"We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning." (Bl. Cardinal John Henry Newman)
The most obvious, and the most essential, of these objections concerns the sinlessness of Mary. First, we must understand that there are two distinct types of sins-- original and personal. Original sin is not so much a sin, or a it is a disease, as it is a deprivation, or an estate, which we inherited from our first parents. We are born, not as the Calvinists would have us believe, in a state of total depravity, but certainly separated from our Creator, with darkened intellects, weakened wills, and a penchant towards concupiscence. Personal sins are those actual, intentional sins which we commit after our birth, and after we have reached the age of reason.
The Catholic Church teaches that God, by a special Grace and privilege, preserved Mary from contracting original sin, and then preserved her from committing any actual sins thereafter. Thus we believe that Mary was immaculate in her conception, in her life, and in her death.
I already noted in the first post that this doctrine is often considered by Protestants as idolatrous, that if Mary was sinless, she must be equal to God. This is unreasonable in light of the fact that two-thirds of the angels are sinless, and they are in no way equal to God. And if God created Adam and Eve in a state of sinlessness, is He not capable of preserving Mary from original sin in her conception? Perhaps it is seen as too "works-based", since we also believe that Mary remained free from sin her entire life. But again, we must look at our first parents. Was it essential that they fell? Certainly not. Such an idea would greatly dishonor our Creator. Had their free wills cooperated with the Grace of God, they might well have never sinned. But such a possibility would still have been utterly contingent and dependent upon God and His Grace. I suspect that the real reason that this doctrine is so objectionable to Protestants is because it indicates to them that Mary was not in need of a Savior. This, however, is most emphatically not true, as we will see a little later on.
There are a handful of passages found in Sacred Scripture which seem to the Protestant to utterly refute the Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin. So straightforward and perspicuous do these passages appear, that it would seem that they admit of no denial nor any alternative interpretation. Unlike many other doctrines and passages in which the straightforward interpretation is firmly on the Catholic side, I will here readily admit the force of the Protestant argument. These verses do, indeed, seem clear and obvious, and the Protestant understanding of them seems more than reasonable. However, I believe that with a little study we will see that these verses are not quite so obvious, nor so iron-clad as they first appear.
Let us begin with the first and most obvious of these passages. In Romans 3:23 St. Paul writes that "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." On the surface this is one of those verses which appear to be as plain as the nose on one's face. And indeed, what could be clearer? "All" is a universal, and like all universals it contains every particular under its category. Mary is a particular member of the human race, therefore it would seem irrefutable that she, too, sinned and was deprived of God's glory.
Is this so? Is this the correct interpretation of this passage? We must here consider two things: first, if we know of any exceptions to this universal "all", and secondly, if there are any other passages which would contradict or offer an alternative interpretation to this word.
As for the first consideration, we must note the context of this verse. In the verses preceding this one, St. Paul quotes from various Old Testament passages,s in which the evil deeds which sinners do are listed. Thus we may assume the Apostle is treating here specifically with actual sin, not with original sin. Do we know of any exceptions? Are there any human beings who have not committed personal, or actual sin? Yes! First of all, Jesus. Although fully God, He was also fully human, and a flesh and blood member of the human race, endowed with a human soul. He was related to us all through Adam, the one through whom original sin came, and He was a member of the Davidic line. Yet, He had no sin. "Tested at all points like unto us, yet without sin." Thus, we may exclude Jesus from Paul's universal statement. Are there more? Again, yes. Since we are dealing with personal sin here, it becomes obvious that any unborn baby who dies or is aborted in the womb cannot be included in Paul's statement. Nor can infants and children below the age of reason. This exempts a very large number of human persons from the category of actual sinners. And still we can go further. Any person born, and reaching adulthood, with a mental handicap so severe as to cripple his freedom of will, cannot sin. Thus we may see that St. Paul's use of word "all" cannot be taken to mean literally every human being who has ever lived. More likely, it is a generalization to describe the great mass of humanity.
Furthermore, the entire context of this chapter, leading up to this particular verse, involves the idea of condemnation to those who are under the law, and those who are not, namely, Jews and Greeks (or Pagans). Thus, by the time the Blessed Apostle reaches the verse "...all have sinned", another possible interpretation appears. It seems to me quite plausible that St. Paul means "all" in the sense of "all groups". In other words "...all (i.e. Jews and Greeks) have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God."
We may also note that the passages which St. Paul quotes in vs.10-18 seems clearly hyperbolic in nature.
"There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, [there is not] even one.
Their throats are open graves; the venom of asps is on their lips; their mouths are full of bitter cursing.
Their feet are quick to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they know not. There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Was every single person literally "quick to shed blood", etc.? Then is it a stretch to think that Paul's equally universal statement a few verses on may also be slightly hyperbolic?
Next, we must also consider if there are any other passages from Sacred Scripture which would a cast a different light on this verse. If we look a little further in this same book of Romans, we will encounter a most illuminating passage. In Ro. 5:12-14 St. Paul writes "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned- for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come."
Here we see once again the concept of all having sinned, but unfortunately for the Protestant position it is inextricably tied to the clause "and thus death came to all". Both Catholics and Protestants know that Enoch did not die, he was translated from this earth in some other fashion. Nor did the prophet Elijah die, he ascended to heaven in a fiery chariot. Thus doubt falls again on the absoluteness of Paul's use of the word "all". Interestingly enough, the rest of the passage after vs. 14 goes on to speak of "the many" who are under sin, and "the many" to whom death came, and then "the many" to whom the justification of Christ comes. We know that not "all" are justified.
