Mary was sinless, why couldn't
she just have died on the Cross for our
sins instead of Jesus, since God needed
someone without sin to take away our sins?
- Finally, how does Romans 3:23:
"For all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God"
stack up with Mary's sinlessness?
Please point me to Scripture references to
help me understand all of this.
Thanks,
Chris
|
| { Where
is Mary's sinlessness and if she was sinlessness, why couldn't she have died on the Cross? } |
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Chris —
Thanks for your question.
I have appended an article from the Catholic
Answers web site to my answer
below; it may help address the
issue.
The only thing I would add to their article "The
Bible Only?" is one of our web postings on this exact topic.
You said:
I used to be
a Catholic and it always bothered
me that Catholics claimed that Mary
was sinless.
- Where is that exactly
found in the Bible?
The Scriptural basis, though not
needed, is found in Luke 1:28:
28 And he came to her and said, "Hail,
O favored one, the Lord is with
you!
Luke 1:28 |
This is usually translated in Catholic
Bibles as — "Hail, Full
of Grace the Lord is with you."
Here, God Himself, speaking through
the angel Gabriel, is using the words "Full
of Grace" to address Mary. Obviously,
anything full of grace can't have
any sin.
We also see that, in the Biblical
concept of Oral Tradition, the Ark
of the Covenant in the
Old Testament was seen as a foreshadowing
of Mary.
Because in the same way the Ark of
the Covenant had to be totally pure
to hold The Law or
Ten Commandments,
so Mary had to be totally pure to
hold and bear the New Testament Law,
Jesus, the Savior of Mankind.
You said:
- Also, if Mary
was sinless, why couldn't she just
have died on the cross for our sins
instead of Jesus, since God needed
someone without sin to take away
our sins?
Because Mary was only human. She
only had one nature, a human nature.
Jesus had two natures. He was 100%
human and at
the same time, 100% God in one Divine Person. In Catholic
theology, we would say that Jesus
is consubstantial, of one substance,
with the Father. This is a mystery
to us.
You and I are like Mary in that we
only have one nature, human. We differ
from Mary in that, due to the fall
of Adam's sin, we inherit original
sin, causing us to struggle in pleasing
God. Mary was born without original
sin, but was still only human.
- You, Mary, and I are human persons.
- Jesus is the Divine Person.
Humans can't save mankind, only [Jesus/God]
can! You, Mary, and I are finite people limited by our earthly pilgrimage and limited by space. Jesus is not. Because He is the Divine Person, His Death on the Cross is made present outside of time as well as inside time and for that reason the graces of His Death are perpetuated down throughout history.
Mary cooperated with God, the
Father and with her free will, said:
"Yes, I will become the Mother
of Your Incarnate, Divine Son,
Jesus."
Because she cooperated with the Father's
plan of salvation, we refer to her
as our Co-redemptrix: someone who
was instrumental to Jesus becoming
Our Incarnated God to save mankind
from our sins.
We also help in the redemptive process
when, being in Christ, we share
the Gospel with others who have never
heard it.
I hope this helps.
Don't hesitate replying if your question
is still not answered.
Mike
The
Bible Only?
Since the Immaculate
Conception and Assumption are not
explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists
conclude that the doctrines are false.
Here, of course, we get into an entirely
separate matter, the question of
sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible
only" theory. There is no room
in this tract to consider that idea.
Let it just be said that if the position
of the Catholic Church is true, then
the notion of sola scriptura is false.
There is then no problem with the
Church officially defining a doctrine
which is not explicitly in Scripture,
so long as it is not in contradiction
to Scripture.
The Catholic Church
was commissioned by Christ to teach
all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided,
as he promised, by the Holy Spirit
until the end of the world (John
14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that
the Church teaches that something
is definitely true is a guarantee
that it is true (cf. Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Timothy 3:15).
Fundamentalists' Objections
Fundamentalists' chief
reason for objecting to the Immaculate
Conception and Mary's consequent
sinlessness is that we are told that "all
have sinned" (Romans 3:23).
Besides,
they say, Mary said her "spirit
rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke
1:47), and only a sinner
needs a Savior.
