Paul’s remark that “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23 is used so often against the Immaculate Conception that one can almost get the idea that some critics think Paul was writing the Epistle to the Romanists. But, in fact, Romans 3:23 is not the climax of an argument about the sinlessness of Mary, but about the basic situation of Jews and Gentiles before God. Paul is writing to a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles in Rome who have been wasting time trying to answer a nonsense question: Are Jews or Gentiles closer to God? It’s a tempting question for them to ask. The apostles did something similar when they squabbled about who was greatest in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:24). Christians today are still tempted to ask it. Only instead of using race or ethnicity as the winning factor in the “Who’s God’s Favorite?” beauty contest, they focus on things like spiritual gifts, Bible knowledge, prosperity, or even acts of charity. The longing to be Top Dog (and the fear of being Bottom Dog) is deeply rooted in the human soul.
Paul’s answer to the question “Who’s God’s favorite?: Jews or Gentiles?” is “That’s a nonsense question.” In fact, Paul’s basic point in the first part of his letter to the Romans is that people who worry about being “ahead” or “behind” in a competition for God’s favor are like cancer patients fighting over who is the least terminal. The only distinction, he says, between Jews and Gentiles is that God gave Jews an X-ray machine called the Law of Moses so they could see the progress of the disease called “sin” as it ravaged their souls and, thereby, become aware of their need for the Divine Physician. But that was it: the X-ray machine of the Law could only show Jews how sick they were. It could not heal them in the slightest. So Jews are no closer to health than Gentiles, says Paul. Sin is eating away at all of us. And Jesus is the only one who can cure it. That’s the bad news, which Paul sums up in the words, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
This has huge implications for a discussion of the Immaculate Conception, because it raises the question of whether Paul really intends his words to be read to mean every single human being who ever lived has committed a sin. Some will say, “Yes, he does!” and remind us that he quotes Psalm 14, saying, “None is righteous, no, not one; / no one understands, no one seeks for God. / All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; / no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10–12). In short, many insist (as I would once have done) that “‘All’ means ‘each and every human being who has ever lived!’ So Mary sinned. Case closed.” But if Paul really means to say absolutely every last human being is unrighteous, this makes nonsense of the very text he’s citing. For the author of that text, David, also rejoices, “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; / according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me” (Ps. 18:20). Bottom line: David’s not making legal statements in the Psalms, but poetic ones.
Likewise, Paul uses similarly broad language later on in Romans 11:32. He says, “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.” Does he therefore mean every human being without exception shall certainly be saved? No. Paul, like Jesus, teaches the possibility of condemnation by God for any human person and warns of the danger of hell. He is using the word “all” (as, indeed, he tends to use any universal category) in what is known as the “collective” sense.
The “collective” sense is a common occurrence in Scripture. For example, Matthew tells us that “all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations” (Matt. 1:17) when, in fact, Matthew has not really listed all the generations from Abraham to David but has instead named only fourteen ancestors for the sake of easy memorization. Likewise, when Mark tells us that “all held that John was a real prophet” (Mark 11:32) he employs a similarly general use of the word, for it’s quite clear some Jews didn’t regard John as a prophet and rejected his testimony to Jesus. And, of course, we do the same thing when we say, “Everybody likes a good meal,” “Nobody wants to die,” or “We all cheered at the end of Star Wars.” Strictly speaking, there are certain people who don’t like to eat and who do want to die. There are (amazingly) even a few who didn’t like Star Wars. But since we’re human beings and not pedants, we go ahead and talk this way.
Paul is no different. Like most biblical writers, he speaks as an ordinary human being in stating a general truth about the sinfulness of the human race without intending to single out absolutely every human being throughout all space and time without any exception whatsoever. He assumes we’ll understand that. And the proof of this is found in Paul’s own writing.
For instance, Paul recognizes that infants, though children of Adam and therefore subject to original sin, are not capable of committing individual, personal, guilty sins. That’s why he writes of Jacob and Esau that when they were still in utero they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11). But he does not laboriously explain that children below the age of reason are not capable of committing sin when he declares “all have sinned.” He expects us to know this exception, just as he expects us to know that the son of Adam named “Jesus of Nazareth” is also not included in the “all” who have sinned.
