No Mary immaculately conceived, no gospel:
In light of the Incarnation, it is profoundly mistaken to think that humanity is necessarily or naturally sinful. It isn’t. Sin is normal, but never natural. Nature is not corrupt; corruption is corrupt. Sin is precisely what is contrary to our human nature. It is damage to nature, not nature itself, which constitutes sin. Thus, sin (which we all inherit in Adam) is always a warping and a deformation of our nature. In Christian understanding, nature is essentially good since it and grace (not sin) have the same author: God. Grace does not build on sin. It heals sin, eradicates sin, repairs the effects of sin, forgives sin. When that process is complete (as it shall be for the saints in heaven) those saints shall no longer be afflicted by sin in any way. That would be impossible if sin and humanness were identical.
Very well then, if there is nothing intrinsically impossible with the idea of sinless humanness in heaven for people who don’t happen to be Jesus, there is also nothing intrinsically impossible with Mary is being preserved from sin right here on earth by the same God who gets people to heaven. It is true that, apart from the authority of the church, there is no way we could know this about Mary. But then again, apart from the authority of the church, there is no way we would know that the Holy Spirit is God either. All that means is that Scripture is intended to be read in light of the full teaching of the church. When we do, we find that to deny the sinlessness of Mary on the mere ground that she’s human and therefore must be sinful has the surprising effect of messing up our understanding of the Incarnation.
And there is an understandable reason for that. Mary is the source of the Incarnation. Christianity is not merely a religion of the word. It is a relationship with the Word made flesh. But the Word gets his flesh from somewhere. All Christians believe in the blood of Christ shed on the cross. But God the Son, in his divine nature, had no blood to shed till the received it in purity from his mother. No Mary, no Incarnation; no Incarnation, no death on the cross; no death on the cross, no resurrection; no resurrection, no salvation for the world. Get rid of Mary and you don’t get a purified faith: you get nothing. That is the consequence of overlooking this often neglected truth.
Well, isn’t it profoundly correct to think of humanity as necessarily sinful in the light of THE FALL? Why would the Son of God become incarnate if not to redeem sinners. Plus, I was under the impression that sin a violation of God’s law. Eating a piece of fruit is natural, after all.
Post-fall, sinless humans occupying heaven is impossible without grace and forgiveness. Using the possibility of sinless humans going to heaven as the grounds for Mary’s sinfulness seems like a real groin-tearing stretch.
And if Mary needs to be sinless to bear Christ, then what about Mary’s mother needing to be sinless to bear Mary? And what about Mary’s grandmother to bear Mary’s mother? You see where this is going — thanks to the fall, which you don’t apparently see.
But if you insist that we would not have Christianity without Mary, then why did Anselm (a saint by both your and my standards) instead of writing Cur Deus Homo not write Why Mary Conceived without Sin? (Sorry my Latin is rusty.)
One last question: how much theology do you possibly need to be ignorant of to find your apologetics compelling? (So many Marks, so little time.)
Mark Shea? Seriously? He epitomizes the lameness of current lay Cafholic apologetics. And is it ever lame. The only living ones who sell at all outside of the Catholic ghetto are those like Peter Kreeft and Thomas Howard, former Protestants who sound far more like Protestants than Catholics. Scott Hahn? Never met a Proestant non-infatuated with Rome who can stomach him, despite the bouquet a crony endorsements he has accrued.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Well, isn’t it profoundly correct to think of humanity as necessarily sinful in the light of THE FALL? Why would the Son of God become incarnate if not to redeem sinners. ”
Um … “Thus, sin (which we all inherit in Adam)”. Try to take a breath before going into RC nuking mode.
Shea’s point is that sin is not part of our nature and so not necessitated by it; what God created is good – “Sin is precisely what is contrary to our human nature …. nature is essentially good since it and grace (not sin) have the same author: God … saints shall no longer be afflicted by sin in any way. That would be impossible if sin and humanness were identical.”
“But if you insist that we would not have Christianity without Mary, then why did Anselm (a saint by both your and my standards) instead of writing Cur Deus Homo not write Why Mary Conceived without Sin? (Sorry my Latin is rusty.) ”
That wouldn’t be the same Anselm that wrote the 3 Marian prayers found here would it – http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/anselm.html
LikeLike
Joe m, thanks for the skinny.