Let's take
the second citation first. Mary,
too, required a Savior. Like all
other descendants of Adam, she was
subject to the necessity of contracting
original sin. But by a special intervention
of God, undertaken at the instant
she was conceived, she was preserved
from the stain of original sin and
its consequences. She was therefore
redeemed by the grace of Christ,
but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy:
Suppose a man falls into a deep pit,
and someone reaches down to pull
him out. The man has been "saved" from
the pit. Now imagine a woman walking
along, and she too is about to topple
into the pit, but at the very moment
that she is to fall in, someone holds
her back and prevents her. She too
has been saved from the pit, but
in an even better way: She was not
simply taken out of the pit, she
was prevented from getting stained
by the mud in the first place. This
is the illustration Christians have
used for a thousand years to explain
how Mary was saved by Christ. By
receiving Christ's grace at
her conception, she had his grace
applied to her before she was able
to become mired in original sin and
its stain.
The Catechism of
the Catholic Church states that she
was "redeemed in a more exalted
fashion, by reason of the merits
of her Son" (CCC
492). She has more reason to
call God her Savior than we do, because
he saved her in an even more glorious
manner!
But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"?
Have all people committed actual
sins? Consider a child below the
age of reason. By definition he can't
sin, since sinning requires the ability
to reason and the ability to intend
to sin. (Mike
Humphrey's comment: Also
a mentally retarded child can't sin.) This is indicated by Paul later in
the letter to the Romans when he
speaks of the time when Jacob and
Esau were unborn babies as a time
when they "had done nothing
either good or bad" (Romans
9:11).
We also know of another
very prominent exception to the rule:
Jesus (Hebrews 4:15).
So if Paul's statement in Romans
3 includes an exception for the New
Adam (Jesus), one may argue that
an exception for the New Eve (Mary)
can also be made.
Paul's comment
seems to have one of two meanings.
It might be that it refers not to
absolutely everyone, but just to
the mass of mankind (which means
young children and other special
cases, like Jesus and Mary, would
be excluded without having to be
singled out). If not that, then it
would mean that everyone, without
exception, is subject to original
sin, which is true for a young child,
for the unborn, even for Mary — but
she, though due to be subject to
it, was preserved by God from it
and its stain.
The objection is
also raised that if Mary were without
sin, she would be equal to God. In
the beginning, God created Adam,
Eve, and the angels without sin,
but none were equal to God. Most
of the angels never sinned, and all
souls in Heaven are without sin.
This does not detract from the glory
of God, but manifests it by the work
he has done in sanctifying his creation.
Sinning does not make one human.
On the contrary, it is when man is
without sin that he is most fully
what God intends him to be.
The doctrine of the
the Immaculate Conception, [New Advent][Papal Encyclicals Online] was officially
defined by Blessed Pope Pius IX in 1854.
When Fundamentalists claim that the
doctrine was "invented" at
this time, they misunderstand both
the history of dogmas and what prompts
the Church to issue, from time to
time, definitive pronouncements regarding
faith or morals. They are under the
impression that no doctrine is believed
until the pope or an ecumenical council
issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines
are defined formally only when there
is a controversy that needs to be
cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher;
cf. Matthew 28:18–20; 1 Timothy
3:15, 4:11) think the faithful can
be helped by particular emphasis
being drawn to some already-existing
belief. The definition of the Immaculate
Conception was prompted by the latter
motive; it did not come about because
there were widespread doubts about
the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican
was deluged with requests from people
desiring the doctrine to be officially
proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was
highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin,
hoped the definition would inspire
others in their devotion to her. |
|
|
Chris
replied:
|
Mike,
Thanks for your reply on Mary.
No
offense, but there is no way I could
ever turn back to Catholicism. I
was Catholic for 18 years and there
are just too many places in the Catholic
faith that don't match up with the
Bible.
About Mary being "full of grace",
meaning she was sinless:
Luke 1:6 says that Elizabeth and
Zacharias were both righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
That seems to me that they are also
full of grace. I will never be persuaded
to believe that Mary was sinless
based on Romans 3:23, as
I stated before that all have sinned
and all fall short of the glory of
God. If Mary was sinless,
I doubt God would forget to put that
in this verse, showing her as the
only exception to this truth, seeing
as it is quite important.
