DeoOmnisGloria.com

Joe:
We can find "exceptions" to just about anything and find elaborate and "intellectual" ways to justify our own beliefs and ourselves but I think the more important and eternal question is "Have you sinned?".

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Joe,

Not to argue with Erne here, but I believe that this is a key doctrine (as are all Catholic beliefs), because it relates to the Church's stance that it alone is infallible when it comes matters of faith and morals. If the Church is wrong about Mary, then they are wrong about their own infallibility, and the entire house of cards comes crashing down. This is why they bend and twist to make something seem as if it isn't. They have to do so in order to retain credibility.

Yes the word "All" can be used to refer to something less than everyone. What's your point? Just because the possiblity exist that Paul could have been using hyperbole, doesn't mean that he in fact did so here. If one were to read the whole of the passage, Paul is clearly setting up the case for the universal depravity of man, ("universal" meaning all . . . as in everyone . . . as in every human being ever born on this earth from the beginning of time to the end of time. Just so that we are clear that you understand what I mean. And yes this automatically and necessarily excludes Christ - the God-Man.) and he clearly didn't excuse Mary in this as did some of the other early church fathers when writing about original sin, so it wasn't as if he merely forgot to include her name.

The problem with even putting forth this view of Mary, is that it weakens the doctrine of original sin. If "all" doesn't mean all then maybe, just maybe, it excludes me as well . . .

It also weakens the doctrine of Christ as our sole source of salvation. If God could create Mary without the taint of original sin, then why couldn't He do the same for me? (Maybe He did . . . .) Why didn't He do it for the rest of us? The whole problem of evil and salvation etc. would then be moot. If God can make one exception to the rule why not more? The belief in this doctrine calls into question the nature of God's justice.

To me this doctrine raises a lot more issues than it seems to resolve in Catholic theology, and the burden of proving that Paul excluded or meant to exclude Mary when he said "all" is squarely with the Catholics. Merely raising the argument that he might not have meant "all" doesn't do it . . . at least not for me.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

Let's recap exactly what the Catholic Church teaches in terms of Mary's Immaculate Conception:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

The reasons for Mary being sinless are not illogical...Christ took His Flesh from her.

Please allow me to quote Dave Armstrong, a former Protestant, again:

All the Immaculate Conception did was make Mary as Eve was before the Fall (precisely why the Fathers often called her the Second Eve or New Eve): unfallen and sinless; not subject to original sin. As Cardinal Newman remarked: why is it considered such an extraordinary thing that God chose to simply make one person -- the Mother of God the Son, the Theotokos -- the way that all of us would have been, but for the Fall? What better person to choose than the one who bore our Lord Jesus in her own body for nine months?! It makes perfect sense to me.....

The fullest development of the Immaculate Conception, as formulated by Duns Scotus in the 13th century, was careful to state that the Immaculate Conception does not somehow rule out the need for redemption for Mary. She was saved just like the rest of us, and calls God her Savior in the Magnificat (as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out). She was saved by grace even more than the rest of us because by this special act original sin was removed. Mary could hardly play any part in that, seeing that it was at her conception (I doubt that a person at the moment of their conception has a will or any knowledge of theology or soteriology whatever!).

So Mary was saved by grace, just like anyone who is saved. God simply performed an extra supernatural act to make her like Eve was before the Fall. God can do anything He wishes, so this is not prima facie impossible, let alone unreasonable, implausible, or immediately "unbiblical." It contradicts nothing in Scripture. Scripture talks about sinless creatures (pre-Fall Adam and Eve, the good angels). So being sinless is not a biblically-incomprehensible position. This is largely my point when I "do" Mariology from Scripture Alone. I know it won't convince most Protestants, but I am trying to show that it is not immediately unbiblical or extra-biblical to hold these beliefs.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

A couple of points.