Once again we are confronted with the fact that the meaning of a biblical text is, at least partly, determined by the way in which we are intended to read it. And that’s determined by whatever “lens” of teaching, doctrine, and instruction we use when we address Scripture. If our “lens” is Sacred Tradition, we know the apostles always intended us to read passages like those in Romans to exclude, not just Jesus, but Mary. Romans 3:23 turns out to prove . . . not much about the Immaculate Conception.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks Mark! I really appreciate this article.
“This has huge implications for a discussion of the Immaculate Conception,..”
I can just imagine the nasty comments that will be posted here regarding the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother. I take the liberty of getting a head start.
We are not Protestants. We are Catholic. Holy Mother Church has clearly defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Scripture and Sacred Tradition is the foundation of her teaching.
Scripture CLEARLY POINTS TO THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD.
Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. [48] Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. [Luke 1:48] [49] Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. [50] And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
[48] Shall call me blessed: These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
The sin of our First parents called original sin comes down to us, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.
Through His infite love and mercy for us, we are redeemed by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who suffered, died and rose again for us and gave us the Sacraments.
Through Baptism this original sin is washed away and Sanctifying grace is infused into our souls. Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God; makes us children of God and members of his Mystical Body the Church. It is by those graces or gifts of God that we believe in Him, and hope in Him, and love Him, are called the Divine virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good. The grace of perseverance is a particular gift of God which enables us to continue in the state of grace till death.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
The Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin because it would not be consistent with the dignity of the Son of God to have His Mother, even for an instant, in the power of the devil and an enemy of God.
The Blessed Virgin could be preserved from sin by her Divine Son before He was born as man, for He always existed as God and foresaw His own future merits and the dignity of His Mother. He therefore by His future merits provided for her privilege of exemption from original sin.
The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin’s own exclusive privilege of coming into existence, through the merits of Jesus Christ, without the stain of original sin.
The Church has always believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and to place this truth beyond doubt has declared it an Article of Faith.
Celinedesilva: No offense at your zeal, but your last two lines were quite sufficient.
It’s Cut and Paste Candy! We meet again! And the information contained in this article is of critical importance to our eternal salvation, how?
This reminds me of Bill Clinton splitting hairs about the word, “it”.
Terah:
Some people (adults) like to actually learn new things and try to understand what the Church teaches. Some (such as high school sophomores) say, “Anything I don’t care about is dumb” and interrupt conversations in order to drag everything back to center of all things: themselves. Try acting like an adult.
Terah, although Catholic, you refuse to believe certain Catholic teachings, and actually hold onto Protestant stuff like ‘sola scriptura’. You refuses to admit this, while at the same time you continue to admonish faithful Catholics for actually believing everything the Church teaches. You might want to consider giving humility a try along with the idea that maybe you don’t have everything right, before you decide to admonish faithful posters.
Hold on, Mark! I’m a high school sophomore, and I LOVE learning new things and trying to understand what the Church teaches!
Just goes to show you Hank…Adults can ACT like High School Sophomores, and High School Sophomores can ACT like adults. It’s not about your age in years, but about your mind set. Good on you!
Hank:
Touche! I stand corrected. Thanks for having such maturity! I hereby dub you honorary adult!
@Bob Rowland - agreed.
@Terah - This is Catholic dogma, you may not, as a Catholic, proclaim otherwise.
.
For me it is simple: God can make Mary free from all sin and for Mary (as the mother of our Lord) He chose to.
Was this a gift to Mary for her obedience? Was this the fitting preparation of the human that would one day carry our Lord Jesus Christ?
.
From the Catechism:
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. (2676, 2853, 2001)
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: (411)
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 (2011, 1077)
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All–Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.”138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
“Let it be done to me according to your word…”
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140 (2617, 148, 968, 726)
As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert… : “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”143
.