Jesus needed a human vessel to enter
the world as a human. Mary was a
vessel God could use, the same way
He chose Noah to build the Ark and
Moses to take His people through
the desert and you or I to be world-changers.
The Bible is full of examples where
God used humans like you and me,
with sin, to carry out His perfect
plan. It doesn't take a perfect person
to do God's sovereign will.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this
is simply how I feel on the matter.
It just seems to me that when I was
Catholic, Catholics were more adamant
in defending their faith than they
were in defending their Savior.
I mean all of this out of respect.
I just wanted to get a few things
off of my chest. None of this
is aimed at you.
Thanks again for your reply to my
questions.
Chris
|
Bob
replied:
|
Dear Chris —
- Can I offer two other points
of inquiry that help to shed light
on the Catholic view?
You are stuck on Romans 3:23, but
if you look at it more closely, that
is not a proof text for your point.
What Paul is talking about is sin
in a "corporate" context,
not a "personal" context.
If you choose to imply the latter,
you are forced to carry to the logical
conclusion that every person that
ever lived is guilty of personal
sin. That however flies in the face of reason. Certainly you would not
ascribe to infants, especially
those who die as such, retarded persons,
intellectually impaired persons,
and the like, as culpable of
personal sin. If this is true, then
your premise that Mary is guilty
of personal sin, based on this text,
is false. Neither can you assume
that Paul is relying on us to make
distinctions based on these criteria,
for he does not add stipulations
about age, etc.
He merely is pointing out the fact
that all need the saving grace of
Christ because of the fact of sin (original and otherwise), and on
that point, Mary too is equally dependant.
This is fulfilled by Christ's grace
affecting Mary at her conception;
she was "saved" at conception.
You may have difficulty with the "saved
from sin" concept as we believe,
but you may see it in another way.
If you follow Scripture, as closely
as I suspect you do, you will see
huge "typological" keys
in the
Old Testament pointing to the greater
fulfillment of these "types" in
the New Testament.
For example, you brought up the Ark.
- Didn't God Himself design the Ark?
- Didn't He specify that it be made
of acacia wood — incorruptible
in nature?
- Didn't He prepare the
Ark for three things:
- the manna
- the staff, and
- the commandments (the Word).
- Who do these three things typologically
represent?
<Christ, the "Living Bread come
down from Heaven", the "Good
Shepherd", and the "Word
made flesh".>
- Now who is the New Ark to contain
the fulfillment of all these things?
- Do you think God would take any
less care to design the New Ark
for the True Food and Word?
In the Old Testament, people died
by merely the good intention of preventing
it from falling.
(1 Chronicles 13:9-11)
- Why?
- Because it was holy?
- Which is holier?
In the Old Testament, David danced
before the Ark, and asked,
"How is it that the ark of
my Lord can come to me?" (cf. 2 Samuel 6:9)
- Sound familiar?
- Why don't you do a Scripture
study and see how many typological
correlations you can find between 2 Samuel and Luke 1?
Scholars have found too many to enumerate
here; try it yourself. You may determine
that Mary is the new Ark, and if
not convinced, turn to Revelation
11:19 and read through Chapter 12:6.
My point is simply that when you
consider the great care that God
took in designing and caring for
the Ark, because of the holiness
of its purpose, He would do no less
for the new Ark, where Mary exceeds
and excels it in every way. Give
God the glory for His work. Mary
remains sinless because God has the
power to make her this way and keep
her this way to His glory.
- Would you deny God this power?
That would be an insult. He did it
because it was fitting for His only
Son to be born into the most Holy
of Holies. He created Eve without
sin as he took her from the original
Adam. He took the "grace" of
the new Adam to make the new Eve
and used her flesh to incarnate his
Son. When you ponder these mysteries
you will realize this is not simply
an aggrandizement of Mary for her
own sake, but a testimony to the
power and majesty of God's great
redemptive work. Think about it.
Only the Catholic Church has preserved
this great truth, for you will not
find an explicit verse telling all,
in some banal form, but rather through
great reflection on the mysteries
of the Incarnation in the Holy Writ,
will you find this truth.