LikeLike
vd, c, if that’s Shea’s point, then why did Mary need a miraculous conception? Because of the fall. Post-fall, sin is natural.
Anselm’s prayers aren’t to Mary, right? They’re like prayer requests.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Post-fall, sin is natural.”
Adam, you, me, Christ all have the same human nature. Otherwise, Christ redeemed nothing as the old maxim of Gregory of Naz states – “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved”. We aren’t different creatures or some subhuman thing post-fall (which is also why your “Post-fall, sinless humans occupying heaven is impossible without grace” is off – pre-fall required it as well – no covenant of works business).
And again, Shea explicitly states “Thus, sin (which we all inherit in Adam)” so your blasting him for somehow implying the fall has no effect and we have no need for Christ because sin is not intrinsic to human nature is completely off the mark.
Any prayer to a saint is by definition intercessory. The point is Anselm wrote Cur Deus Homo and he also wrote those prayers that affirm the same sentiment Shea is endorsing – no Christianity without Mary – she’s not just some incubator afterthought.
LikeLike
“And if Mary needs to be sinless to bear Christ, then what about Mary’s mother needing to be sinless to bear Mary? And what about Mary’s grandmother to bear Mary’s mother? You see where this is going — thanks to the fall, which you don’t apparently see.”
I’ve brought this up to RC’s many times. It’s always, “no, just Mary needed to be sinless”. How convenient. Rome is atrocious.
LikeLike
vd, c, have you not read Boston on the Four-fold state of man? Don’t complain if Roman Catholics don’t understand sin. Such as Christ and I have the same human nature but I need to be saved from my human nature. Huh? Oh wait, Christ and I don’t have the same human nature. But Mark Shea is right.
Double huh.
If only you, Mark, and the magisterium could be as clear as this: “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.” (Confession of Faith 6.2)
But that would mean giving up Aristotle.
Well, what about Judas and Pilate? No Christianity without them, right?
So you do pray to Mary. Why? She’s not god, right? Or should Anselm have written, Why Mary became God?
LikeLike
Was Mary Sinless? Seeing as everyone agrees it’s a tradition of the church, I can just claim to be augustinian and gladly move on to the next topic, since I can’t for the life of me figure out why maintaining this doctrine is necessary for the Christian. Thank you Martin Luther, hashtag sola scriptura
St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine
Chapter 9.—How We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.
LikeLike
But CVD, the point is that Shea’s point doesn’t point to anything coherent.
First, he says: Very well then, if there is nothing intrinsically impossible with the idea of sinless humanness in heaven for people who don’t happen to be Jesus, there is also nothing intrinsically impossible with Mary is being preserved from sin right here on earth by the same God who gets people to heaven.
Preserved from sin? Yes, possible by the work of the Spirit. But failing to inherit sin from Adam? How? Catholics don’t believe children are born innocent.
There’s a missing step in the argument, a missing mechanism by which Mary was born without original sin.
Shea’s point fails to point.
So let’s try to be intelligent readers and guess at the missing step. Perhaps Shea means that not only did God preserve Mary from sin, but He also caused her by some process to not inherit Adam’s sin. OK. That missing step would be congruent with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Let’s call that process “The Sinless Conception.”
But now, Shea says
we find that to deny the sinlessness of Mary on the mere ground that she’s human and therefore must be sinful has the surprising effect of messing up our understanding of the Incarnation.
And there is an understandable reason for that. Mary is the source of the Incarnation. Christianity is not merely a religion of the word. It is a relationship with the Word made flesh. But the Word gets his flesh from somewhere. All Christians believe in the blood of Christ shed on the cross. But God the Son, in his divine nature, had no blood to shed till the received it in purity from his mother. No Mary, no Incarnation; no Incarnation, no death on the cross; no death on the cross, no resurrection; no resurrection, no salvation for the world. Get rid of Mary and you don’t get a purified faith: you get nothing.
