It never, ever fails
You can try with all your might to have a discussion in an ostensibly ecumenical Christian discussion forum, but as a Catholic you can always expect three things to occur with nigh-absolute certainty:
- Mention Mary, and evangelicals will fall all over themselves to shout her down. Exactly how this reflects the fact that all generations will call her “blessed” (Luke 1:4), I have yet to figure out.
Seriously…what’s so darn difficult for some people to accept about the fact that of all the merely human people we meet in the Gospels, Mary is far and away the best example of what it means to actually be a Christian and to respond to God’s call?
- Mention Mary, and evangelicals will fall all over themselves to accuse you of blasphemy or idolatry, even if you never once mention terms like “intercessory” or “mediatrix.”
In what universe is it equivalent to saying that Mary is God when you assert that Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God? Especially when to say as much is to say that she, like we, entirely required the grace of God for her being saved from sins!
“Ah,” says the evangelical, “but does not Paul say “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?” He does not say “all but Mary,” does he…so cleary, Mary too must have sinned somehow, and at some point.”
To which, it should be noted that her being preserved from sin does not in fact violate what Paul teaches, because the fact that she required God’s grace to preserve her from sin means that absent the grace of God, she would indeed have fallen into sin and so fallen short of His glory.
What makes Mary different is that she was, I say again, preserved from sin by the grace of God. She did not sin not because she was God, but because God imputed to her the fullness of His grace from the beginning, so that she might be an entirely unspotted mother to the Son. The same process of imputation of grace which we undergo, Mary underwent…just at an earlier time.
Not satisfied with this answer, the evangelical can be expected to switch gears: “If God could protect Mary from sinning,” he will ask, “why not cut out the middle-man altogether and just protect Jesus from sinning (as I believe he did)? Mary being sinless is not Biblical and it is certainly not necessary.”
But the fact is, Mary’s being sinless is in fact necessary. It is Biblical as well, which we will discuss later. But it was also most assuredly necessary. To suggest as much as this objection does is, basically, to suggest that Jesus was not fully human, since it would mean that the Lord was not born of a human mother in the most authentic sense; it would mean that He did not experience a fully human birth, which in turn would mean He was not fully human.
- Mention anything an evangelical disagrees with (just in general) and he’ll throw out a wall of chapter-and-verse citations without bothering to…I don’t know…exegete or even necessarily quote them. Not that it would necessarily be wise to do so — most “proof texts” fail to serve the point in which they are intented by their user, once they are considered in their proper context.
But as it is…the proof texts inevitably get hauled out. In this case, there were some interesting ones to deal with.
Ecclesiastes 7:29:Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.
This is a verse used quite often by Calvinists to defend the odious doctrine of total depravity. Now, applying concepts like total depravity or original sin to Mary in a manner which holds that she was afflicted with these things (at all, or at least by the time she bore Christ) is theologically problematic at best. But let’s set that aside for just a moment and deal with the issue of why this verse, first and foremost, does not actually prove total depravity.
The RSV renders this verse in much the same way, using the word “devices” as well. The problem is that “devices” is, itself, a rather clunky term; typically, when we speak of man’s devices in this sense, we’re speaking of a man left to fend for himself (“left to his own devices”). But the framing context for this verse is not focused on rote human survival; it is focused on the very wise and the very foolish.
So, what are the “devices” to which Ecclesiastes refers?
The Vulgate, and it’s English translation, the Douay-Reims Bible (DRB), render the verse thusly:
“Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Who is as the wise man? and who hath known the resolution of the word?”
What’s really interesting here is that in the DRB and Vulgate, what most Bibles render as Ecclesiastes 8:1 is instead tacked on to the last verse of chapter 7, which makes it’s meaning more apparent.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is very much about the contrast between good and evil, wisdom and folly, and the disconnect so often seen in a world in which the righteous toil and suffer while the sinners are enriched and grow fat…all ostensibly in the creation of a good and loving God.