Read more here: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
Posted by Rob on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 1:36 PM (EST):
@Bob Rowland - agreed.
I wonder if Bob Roland would agree with you for your lengthy comment.
However, thank you for further explaining what the Church teaches. It is indeed necessary.
@Celinedesilva - My apologies
.
I did not believe Bob meant, and I certainly did not, that deeper understanding was not valuable. Rather that your final lines contained the most important part.
- That the church has studied this and has come to a conclusion.
.
One of the reasons I love Mark’s articles and the online community at ncregister is that they drive me to a deeper understanding and force me to read and better understand scripture, the catechism and the history of the church.
.
Thank you for your postings.
celinedesilva: I am a writer and recognized poet who believes that overkill quite often causes you to lose your intended audience. As a technical writer, the rule is brevity of descriptive adjectives for a more concise explanation. The rule for fiction is to flower up the rhetoric with as many meaningful descriptive adjectives as possible. Non-fiction and Religious writing is my usual goal, and brevity usually increases reader participation.
“But if Paul really means to say absolutely every last human being is unrighteous, this makes nonsense of the very text he’s citing. For the author of that text, David, also rejoices, “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; / according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me” (Ps. 18:20). Bottom line: David’s not making legal statements in the Psalms, but poetic ones.”
=======================================
## Rabbinic exegesis - which Paul & Jesus both used - did not bother with context; any verse could be decontextualised and interpreted in isolation, because all were from God: context was less important than that consideration. As to the verse - because it is difficult for the RC position, ISTM it should be taken in its full force, not watered down or explained. That would mean the BVM is not excluded from the “all”. It would also have the advantage of emphasising of human need before God - Mary too needs God’s grace, just like the rest of the human race. Why must we suppose that the Apostle’s words have to leave room for the IC ? It is not at all clear that an inspired author need be, is, or must be, kept from saying something that does not agree with a later dogma. NT authors were writing in their own times, to needs & people of those times - they were not trying to answer questions raised by later centuries & later theologies. In Romans, the Apostle is not interested in the BVM - about whom he may have known little or nothing - but he is immensely interested in Jesus Christ. To see the Apostle’s words as in any way relevant to the IC is ISTM a false trail. He is not denying the IC, because the IC is not even in his mind.
IOW - it is also a “nonsense question” to go trying to fit the IC into Romans 3: 23; Rom.5, and so on.
Manticore,
what is ISTM?
Mnnticore: Do you have any idea what terrible eternal judgment Jesus has no doubt reserved for those who malign His Mother. During the Coronation of Mary as the Queen of heaven, Almighty God said: “Nothing do we wish to concede to man that does not pass through her hands. You would destroy the only path that exists between you and God? You are a consummate fool.
Manticore:
I would not be so sure. Luke’s gospel is profoundly Marian, and Luke is a disciple of Paul’s. The fact that Paul’s letters are focused on pastoral issue that are not pertaining to Mary in particular does not mean that Paul is uninterested in Mary. When you read Luke, you reading somebody formed by Paul’s teaching to a large degree.
I fail to see what specifically Manticore wrote that can be labeled by Jesus as maligning His mother. Bob Rowland, with respect, I’d like to point out that your name-calling about Manticore is out of line, most especially, with a real high-school sophomore reading this blog. I presume, as a respected writer and recognized poet, you are an adult.
Why is it that at the mere question of over-the-top hearsay about Mary, some Catholics go almost apoplectic? Who says Almighty God was quoted saying anything, during the (supposed) Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven?
The ONLY path between Almighty God the Father and us is: Jesus. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me.” Jesus is not one way, or a way. Jesus is the only way.
It is written that in the Old Testament, God revealed Himself through prophets, and in the last days (2,000 years ago, to date) the Father revealed Himself to us, through His Son, Jesus.
The Deposit of Christian faith is now closed, and it is the same for ALL Christians that are “In Christ”.
There is only ONE God: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from whom came King David, and Jesus, the Son of God, our Messiah & our King.