How does that follow? First, no-one is literally advocating “getting rid of Mary”, so we must take that as a rhetorical flourish that means “get rid of Mary’s sinlessness.”
So, says Shea, if we deny Mary’s sinlessness, then Jesus cannot be born pure.
And at this point, we all throw up our hands and ask, If Mary can be born without inheriting sin from Adam, then why couldn’t Jesus?
That’s the ball-game. If a Catholic can postulate a Sinless Conception for Mary, born of two humans, then the Protestant can postulate a Sinless Conception for Jesus, conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Mary’s sinlessness (whether true or false) is entirely theologically unnecessary. There is no actual need to suppose it.
LikeLike
Cletus’ pastor who claims infallibility for himself, says otherwise.
So there.
LikeLike
Post-ascension appearances of — wait for it — Mary. Plus, it’s an anniversary:
And we’re supposed to believe the science behind climate change?
LikeLike
DGH, seriously.
Its a crazy world.
I’ll be doing what I do, keep fighting the good fight.
Who’s next to post at OL, yo?
LikeLike
The above goes against the language of the Scriptures. But what is worse, it, in the end, returns people to have hope in the hopeless, obedience to the law.
Using the language of the Scriptures, we see that there are 3 natures: our created nature, our fallen nature, and our new nature. And it isn’t until the fallen until we have physically died that our fallen nature can no longer affect us.
As for Mary, she had problems. But Jesus was immaculately conceived so we can trust God to overcome any problems Mary’s own nature might have presented. All of this leaves only God to be worshipped through Jesus.
LikeLike
Just a hop, skip, and a jump away from Mary being Co-Redemptrix. But hey, that’s just weirdo rad-trads, right? Mary was just sinless, ‘cuz reasons.
And neo-Caths wonder why we take such issue with Mariolatry.
LikeLike
All those supposed Mary apparitions were demons. It’s been documented that they have looked differently. People have described her differently If it was always Mary, then all the descriptions of her would be the same but they’re not. They’re not seeing Mary, they’re seeing demons. Satan coming as an angel of light and all that. Run far from Rome and do it now.
LikeLike
“Get rid of Mary and you don’t get a purified faith: you get nothing. That is the consequence of overlooking this often neglected truth.”
Any takers? Can you refute this concluding statement?
LikeLike
Joe m
Posted May 13, 2015 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
Mark Shea? Seriously? He epitomizes the lameness of current lay Cafholic apologetics. And is it ever lame. The only living ones who sell at all outside of the Catholic ghetto are those like Peter Kreeft and Thomas Howard, former Protestants who sound far more like Protestants than Catholics. Scott Hahn? Never met a Proestant non-infatuated with Rome who can stomach him, despite the bouquet a crony endorsements he has accrued.
___________________________
D. G. Hart
Posted May 13, 2015 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
Joe m, thanks for the skinny.
_______________________________
Wow, what gratuitous slime. Yet we quote gay seminary washout Michael Sean Winters of the apostate National Catholic Reporter authoritatively around here. Amazing.
LikeLike
Mrs. W. “Get rid of Mary and you don’t get a purified faith: you get nothing.”
Show me where the apostles said that.
Time’s yours.
LikeLike
Would anyone aside from me like to see vd, t’s hierarchy of Roman Catholic authorities? Don’t you think he could help out the church if he published his thoughts? He’s like an Al Mohler who never writes about the faith but corrects any Protestant who does.
LikeLike
DGH, personally, not really. I mean, they all submit to Pope Francis anyway. He may have a point that we think too much about RCism here, their history (I.e. Borgias, Avignon) I find interesting, but you make a good point RCism of the 21st century seems too much “golly gee wilikers” Mister Rogers kinda ethos.
Like you, their Church is not my cup of tea, not really impressed with them given their wealth and size. I could go on and on..
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Mrs. W. “Get rid of Mary and you don’t get a purified faith: you get nothing.”
Show me where the apostles said that.