You still have not addressed the question I posed. Since God can create a person who is without original sin from the point of conception, why not create the rest of humanity in the same way and be done with it? God could create a world with no more sin, and since He has not done so, then this raises the question of whether God is good and just. How can God condemn us if he withheld His hand at the moment of our conception? (I know how a Calvinist would answer the question . . .)

On the flip side

Since Mary did not have a choice in the matter of her own sinlessness how does this jive with the Catholic position of everyone have the free will to accept or reject Christ? Did Mary not possess this free will?

and

If "all" doesn't mean all in the passage "All have sinned . . ." Who does it mean then? Everyone except Mary? Everyone except Mary and a chosen few? Everyone except Mary and . . . You see that once you have opened the gates a crack to let one person through you will have a hard time closing it to anyone else who might claim the same special privilege.

If the verse doesn't mean what it appears to mean, then what exactly DOES it mean?

The Bible isn't some muttled mush to manipulate as one wills . . .

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

We can ask why God didn't do this or that but, ultimately, it is His prerogative...He is the Creator. Let us not forget that God did originally create all people without sin, i.e. Adam and Eve. Male and Female fell into original sin, it naturally follows that the cooperative effort of Male and Female would be necessary for the carrying out of the redemption of humanity. Christ is the "new" Adam as indicated by St. Paul (1 Cor 15:45). Adam failed to "lay down" his life at the tree of good and evil for the other. Christ, at the tree, did "lay down" His life that all of us, including Mary, might have eternal life. It logically follows then that Mary is the "new" Eve. Eve's disobedience led to the fall of the human race, Mary's obedience has led to our redemption. Interestingly enough, in the garden Eve took here "flesh" from Adam, in the work of redemption, Christ took His flesh from Mary.

Our God is love...love communicates. Even Mary had a choice in doing God's will, otherwise there would have been no need for her "fiat". You seem to imply that "free will" means we are "free" to sin, but that substantially lessens free will. Free will is fundamentally the ability to love God freely, we are not slaves to a dictative master, we are heirs, sons and daughters of God, through baptism. Baptism removes the stain of original sin. In baptism the primary mover is God, He makes the soul of the baptized perfect again. Why is it so "illogical" to you that God chose to perfect Mary in a unique way in order that the person whom the Son of God would take His flesh from might be the perfect dwelling place for Him?

You speak of whether we then could say that God is good and just for creating a world with sin, yet again He did not create a world with sin. The world He created was perfect, yet Male and Female, through the gift of free will, the gift to love God, chose to act in disobedience and fear. You do realize that we have been dealt with exclusively...we have received the gift and the grace of baptism. All those who came before Christ had not received this essential gift.

Just as Eve was created "without sin", so Mary had to be preserved from sin. Dun Scotus, the famous 12th century theologian held that Christ, the perfect Mediator, exercised the highest act of mediation precisely in Mary by preserving her from original sin. Mary received redemption by preservation...she was redeemed in an even more wonderful way, not by being "freed" from sin, but by being "preserved" from sin. This is a profound concept for it opens up for us an even greater understanding of the nature of Christ's redeeming act. Pope John Paul II wrote:

No one fails to see how the affirmation of the exceptional privilege granted to Mary stresses that Christ's redeeming action does not only free us from sin, but also preserves us from it. This dimension of preservation, which in Mary is total, is present in the redemptive intervention by which Christ, in freeing man from sin, also gives him the grace and strength to conquer its influence in his life. In this way the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception does not obscure but rather helps wonderfully to shed light on the effects in human nature of Christ's redemptive grace. Christians look to Mary, the first to be redeemed by Christ and who had the privilege of not being subjected even for an instant to the power of evil and sin, as the perfect model and icon of that holiness (cf. LG 65) which they are called to attain in their life, with the help of the Lord's grace. - Theotokos: Woman, Mother, Disciple

In terms of your slippery slope theory about others attempting to claim the same exceptional privilege, I will say two things. One, after 2000 years of Christianity no other person, of sound mind, has made such a claim. I assume this is most likely due to "personal" honesty about one's own condition. Second, that's exactly why Christ, in His infinite wisdom, chose to establish the Church, protected by an "authoritative" hierarchy graced with the charism of infallibility.