Mary said all generations will call her blessed, and we all DO call her blessed. But her role in salvation history must remain in its proper perspective. Based on Bob Rowland’s comment about what God supposedly said, Mary’s role usurps Jesus’s. Is it only me that sees that? Will no one else say anything to correct that?
Luke interviewed Mary, spending time with her and others, in order to write his Gospel. Each of the Gospels are different, because each gives a different perspective about Jesus, and each is written to a different group of people.
The entirety of the New Testament is needed, in order to have the full picture, giving different perspectives. Not all of Scripture is written TO us, but all of Scripture is written FOR us.
The message of all the writers is the same. The New Testament writers even relied on the Old Testament writers, to complete the history, and it is “HIS-story”.
There are no contradictions in any of the New Testament. There is but One Divine Author, a Triune God that is immutable (unchanging: the same, yesterday, today and forever. Alleluia!)
Terah: The City of God, reputed to be the autobiography of the Holy Family dictated by Almighty God and the Mother of God to Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda who also bilocated to New Mexico to Christianize the Tejas indians without ever leaving her convent in Spain. I suggest before you get too carried away by faulty doctrine. Mary was never subjected to original sin and was Assumed into heaven body and soul. She was the only perfect creature created by God. To deny honor due her will forfeit salvation. If you read the four volume document, you will see the basis for my condemnation of manicore. The Catholic Church has judged it free from error. If you value salvation , I suggest you examine the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Attention Bob and Terah:
*This* thread is about the Immaculate Conception. Period. It is not about Terah’s petulant demands that everybody drop everything that she finds personally boring or dumb and focus the conversation on her and her interests. It is also not about Bob’s insistence that everybody accept every private revelation he cares about as the dogmatic teaching of the Church. It is strictly about the Immaculate Conception. Please take your irrelevant and distracting quarrel to private email, both of you.
[Please take your irrelevant and distracting quarrel to private email, both of you.]
Clap…clap…clap!!!
Would it be reasonable to say the following?
God had not yet revealed to the infant Church that Mary was sinless, so Paul could not know this. Paul is correct that all have sinned in terms of what was revealed during his point in Church history, and the Church is also correct about Mary being sinless today from her point in history now.(just my own theological musing here)
No Ben. God revealed to Joachim and Anne that Mary was sinless from the very beginning and would become the Mother of God. Simeon and the Holy woman Anne that took care of Mary after she went to live in the Temple in Jerusalem when she was three also knew during the Presentation in the Temple. Paul had to know as well that Mary was unaffected by original sin.
“No Ben. God revealed to Joachim and Anne…” etc.
According to a private revelation Bob happens to be very enthused about, but which is binding on no Catholic in the world to believe. Bob perpetually forgets that and keeps talking as though his fave rave private revelations are documented history or the de fide teaching of the Church. They are neither and no Catholic has to buy them. And if Bob keeps insisting on interjecting them into discussions of the Immaculate Conception as thought they are part and parcel of the dogma, I am going to start deleting Bob’s posts. So Bob, start putting qualifiers like “according to some visionaries, which you are not bound to believe…” or your posts are going to start disappearing. This stuff is complex enough as it is without private revelation enthusiasts gumming up the works with favorite visions that the Church does not bind us to believe.
Mark. I have never understood your obvious vendetta against private revelation. The Catholic church has ruled that there is no error in the City of God and that it is worthy of belief. I have never said that anyone had to believe it, only that that they could believe it if they chose. Those who don’t are left in most cases only with unconfirmed speculation about the Holy Family. Almighty God said in the document that he intended it to be reliable truth, and I believe him. If you don’t that is your loss,but not mine, and I do pity you for missing out on all the joy I get from trading it.
Sorry about the typo trsding instead of reading. My crooked and arthritic hands are to blame.