At one point, the author of Ecclesiastes even exclaims:
“These things also I saw in the days of my vanity. A just man perisheth in his justice, and a wicked man liveth a long time in his wickedness.
Be not over just. and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid. Be not overmuch wicked. and be not foolish, lest thou die before thy time.
It is good that thou shouldst hold up the just, yea and from him withdraw not thy hand. for he that feareth God, neglecteth nothing.”
Note that the text draws sharp distinctions between the righteous and the wicked, and even goes to the length of exhorting the audience to be not “overmuch” of either. Note also that the text states plainly that men are both righteous and wicked, and capable of exercising either tendency.
In other words, this verse — and indeed the entirety of Ecclesiastes’ 7th chapter! — simply does not support the notion of “total depravity.” Indeed, it is not even speaking so much of the nature of man as wicked or righteous as it is of his tendency, despite his being created upright, to divert himself “overmuch” with philosophical postulations.
Now, I mentioned that we would return to the issue of Mary being afflicted with original sin. Let’s do so in the context of the next verses cited in this particular argument:
Romans 3:23:
You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Okay, this one isn’t really relevant, actually. I actually suspect that my evangelical opponent was attempting to apply this verse as a condemnation of the Catholic faith, and so should point out that verse 17 of this same chapter limits to whom verse 23 applies:
Romans 3:17:
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God
Enough said.
Now, where were we?
2 Corinthians 5:21:
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The problem with how one applies this verse is, of course, how one applies the first half of it. Does the evangelical objector mean to say that Christ’s human nature was totally depraved, and that our Lord was in fact a sinner from birth, entirely dependent on…er…his own grace for salvation from…er…his sin?
Presumably not, given the next two verses he cites. But then, this means in turn that Christ did not have in Him either total depravity or original sin. Which, in turn, necessarily means that Mary was free from sin, though by the grace of God.
That’s just logic, reason, and rational thought. I thought Calvinists were big proponents of that stuff…so why do they so strenuously object to this most logical conclusion concerning the Mother of God?
Now, to be fair, it’s also possible that this verse was deployed in like manner to the citation of Paul’s remark that “all have sinned.” But if this is the case, one notes that the preservation of the Blessed Virgin from sin by the grace of God is not precluded by what Paul is saying here to the Corinthians. It’s not like Mary’s sunless was extrinsic to the righteousness of God, or a separate kind of righteousness. What Paul describes above is something which applied to Mary also…but in an a priori sense.
Undeterred, the evangelical cites two more verses:
1 Peter 2:22:
He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
1 John 3:5:
You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
These verses affirm that Christ committed no sin, but this must necessarily include his being free from total depravity (if you believe that rubbish) or original sin. For that to be possible, it is necessary that Mary was similarly free from sin, though by the (pre-emptive) grace of God, or else Christ would have borne not only our own sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24), but also his own original stain.
In which case, we are none of us saved.
Now, let’s pause and take a look at where all this business about Mary’s sinlessness actually comes from. As mentioned previously, it’s actually an entirely Biblical teaching, and in fact is not something which is all that new, either. In fact, it’s something we can trace to the earliest days of the Church.
John Henry Cardinal Newman, even before his conversion from Anglicanism, noted that the holiness of Mary was implied from Scripture: “Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and Divine favour go together (and this we are expressly told), what must have been the transcendent purity of her, whom the Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing as we do, ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (1 Jn 3:6), and that ‘none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’ (Job 14:4).”
The Church, from a very early stage, has believed in the sinlessness of Mary. St. Athanasius, in the year 106, observed to the Virgin that “truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” St. Ephraem, in the year 201, made two telling observations. First, he noted the relationship between Mary and Eve, “two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.” He also noted, unto the Lord, that “thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain.”
Put more plainly: the belief in Mary’s sinlessness can be found in the teaching of the Church in every age, starting within its first century of existence.