All throughout
history, in the great councils of
the ages, when Christ's nature, dignity
and identity have been debated, Mary
was always critical in these determinations.
Study history for the first three
hundred years of the Church and the
development of the Creeds. I think
God anticipated some of the difficulties
we would have in understanding Christ
and therefore He allowed Mary to
become an integral part of our unlocking
the Incarnation.
More food for thought,
Peace,
Bob K.
|
John
replied:
|
Chris,
On the surface, you make a legitimate
point. But look at the context of Romans 3 and the way the word "all" is
used. Romans 3 is strictly talking
about personal sin, and not original
sin (or the sin nature we are born
with.) So is Paul, when he talks
about every human being guilty of
personal sin.
Well let's think about that.
- Are infants guilty of personal
sin?
- Are mentally retarded people
guilty of personal sin?
To be responsible for sin, one must
be able to reason, therefore the
answer is No. So clearly, Paul is
not talking about everyone on the
planet. This, in and of itself, does
not prove Mary is without sin, but
rather it establishes that there
are exceptions. We will deal with
this more specifically shortly, but
let's first talk about what Paul
is addressing.
Paul is dealing with
Jewish Christians that thought they
were saved by the Mosaic Law and
by virtue of their being Jews.
1 What advantage then has the
Jew, or what is the profit of
circumcision?
Romans 3:1 |
Paul also quotes the psalms when
he says:
10 As
it is written: "There is
none righteous, no, not one; 11 There
is none who understands; there
is none who seeks after God. 12 They
have all turned aside; they have
together become unprofitable;
there is none who does good, no,
not one." 13 "Their
throat is an open tomb; with their
tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The
poison of asps is under their
lips";
Romans 3:10-13 |
Well, this is a quoting of the Psalms.
1 The
fool has said in his heart, "There
is no God." They are corrupt,
they have done abominable works,
there is none who does good. 2 The
LORD looks down from Heaven upon
the children of men, to see if
there are any who understand,
who seek God. 3 They
have all turned aside, they have
together become corrupt; there
is none who does good, no, not
one. 4 Have
all the workers of iniquity no
knowledge, who eat up my people
as they eat bread, and do not
call on the LORD? 5 There
they are in great fear, for God
is with the generation
of the righteous. 6 You
shame the counsel of the poor,
but the LORD is his refuge. 7 Oh,
that the salvation of Israel would
come out of Zion! When the LORD
brings back the captivity of His
people, let Jacob rejoice and
Israel be glad.
Psalms 14:1-7 |
Now when a New Testament author is
quoting the Old Testament, he does
not wrench the quote out of context.
Remember, Paul is writing to Jews,
so they would have known the context,
and if he misapplied the text, they
would have ripped him to shreds.
Rather, Paul is calling to mind the
entire text to the reader.
Let me give you a contemporary example:
If I were to say:
"O say can you see"
You would probably immediately think
of the National Anthem, or Star Spangled
Banner.
You may also think:
"by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the
twilight's last gleaming,"
You may even begin to think of things
you personally associate with the
Star Spangled Banner. Perhaps it
would be prior military service or
the beginning of a ball game.
The point I'm making is that Paul
does not always quote the whole text
because he knows the reader already
knows it. He is simply jarring their
memory.
Now look at Psalm 14. It was written
by David while he was fighting fellow
Israelites during his battle with
Absalom.
David is talking about his enemies,
fellow Jews, who are devouring "God's
people" and the "generation
of the righteous".
Paul is reminding the Jews that they
are not righteous because of their
Jewishness. He points to Jews that
are unrighteous to make his point.
Now let's look at the word, all.
- If we apply your exegesis of Romans 3 to Mark, how would you
handle this verse?
5 And all the land of Judea, and those
from Jerusalem, went out to him
and were all baptized by him in
the Jordan River, confessing their
sins.
Mark 1:5 |
Notice: all the land of Judea and those from
Jerusalem were baptized, confessing
their sins.
Well, Herod was from Judea but
he did not repent nor get baptized.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were
from Jerusalem and Judea, but
they were not all baptized.
- Was all of Judea baptized?
- Was every single person in Judea
present?