I have no vendetta against private revelation. I do, however, have a serious concern about your insistence on telling people (who may be entirely new to Catholics teaching) about private revelation in terms which make no distinction whatsoever between the defined teaching of the Church and a purely optional private revelation. It tends, as we have already seen to lead to quarrels about stuff that nobody is bound to believe and to distract from the subject of *this* thread: namely the Immaculate Conception and what the Church *does* bind us to believe. So: please stop mucking up the conversation with your private revelations. Or if must mention them, make extremely clear that nobody is bound to believe your private revelation. But I would prefer you stop dragging them into every conversation. Thank you.
Well that was a close call. Thank you, Mark, for asking posters to give sources for our information, and to mention if it is Vatican approved Church teaching, or not. That is prudent.
When I first read the explanation about Mary’s parents, Joachim & Anne, being told about the IC by Temple residents, Simeon & Anna, when Mary was age 3, I thought it was you, Mark Shea, that wrote that post! I was stunned & completely confused.
I had to go back and study who was saying what, especially because I remembered all those names from having read the Gospels. But never in my non-Catholic or my Catholic life had I heard about Mary living apart from her family, as a child. That was news to me.
Perhaps Bob is confusing Mary’s life with that of Samuel and his mother, Hannah, who dedicated Samuel as a child to God. It was Samuel that lived in the temple from the time he was weaned, when Eli was high priest.
Regarding St. Paul:
Paul wrote (in Galatians) that he spent 3 years in the desert, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, Himself. Paul only spent 2 weeks in Jerusalem with Peter, James and John (documented in Acts of the Apostles, I think) and yet, Paul and the other apostles agreed on everything about Christ, & the Deposit of Faith that is Christianity, all before Paul set out on his 3 missionary journies.
So whatever Paul needed to know in order to preach the Gospel in its fullness, and to be the human author of so much of the New Testament epistles, the Holy Spirit told him.
Luke interviewed Mary, when he was writing his Gospel, and Luke traveled extensively with Paul. So again, I agree with Mark that Paul would have known everything that was important about everyone in Jesus’ life, and most especially, about Mary.
Mark,
Curious on your opinion; how reasonable is my comment above? “God had not yet revealed to the infant Church, etc…..”
Terah:
Bob is citing the private revelations recorded by Anne Catherine Emmerich and Marie Agreda. He is welcome to incorporate them into his private devotions, but they are not binding on any Catholic. Some of the traditions inspiring their visions are traceable back to sources such as the Protoevangelium of James, but again the Church does not cite such a source as authoritative. Taken together with the mass of other ancient Christian witnesses, the most the Protoevangelium does is bear witness to the fact that ancient Christians honor Mary as perptually a virgin.
Actually, Paul spent several years in the Church at Antioch, learning the traditions of the apostle like every other new Catholic and participating in the liturgy. He did not become “the apostle (sent one) Paul” until the Church, under the guidance of the Spirit laid hands on him (i.e., ordained him) and sent him (Acts 13). The image of Paul as The Lone Ranger Apostle is a beloved Protestant myth, but not the biblical or Catholic reality. And the sinlessness of Mary is profoundly implied by Luke in his infancy narrative, in which he carefully records the angel addressing her by the title “Kecharitomene” “Full-of-Charis” and likens her to the holiest object in the entire Old Testament: the Ark of the Covenant. That Luke came up with the view of Mary utterly independently of Paul and the other apostles is a massive stretch. And that that view of Mary is precisely what undergirds the entire apostolic Church’s faith that Mary is without sin.
Basic rule of thumb: when a Tradition is attested everywhere in the ancient Church—north, south, east, west, across a dozen different languages, tribes, and tongues—it *could* be that every up till a handful of American Evangelicals was completely stupid and the meaning of the biblical text is now suddenly and self-evidently and clearly opposed to the Immaculate Conception. But it is rather more likely that the people who actually shared the language, culture and mental habits of the apostles were not, to a man, idiots and that they all formed the same impression about their teaching concerning the sinlessness of Mary because she was, in fact, sinless and the apostles meant them to understand her to to be so. *How* she get that way was the question the Immaculate Conception was to eventually answer. Whether she was sinless was something virtually nobody in the early Church bothered to question. Huge, broadly attested traditions which generate no controversy in the early Church are your clue that you are looking at an apostolic iceberg with most of the tradition submerged beneath the surface and quietly accepted without controversy. So the ancient liturgies routinely and without controversy hail her as “sinless” “immaculate” “all-holy” and so forth, even as the Church is simultaneously insisting all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is the quest to reconcile these two apostolic teachings that will eventualy result in the doctrine of the Immaculate conception, just as the quest to understand how God can be one God in three persons will result in the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity.