Now, a common objection to this is to note that Mary, being human, would still have struggled with concupiscence (or total depravity, as was the case above), and would have needed Christ as her Lord and Saviour; thus, she must still have been a sinner. Catholics do not dispute Mary’s need for the Lord as the means of her salvation, for all people do indeed need the Lord as the means of salvation. But consider: if I fall into a pit, and am pulled out, I will thank my rescuer for saving me. But suppose I am caught at the last moment before I fall into the pit. I haven’t fallen in…but still, I have been saved, haven’t I?
In like manner, Mary’s sinlessness flows from the power of Christ, and because she was the Mother of the Son. For as Cardinal Newman pointed out, with reference to Job: none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean.
One Protestant objection, in part to Mary’s Assumption and in part to her sinless nature, is based on the greeting of the angel in Luke 1:28 — in which Mary is called favoured of God, or full of grace. “Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace” (Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!”
This is quite correct: nobody suggests that every believer in Christ is assumed bodily into Heaven.
But then, there is a problem with the Protestant’s argument itself, and not with the Catholic belief. The variant of charitoo that appears in Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene, which means ‘endued with grace.’ In Ephesians 1:6, the variant of charitoo that appears is echaritosen, which concerns the reality of Christ’s grace being freely bestowed (one notes that in Greek, “thank you” is a permutation of echaritosen).
In other words, though the word ‘grace’ appears in both places, it is used in vastly different contexts; in Luke, it refers to an internal quality, while in Ephesians it refers to grace bestowed…and which believers must choose to accept or reject (so it cannot be referring to an internal quality as yet).
Now, Catholics like to point to Revelation 12, and to the woman clothed with the Sun, as evidence that confirms Mary’s bodily Assumption. Protestants rightly point out that this is somewhat incorrect: “[they] wrongly assume…that this ‘woman’ is Mary and ignore…the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, ‘being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered’ (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary ‘gave birth to her Son without pain’ (Pope Alexander III).”
Jimmy Akin, however, notes that Catholic teaching (the opinions of lay Catholics nonwithstanding) does not specifically equate the woman in Revelation only with Mary.
Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.
The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).
…The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.
The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.
The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed — which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.
Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).
Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).
So let us pause to review what we have covered for a moment. Mary was assuredly the Mother of the Son, was assuredly a virgin until the end of her days, and was assuredly free from sin all the days of her life — all by the power of Christ. She was, in all these respects, unique among human beings, far more unique than even the apostle Paul. Shall we assume that God forgot His first and most willing servant?
Of course not; given what Christians believe about God, we cannot assume that. So what became of Mary, after she disappeared from the Biblical narrative?
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong noted an interesting Biblical parallel, which is relevant here, in his book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:
Lest one think that a bodily ascent to heaven (of a creature, as opposed to Jesus) is impossible and “biblically unthinkable,”, Holy Scripture contains the examples of Enoch (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11), St. Paul’s being caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), possibly bodily, and events during the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), believed by many evangelicals to constitute the “Rapture,” an additional return of Christ for believers only. All these occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin flows of necessity from the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s actual sinlessness. Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the Fall (Genesis 3:19, Psalm 16:10). Thus, the absence of actual and original sin “breaks the chain” and allows for instant bodily resurrection and also immortality, just as God intended for all human beings.
…Jesus’ Resurrection brings forth the possibility of universal resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13,16), which is why He is called the “first fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all mankind, so that she represents the age to come, in which death and sin will be conquered once and for all (1 Corinthians 15:26). The Assumption is, therefore, directly the result of Christ’s own victory over sin and death. It, too, has a Christocentric meaning, in the same way as the Immaculate Conception and the designation Theotokos.
The Protestant objector might protest that “[Christ's] resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.” That is still a future event.” And Catholics would agree. Look again at what Armstrong had to say, above.