Time’s yours.>>>>
Seriously? You don’t understand? It’s pretty simple. Get rid of Mary, and Jesus was never born, and there was no Incarnation. She is the woman prophesied about in Genesis 3:16. She is the virgin who conceived and bore a Son – Immanuel, God with us – Jesus.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 15, 2015 at 6:38 am | Permalink
Would anyone aside from me like to see vd, t’s hierarchy of Roman Catholic authorities? Don’t you think he could help out the church if he published his thoughts? He’s like an Al Mohler who never writes about the faith but corrects any Protestant who does.
Whenever you resort to these personal attacks like this, you’re admitting you have no reply.
Your chosen authorities on Catholicism like Rod Dreher [ex-Catholic], Michael Sean Winters [gay ex-seminarian] and Ross Douthat [New York Times columnist] are wanting.
Aquinas is good. Pope Ratzinger is good. Peter Kreeft seems cool, though I never heard of him until now.
http://chnetwork.org/2011/10/hauled-aboard-the-ark-conversion-story-of-peter-kreeft/
That’s been my experience, although with some very pointed exceptions. =:-O
LikeLike
Huh?
I thought RCs didn’t believe she felt the pains of labor:
So yeah , I seriously dont understand, and doubt DGH is doing much better with what wrote here.
How is Mary Prophesied in Gen 3:16?
LikeLike
Tom, my sense is DGH doesnt care whether you think he has no reply. He’s having a conversation as best hr can, you and webfoot choose to come here and discuss your view s on religion, no one is making you, and if either of you feel uncomfortable, you can now out anytime.
Dgh is an ordained presby elder, Erik an ordained Reformed elder, me an ordained presby deacon. We aren’t infallible, but our motives are not nefarious. We want to open up the floor to see what you have to say. Its a safe place here , I’ll do my best to help moderate things. My religious life is an open book, I enjoy hearing from others who wish to share, that’s all.
LikeLike
Here
https://oldlife.org/2013/12/wow/
You get DGH wrestling with Marian dogma, 326 comments of which I was a part, December 2013.
Honestly, Roman Catholics, explain this stuff like we prots are in your 5 year old sunday school class.
LikeLike
Mrs. W. I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus.
But you can make a similar argument about Rahab. Don’t you know the genealogies of the Bible? Wait, you’re Roman Catholic.
The point is that the Bible and the apostles don’t say no Mary, no faith. In fact, you can’t imagine a Saint less prominent in the very books written by the people who knew her.
You believe what you want to believe.
LikeLike
vd, t, your classification of my replies to flimsy Roman Catholic apologetics as “personal attacks” is like your opinion, man.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
The point is that the Bible and the apostles don’t say no Mary, no faith. >>>>
Actually, there are several points that you seem to be missing, and my mistake on the ref. for the protoevangelium did not help.
1. Genesis 3:15 prophesied a specific woman, not just any old woman. My bad. I did say Genesis 3:16 earlier. Here is what I meant.
Genesis 3:15English Standard Version (ESV)
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
2. Same with Isaiah 7:13-15
Isaiah 7:13-15English Standard Version (ESV)
13 And he[a] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[b] 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
3. Surely you are not saying that the apostles denied these two passages that are clearly talking about the Virgin Mary?
4. Surely you are not saying that God did not know who would be the mother of His Son? The apostles knew that Mary was His mother.
What are you saying?
The Incarnation is dependent, of course, on God’s sovereign will. That makes the Incarnation dependent on God’s instrument, Mary – the woman, the virgin. You do use the term “incarnation”, which is a word that no apostle ever used. Right?
The propagation of the Gospel is dependent on those who preach it, as per Romans 10
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
In the same way, the Incarnation is dependent on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Sure, your tradition teaches you that Mary was not perpetually virgin. Your tradition teaches you that God did not protect Mary from original sin. I certainly hope that your tradition does not teach you that it would be impossible for God to protect the Mother of God from the taint of original sin. He could do that, right? You just believe that He did not do that.
Your conscience tells you that those traditions are not true. That is your right. Maybe we could talk about what Augustine believed about the Blessed Virgin Mary. That might make for an interesting and profitable conversation.
LikeLike
Mrs. W., who’s denying the virgin Mary? What I’m denying are all the other claims made on her behalf. And you have yet to address that the New Testament is remarkably silent about her compared to all the falderal in your circles. Immaculate conception. Rosary. Apparitions? Bodily assumption. She’s there in the NT. But the big deal in the Bible is Jesus, right?