Clearly not, but if we apply your
interpretation of the word "all" to
Mark then we would have to say, yes,
and that's not the case.
The word "all" is used
in two ways. The collective and distributive
sense. I can say:
I went to a party and everyone was
there.
When I do that I am not saying every
person on the face of the earth was
at this party. Also, if I say there
was a joint service and all the congregations
in the town were there, I would not
be saying every person in every church
community attended. That is unlikely.
What I'm saying is that every congregation
was represented. That is the collective
sense of the word "all" .
That is precisely the way Paul is
using the word.
Let me give you one other biblical
example of collective and distributive
sense.
10 For
even when we were with you, we
commanded you this: If anyone
will not work, neither shall he
eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 |
So if we use your standard of exegesis,
we would have to say infants, disabled
people, and the elderly should starve
to death. That doesn't make sense. After
all, Paul says, anyone, and doesn't
anyone mean, "anyone that will
not work."
My point here is that we have to
give Scripture a context when we
interpret the meaning.
Now let's deal with Mary.
Mary is not sinless by her own virtue
or nature. Rather, the Church teaches
that she was preserved from sin by
the merits of Christ.
In other words, God looked forward
in time, to what Jesus would do for "all" on
the Cross, and He protected Mary
from sin so the Living Word would
have a suitable vessel. This is a
work of God, to the Glory
of God and for the Glory of God.
It is more about Jesus, than it is
about Mary.
This is rooted in the earliest book
of the Bible:
15 And
I will put enmity between you
and the woman, and between your
seed and her Seed; he shall bruise
your head, and you shall bruise
His heel."
Genesis 3:15 |
All Christians agree that this is
a Messianic prophecy. Well, if the
seed of a woman is Jesus, then the
woman must be Mary.
You can't get around that.
So let's look at the verse.
"I will put enmity between
you and the woman."
God is speaking to the serpent (satan)
and he declares that, He, God will
put an enmity between satan and Mary.
The Hebrew word used is even more
specific. It means total war, and
having no common ground.
- Well, what is the common ground
between man and satan?
We can both agree that it is sin.
Therefore, for Mary to be in enmity
with satan, she can have no sin.
Notice though that this enmity is
not by Mary's nature, rather it is
what God will place there by Grace.
Now let's talk about Mary as the
vessel.
In the Old Testament, God gave specific
instructions for the construction
of the Ark of the Covenant. He instructed
that it should be made perfect. The
Ark contained:
- the Law, God's Word
- the Staff of Aaron, the Symbol
of the Priesthood, and
- a jar of manna, bread come down
from Heaven.
- Well, as you know the Old Testament
foreshadowed the New, did it not?
- Who did Mary carry in her womb?
She carried The Living Word of God,
The High Priest and The Living Bread
come down from Heaven.
- This begs the question if the
Ark that carried the symbols of
Christ had to be made perfect,
why wouldn't the Ark that carried
the reality of Christ also have
to be made perfect?
If you read the Early Church Fathers,
who lived from 80 A.D. to 400 A.D.,
you will see over and over that Mary
is referred to as the Ark of the
New Covenant.
You can also see some parallels in
the Bible itself. For instance, David
danced before the Ark, and John the
Baptist leapt in his mother Elizabeth's
womb at the hearing of Mary's voice.
I could name several other parallels,
as there are so many more.
I'd like to leave you with this thought.
Clearly you love the Lord and are
familiar with His Word. I would encourage you to take the
next step and study the writings
of those who came immediately after
the Apostles, the
Fathers of the Church. They are
not inspired, but they carry an awful
lot of weight when it comes to understanding
how the earliest Christians interpreted
the Bible. You may be surprised at
what you learn. Bear in mind, that
the Bible was not codified until
around 400 A.D., so the Fathers of
the Church were the ones responsible
for preserving the teachings of the
Apostles. They were also responsible
for what actually was included in
the Bible. It follows that
if they held views that were consonant
with today's Catholic Teaching,
they would not have included books
in the Bible that they believed to
be in opposition to their doctrines.
Finally, I'd be more than happy to
continue a dialogue with you in a
spirit of true Christian brotherhood.
Please feel free to write again.
In Christ,
John DiMascio
|
|
|