Putting Armstrong’s words more plainly, Mary — in the end of her days upon the Earth — served for us the same purpose that she served in giving her assent to being the mother of the Christ child; she is the foremost example of a Christian and disciple of Christ. She began that role with her unfailing devotion to the will of God; it is fitting that she should complete that role (in this world) by being our example of the fulfilled promise of Christ. In her sinless beauty, she was not subject to death and decay, as all the rest of us must endure, but was instead immediately glorified in the hereafter, caught up bodily in the glory and salvation of Christ.
Of course, the old saying about horses and water is still every bit as true in this context as in the context of actual horses. Even when presented with the above, one can still count on an evangelical to say, in objection, well…while I would admit that Mary is indeed a good role model, I think your ascribing her attributes of sinlessness is excessive,” and in so doing simply sidestep the weight if evidence just presented that establishes quite concretely that Mary was, and has always been believed to be, sinless!
Horses and water.
Warming to his theme, the evangelical may continue: “Daniel, Enoch, Samuel, Darius, and many other people are never specifically recorded as having commited specific sins; that doesn’t make them sinless.
Which is true, admittedly…but, as noted above, there’s still quite a number of other reasons, determinable from Scripture and from reason, to believe that Mary was preserved from sin from birth, and remained in the full grace of God all her days.
As frustrating as it is to see a weight and body of evidence so casually dismissed, though, it’s also worth every moment of effort sometimes. If even one bit of truth gets through…it’s just so worth it.
Case in point: “But if she isn’t sinless,” the evangelical observes, “that raises some interesting questions about Christ’s human nature.”
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes!
It only took us this bloody long to get to this point, but…yes!
Of course, not all is roses. Perhaps realizing that he has stuck his neck out a bit too far, the evangelical adds: “That not withstanding though, it is overreaching to say the least to claim that Mary was sinless. Just because it is not recorded that Mary commited specific sins, we can know through the light of other passages that her human nature was just as corrupt as David, Saul, Peter, Paul, and everybody else in the Bible. We know this because, as Solomon said, ‘there are none that are righteous, no not one.’ “
Horses and water.
Solomon, I believe, also said that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9 — Solomon is traditionally held to be this preacher)…a statement anulled by Christ, who in fact did (and was) a new thing (c.f. Isaiah 43:19, 2 Corinthians 5:17).
But more to the point, and here I must repeat myself, Mary’s sinlessness is in fact strongly indicated in Scripture, and in particular by the word choice Luke employs in constructing his account both of the angel’s Annunciation to Mary, and also Mary’s reply thereto. Numerous other portions of Scripture are cited above which feed into this teaching.
And again, the witness of the Church even at her earliest point (from just after 100 AD, in fact) was that Mary was in fact preserved in her sinlessness by the grace of God all her days. In other words, Scripture and tradition are both very much on the side of Mary being unique among persons for her being held in sinlessness through the grace of God. The same grace which washes away our sins preserved her from sin.
So in fact, we cannot know “through the light of other passages that her human nature was just as corrupt as David, Saul, Peter, Paul, and everybody else.” We can, however, know quite the opposite: that Mary was preserved from sin all her days by nothing less than the saving grace of God.
And that, good reader, is the Gospel truth.
Powered by the iPod Touch.
Ok, on the subject of Mary (I know, I know, not another one) you had a fairly convincing agruement. however, it was not enough to convince me of Mary’s sinlessness. I will not however say that she was sinful. That is a question I will leave til heaven, for I believe God can do anything, including make her sinless as well as bring his son from a sinful woman. Though it does make sense that he kept her from sinning until the birth of Jesus.
My question is this, what of Matthew 1:25 “knew her not til”. This would seem to be saying that Joseph did have sex with her after Jesus was born. I understand that the meaning of the word, knew, can be debated, but it seems fairly obvious to me, and the word til would imply that it did happen later. And as far as i’m concerned sex with your spouse isn’t sin (correct me if i’m wrong).
I’m still unconvinced with your explaination of Romans 3:23 though. it says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, not all would have sinned but for the grace of God, as you say was the case with Mary. Though I am by no means inspired to say I interpret this correctly, it just seems to me that that is what the verse is saying.