Plus, interpreting the Bible is above your pay grade. You’re supposed to pay, pray, and obey.
LikeLike
BTW, no Rahab, no Incarnation, either, but she was not The Woman and she certainly was no virgin.
Rahab is, though, proof of that fact that justification is not by faith alone.
LikeLike
@ Mrs. W: I hope it’s OK for me to interject, but I would ask the question (and answer it) this way.
Given that the gospel of Mark (and Luke, and Matthew, and John) are silent about Mary’s sinlessness and her perpetual virginity, what does that tell us about the centrality and importance of those concepts, even if true?
Here’s what Irenaeus said:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. — Irenaeus, Adv. Haer, 3.1.1
The plan of salvation is handed down in the Scriptures so as to be the ground and pillar of the faith. He then goes on, of course, to defend a public, not hidden, tradition handed down from the apostles. But for Ir., the Scripture is the ground and pillar of faith, confirmed by that publicly known tradition.
From this, I think it’s safe to conclude that if none of the gospels teach any of sinlessness nor perpetual virginity nor coredemptrixhood, then those doctrines are not the pillar and ground of the faith. They are not gospel issues.
So when you ask whether it is logically impossible that sinlessness and PV are true, you are setting too low a bar for the ground of our belief. We are not committed to believing anything that might be logically possible! (I’m sure you agree).
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
So when you ask whether it is logically impossible that sinlessness and PV are true, you are setting too low a bar for the ground of our belief. We are not committed to believing anything that might be logically possible! (I’m sure you agree).>>>>>>
I am setting the bar low for you, if the possibility of God’s miraculous intervention in human affairs in order to accomplish His plan of redemption is a low bar.
The first question to be answered is, “Can God do it?” At least it was for me. That questions should be easy to answer in the affirmative.
The difficult question for Protestants is, “Did God do it?”
Remember, too, that the very concept of original sin is one of your Reformed traditions. It is based on Scripture, plus logic, plus St. Augustine and others. So, you do not arrive at the doctrine of original sin through sola scriptura.
You might be interested in this entry about “original sin” from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Remember, too, that the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary was discussed for a long time among Church theologians. It was not made official until 1854, but it had been postulated from the time of the Church fathers.
Once again I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Notice what Augustine said.:
“In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (On Nature and Grace 36).”
LikeLike
Yes, certainly, God could easily lead Mary to take a vow of virginity. It seems somewhat improbable for someone who would then consent to be married, but it could happen.
And I cannot rule out on logical grounds that God could prevent the transmission of original sin to Mary. It would be require a high bar of Scriptural proof to believe that He did so (since the default position is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”), but I cannot tell Him what He cannot do.
The question, as you say, is whether God actually *did* either of those things. And there’s a really wide gap between “could have” and “did.”
Webfoot: Remember, too, that the very concept of original sin is one of your Reformed traditions. It is based on Scripture, plus logic, plus St. Augustine and others. So, you do not arrive at the doctrine of original sin through sola scriptura.
Not so. You are taking three different components (Scripture, logic, tradition) and treating them as equal ingredients, as if using Scripture alone ought to exclude entirely the use of logic or tradition.
And of course, that is not what sola scriptura is or means. I’m a little surprised — do I remember correctly that you were originally Protestant? In the correct understanding of sola scriptura, each of Scripture, logic, and tradition plays a particular role.
The meaning of sola scriptura is that
* Scripture is alone the final authority
* Doctrines should not be taught or required of believers unless they can be shown to be directly taught OR taught by good and necessary inference from Scripture (there’s logic for you)
* Tradition is a subordinate authority, given to temper the noetic effect of sin in and creaturely limitations of individuals. Specifically, the decisions of the church are to be received with submission insofar as they are consonant with Scripture.
So actually, I would dispute the assertion and say rather that the doctrine of original sin is taught by good and necessary inference in Scripture, and confirmed by church tradition. That’s straight-up sola scriptura.
—
So let’s accept original sin as a settled theorem. How do you get from there to Mary’s sinlessness?
LikeLike