Clearly, there is plenty of room for prayer, reflection, debate, and interpretation of these passages. However, I think that it is abundantly clear from what has been written above that we cannot easily assume from St. Paul's statement that "all have sinned" that we must absolutely include the Blessed Virgin within that category.
Let us now move on to the next commonly used text. In the beginning of Mary's beautiful hymn of praise, the Magnificat, the Virgin herself says, "My spirit rejoices in God my savior." (Lu. 1:47) To the Protestant this is incontestable evidence that Mary herself recognized her sinfulness, since she declares God to be her "savior", and only a sinner would require a "savior".
Now this verse is far less difficult than the preceding one, and is rather more easily explained. It should first be noted that the Catholic Church has never stated that the Mother of Christ did not need a savior. But we can understand salvation in to ways, salvation after a fall, and salvation from a fall. The great medieval theologian, Blessed Duns Scotus (whom, despite his unfortunate association with dunces and dunce caps was no fool at all), offered a simple illustration to understand this point. I will recreated it loosely here in my own words. Suppose a man were walking down a road in the middle of the night, and fell directly into a deep pit in the center of the road, which he had been unable to see due to the darkness. His cries for help are heard by his friend who is nearby. His friend lowers a rope, and pulls him to safety. The man rightly thanks his friend for "saving" him. Suppose, however, that his friend had noticed the pit a moment sooner, and called out a warning to him right when he was about to stumble over the edge. Although in this scenario the man does not fall, he is still grateful, and still rightly thanks his friend for "saving" him.
This illustration is very applicable to this situation (which was, in fact, precisely the doctrine that Scotus was defending). The Church is very clear indeed that Mary's sinlessness was the result of God's Grace and salvific work. Like the man in the story, Mary was naturally doomed to fall into the pit. As a daughter of Adam, she would automatically have been conceived in a state of original sin. It is through the saving Sacrifice of her Son alone, that she was granted the Grace to preserved from such a state. Thus God is absolutely her Savior. Make no mistake about it, the honors which we as Catholics bestow upon Mary ought only to reflect to praise to her Maker. Every gift she received, every Grace she was given, every honor and position bestowed upon her, was due to the gracious work of God. Mary was saved by, and as utterly dependent upon the Blessed Trinity as you or I. There is nothing of idolatry in such a doctrine at all.
The third verse to consider today is Lu.2:24. Mary and Joseph have taken the infant Jesus to the temple to "present him to the Lord" and "...to offer the sacrifice of 'a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,' in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord." Since this particular offering was a sin offering, a standard objection to the Catholic position is that Mary must have been a sinner. If this line of argument seems reasonable, I would ask the reader to consider the alternative. Would the Virgin Mary, if she had been as truly pure, humble, and holy as the Church teaches, have gone before the priest and said, "I am sinless, therefore I will not offer the sacrifice prescribed in the law of God"? Such an idea is untenable. We need only remember that Jesus Himself allowed Himself to be baptized at the hands of John the Baptist "to fulfill all righteousness", although He Himself had no need of baptism whatsoever. Jesus and Mary certainly fulfilled the law, and behaved as good Jews. It would be unreasonable to expect that Mary would have done anything other than present the standard sacrifice. The law also seems to be very much associated with ritual uncleanness after birth. We can, however, learn something interesting from this passage. The law referred to is found in Lv. 12:2-8. In this passage we discover that the sacrifice was supposed to be one turtledove, and one yearling lamb. The options of two turtledoves was presented to those who could not afford to offer a lamb. Thus we see evidence here for the tradition that Jesus' family was quite poor, since they offered the pauper's sacrifice of two turtledoves. I also wonder if the absence of the yearling lamb may also be because of the presence of the young Jesus, the Lamb of God, the true Sacrifice.
At the end of these consideration I would stress again the action of God. As Catholics we hold that God prepared the Virgin for the honor of His Son. We believe that the Father desired that the Holy One be nurtured in a pure, spotless womb. The graces granted to Mary are for the sake of her Son. Her dependence upon God is absolute. When she herself is praised (as by Elizabeth) she reflects the praise back to God, "The Almighty has done great things for me." The honor of Mary should have no other end than the honor of her Child. There is no idolatry, no blasphemy, no polytheism in these doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Now there are many passages in Scripture, such as Jesus' injunction to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and St. Peter's statement that baptism saves us, which seem on the surface just as plain to the Catholic as the verses we have just considered seem to the Protestant. In these cases the burden of proof rests upon the Protestant side, not upon the Catholic. Such is not the case here, however. Little is said of Mary in the Scriptures, and what is said is very deep, indeed. The burden of proof for the Marian dogmas rests entirely upon our shoulders here. Nothing that I have written here as yet attempts to demonstrate that Mary actually was without sin. The onus is still upon the Catholic case. In the essays to come it is my hope to be able, by the Grace of God, to offer the necessary evidence. For now, it is enough to say that, at the very least, the passages mentioned above in no way preclude the possibility that the Blessed Virgin may have been kept free from sin by the supreme decree of her true Father.
No comments:
Post a Comment