Ben:
I would say rather that the Church had not fully comprehended what God had revealed. That the sinlessness of Mary is already present in some sort of embryonic form seems to me to be pretty clear from the writings of St. Luke. Can you think of anybody else, Old or New Testament, who is carefully identified with the Ark of the Covenant, the holiest object in the Old Testament? What would you think if I said that about, say, Barack Obama? It’s a really shocking thing the NT does with Mary. Only our being used to it and to the familiar cadences of Scripture blunts the edge of it. It’s no wonder, then, that the Church *immediately* starts talking in such exalted terms about her. And it took the major fracture and deformation of the Protestant trauma to get a few Christians to stop. It has been the norm since forever to talk about Mary as sinless. The only thing the Immaculate Conception was about was pinning down the details of how she got that way.
Mark - thank you, for taking the time to supply the details. Interesting information, and I’ll give it thought & prayer. One follow-up question: would you say only American Evangelicals questioned the IC and the perpetual virginity of Mary, or was that ever questioned by Reformers in Germany and elsewhere in the Middle Ages? I know only a little about church history.
Luther took the sinlessness of Mary for granted. The real hostility to Mary in the English-speaking world begins with a) radical Calvinists and b) Elizabeth I of England. Realizing that “you don’t have ‘em till you have their hearts” she systematically replaced devotion to the Virgin with devotion to the cult of herself as the Virgin Queen. If you want to get the hang of it, imagine walking into you parish tomorrow and finding that, by order of the state, all the Mary statues have been replaced with statues of Michelle Obama. And England fell for it. Problem was, she died. And when she did she took Marian devotion with her. Deep fear of Marian devotion has been a feature of English speaking Protestantism since (as well as of various forms of high test Calvinism). American Evangelicals inherited this culture. Interestingly, young Emergent Church Evangelicals, now in revolt against the generation of Evangelicals formed by the Moral Majority and such movements, are getting interested in “the Catholic Mary” because she is a sort of Forbidden Fruit. Meanwhile, in the bulk of the Christian tradition (i.e. apostolic churches not springing from Protestantism) Mary is venerated as she has ever been and her sinlessness is take for granted, not only in the Catholic communion, but in every Church tracing back to the apostles. This does not (as we shall see in coming weeks) mean that every apostolic communion speaks of her Immaculate Conception. That’s not because they don’t think her sinless, but because (as we shall see) the Immaculate Conception is the answer to a question that some apostolic Churchs were never particularly interested in asking. Don’t ask the question, you don’t look for the answer.
Terah: I am not confused. In deference to Mark. I promise to never again try on his blog to generate any interest in reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda. Why do you suppose God allows private revelation? Why does the church officially provide Appobations (this revelation has many) to assure people there is no error in those revelations they consider worthy of belief if it thinks they should only be ignored? I spent over 30 very active years, until age and crippling arthritis became a factor, in in the Blue Army of Our lady of Fatima, now the World Apostolate of Fatima promoting a private revelation that promised peace in the world if we would only listen to our Blessed Mother’s wishes. A great miracle attested to the power over the world given by God to his mother that proved beyond a doubt an exalted nature of private revelation. I do apologize if my zeal in promoting private revelation offended anyone. That was not my intention.
@Mark
Thank you for the further detail and history around this. Despite the rumblings around infallibility, I never considered the Immaculate Conception or the details of Mary’s blessedness and exalted place in the church to be a problem.
For the most blessed among women, her willing submission to God’s will and being the mother of Christ, God’s blessings bestowed upon her only seem fitting.
Thanks again for the insight.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.