Now as to what exactly Romans 3:23 means by all have sinned:

Romans 3:23 all have sinned: Not all without exception (every human being), but all without distinction (Jews and Gentiles alike, 3:9; 10:12). That there are exceptions is clear: Jesus was sinless; children below the age of reason do not willfully commit sin; and tradition holds that Mary, by the grace of God, lived her entire life unstained by sin.
- Commentary from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Letter of St. Paul to the Romans

The Bible isn't some muttled mush to manipulate as one wills...

In closing I would like you to consider the following quote:

"Scripture itself does not state what writings make Scripture . . . It was the Church which decided which were inspired writings, and formed them into the New Testament . . . It is all very well to say that Scripture is inspired, but we must also know what is and what is not Scripture. It was the Church that made this decision and thus made the Bible . . . The Church which made the Bible, likewise interprets the Bible."

In Christ,
Joe

Gee wiz. Are we going through the Immaculate Conception debate again? As a Protestant I just have to say that whether remained a virgin after Jesus was born and whether she was sinless doesn't matter to me in my inquiry into Catholicism. What matters more to me is why Bible-only Protestant denominations refuse to acknolwedge books like Maccabbies and Wisdom which used to be in their Bibles before Martin Luther removed them. Talk about hypocrasy there!

Joe:
In regards to the perpetual virginity of Mary, in Matthew 1:25 it states that Joseph "did not know" (ie- have sexual relations with) Mary "TILL she brought forth her first born Son" (emphasis added). Doesn't "TILL" imply that after she gave birth to Jesus she did have sexual relations with Joseph?

In regards to your other comment that "baptism removes the stain of original sin" the only thing that removes sin is the grace of God by the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

May god bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,

In terms of Mt 1:25, we have already addressed this here:

Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II

Baptism is the sacrament, established and necessitated by Christ Himself. Through baptism, Christ washes away original sin. This is clearly illustrated throughout the New Testament.

In Christ,
Joe

Thomas,
Romans 3:23 and the verses in its context are making a clear reference to Psalm 14...Psalm 14,verse 3 reads (New International Version, Zondervan) "All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one".
Then Romans 3:12 reads (same source) "All have turned away, they have together become worhtless; there is no one who does good, not even one"

If we take only those 2 verses literally it's clear then that all have sinned!!! But if we keep reading Psalm 14, verse 4 "Will evildoers never learn -those who devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on the Lord?"

If there is no one who does good, not even one, then who are "my people" that God's referring to? There is a clear distinction between the "devourers" and the "devoured". God is not calling the evildoers his people, is he? Psalm 14 from which Paul is quoting does talk about the differences between those who are evildoers and those who are people of God, is not talking about original sin.

In Romans Paul is making clear that it is no distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles, for both (all) have sinned.

Now, how does that apply to Mary? Simple, she didn't sin because God did'n want her to. It is important to understand that she is sinless not because of her own doing, but because of God's grace, not because she has godly powers but because of God's power. This does not substracts anything to Jesus amazing and loving dead and resurrection.

Being sinless does not make you God, Mary is still a creature. God needed her to be sinless because Jesus took his flesh and blood from her. The same flesh and blood that never sinned and was offered for the forgivness of your sins as well as mine. This is not so hard to understand, is it?

At the end, Mary's main role is clearly taught in scripture, John 2:5, a message for all christians of all ages, "do whatever he tells you"
What do you think?

Rafa

Joe,

In the Linguistic Issues thread that you mentioned to Ernie someone stated that the Catholic Church has always taught that Mary is a perpetual virgin. Would you know the earliest document that makes the claim of Mary's virginity being perpetual?

Thanks!

Bob

Bob,

We have written an article on that topic as well...enjoy!

Writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

In Christ,
Joe

Hi Joe et al
One point that I don't believe has been made is that, Our Lady identified herself in 1858, as the Immaculate Conception, when she appeared to Bernadette at Lourdes. The Catholic Church, after rigorous investigation, was satisfied as to the validity of the apparitions.

The interesting part about it, was that when Bernadette told her parish priest who the "Lady" had said she was, she, Bernadette had no idea what the term meant. In fact, she even mispronounced the "Conception" part. After all, she was a peasant girl from a remote part of the country. But, her priest knew, and that was quite scary for him. Because, the apparitions took place 4 years after the Church had pronounced the Immaculate Conception a dogma of faith. For those who are interested, there are a couple of websites that cover these apparitions.
Brian

Thomas,

Just to pick up on Rafa's point, you have to read the first half of Romans in context. Paul is not addressing his doctrine on the universality of sin to individuals (else Christ would have been included), but rather to the Jews as a collective people. Paul is facing many Judaizers (as they were called) who taught that one had to be Jewish in order to be saved. (See Acts 15). He is also pulling in the theme of Hebrews 7-9 that the old covenant is obsolete and was incapable of saving anyone. In other words, Romans 1-8 is a commentary on the equality of the Jews and Gentiles with respect to salvation. To extend Romans 3:23 outside of that message is to miss the point and misconstrue the meaning. Try reading 1-8 all at once (pay particular attention to 2:5-29).

This point is really made irrefutable by the fact that Paul could not have been including Christ. It is insufficient to say that OTHER passages make clear that Christ had no sin, since the question is what does THIS passage say. If "all" could exclude Christ without explicitly doing so, it could also exclude Mary. The bottom line: "all" means Jews and Gentiles alike, not each individual who ever lived.

In Christ,
Dave

Joe:
I read the post on the "Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II". The incident with the blind man is used as validation that "until" does not refer to what happens afterwards. Also, it is pointed out that the pharisees "did not believe" afterwards regarding the validity of the blind man's claim. First, although the use of the word "until" does not give conclusive proof that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus the use of the word implies that. If not, it would have been clearer for Matthew to state that Joseph never knew Mary.

Second, regarding the pharisees not believing afterwards, if you read the text carefully the pharisees do believe that the man was born blind which is the reason why they called for the parents in the first place. To verify if the man was indeed blind from birth and who had given him sight. They tell the man to "give God the glory" which means that they did believe something miraculous had taken place (a man born blind had regained his sight) which is what is being refered to with the use of the word "until". At first, they did not believe the man's claims that Jesus had given him sight because they did not think that he was ever blind UNTIL they called for his parents and they confirmed that he was their son and that he was born blind. Then they beleived his sight had been restored but they thought he should be giving the glory to God not Jesus "the sinner" as they thought He was. What they did not believe was that it was Jesus that gave him his sight back. But the word "until" is used to denote that after they confirmed with the parents they now knew that the man's claim that he was blind from birth was indeed valid.

Lastly, the burden of proof for Mary's perpetual virginity and sinless state lies with those making the claim. Where in the Bible does it state or imply that Mary remained a virgin her whole life and that she never sinned? I am not saying that it is not possible for this to have happened because with God anything is possible. But why promote a concept so vigorously when there is no biblical proof, evidence, or implication that this occurred?

Also, maybe I missed it but where does the New Testament "clearly" illustrate that original sin is washed away through baptism?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

With reference to the original question about "all" in Romans 3:23.

Put the verse in its context. So back to Romans 2:9
" Well then are we better off? Not entirely, for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin, as it is written:

There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astry; all alike are worthless.;"

"As it is written" refers to Psalms 14 and 53, which begin "Fools say in their hearts, There is no God. . . . not one does right, . . . All have gone astray, . . .Not one does right, not even one."

The Psalms make it clear that fools say the things written in Romans ch 3. That must be Paul's intention, else he is misquoting or taking out of context the psalmist's point.

Post a comment