Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]

BlackCordelias ^ | July 13, 2009 | BFHU

[maryz]

You can’t possibly have read my whole post!

[maryz]

Of course — Christ is “true God and true man.” What’s your point?

[Mr Rogers]

“My task here as a Catholic is not to deduce the Catholic doctrine from the Scripture but rather explain the Scripture in the light of the doctrine received by the Church from the Holy Spirit directly.”

Exactly. You use scripture to prove your views, rather than letting scripture speak for itself via the Holy Spirit.

If one assumes Mary was sinless, then any verse about her can be made to mean that, and any verse saying all have sinned can be made to mean all but Mary. If you assume Purgatory, then you can force it upon scripture.

Protestants just believe that is backwards. And we cannot agree on specific arguments without first determining if Scripture is the rule, or if Catholic teaching is true because it is assumed to be true.

[ctdonath2]

He cannot be true man if she, being sinless, were not truly of mankind and in mankind’s state. Easy for Him to be divine if his mother was, by special treatment, sinless; he would not be “one of us”, aka “true man”.

And if she were sinless by special dispensation (read: divine favoritism), then (A) she did not need a savior (see Luke 1:47, “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”), and (B) Christ is not the only way. Precedent is set: why then condemn all for original sin if it may so easily be wiped away without sacrifice?

[maryz]

He cannot be true man if she, being sinless, were not truly of mankind and in mankind’s state. Easy for Him to be divine if his mother was, by special treatment, sinless; he would not be “one of us”, aka “true man”.

Huh? Why do you say Mary can't be "truly of mankind" if she is sinless, but (apparently) assume Christ can be "true man" though He is sinless? You do realize that the Second Person of the Trinity is eternal, not bound by time, divine before all creation? Your post sounds as if you believe that Christ somehow became divine when He became flesh. You're free to believe that, of course, but it's not standard Christian doctrine.

And if she were sinless by special dispensation (read: divine favoritism), then (A) she did not need a savior (see Luke 1:47, “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”), and (B) Christ is not the only way. Precedent is set: why then condemn all for original sin if it may so easily be wiped away without sacrifice?

You've got to distinguish between time and eternity. Of course, Christ's was Mary's savior -- the special dispensation consists of His merits being applied to her at her conception.

In eternity, there is no distinction of past, present, future. Only time (which is itself a creature -- so God is not subject to it) is so limited.

[bdeaner]

Then what is the scriptural basis for the sinless nature of Mary and the denial of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? These infallible positions would be in addition to the scriptures, if there isn't a scriptural basis for them, correct?

The teachings on Mary's purity are based on Scripture -- they are implicit in Scripture, in the same way the Trinity is implicit in Scripture.

Granted, the Catholic doctrine on Mary is not one of those doctrines that can be demonstrated by referencing a single passage in the Bible. It requires reading the Bible as a whole, and in the light of the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in order to provide the hermeneutic context in which these Church doctrines can be shown to be very much rooted in the OT and NT, taken as a whole -- so much so that their explication brings a coherence and fulfillment of the Scriptures that is not possible without them, as is demonstrated, for example, by Scott Hahn in his excellent and very accessible book, Haily, Holy Queen.

Since the earliest days of Christianity, the church has constantly taught that Mary preserved her virginity not only before the conception of Jesus, but ever afterward as well. Though she was married to Joseph, the two never consummated their marriage by sexual intercourse. This doctrine is known as Mary's perpetual virginity.

Heretics in the early Church occasionally challenged this teaching but they never gained much ground. Their purportedly scriptural arguments were easily refuted by the likes of St. Jerome, the great biblical scholar of the ancient church. (Jerome was also a great name-caller, and he reserved his most scathing insults for those who dared to question Mary's perpetual virginity). What were the arguments of these heretics? They should sound very familiar.

The bulk of their arguments rested on the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus' "brethren." We find in St. Mark's gospel, for example: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and joses and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" (6:3). In Matthew 12:46, we see: "Behold, His Mother and His brethren stood outside, asking to speak to Him." In Luke 2:7, we read that Jesus was Mary's "first-born."

This is virtually a non-issue for anyone who has a glancing familiarity with Hebrew customs. The Hebrew word for "brother" is a more inclusive term, applying to cousins as well. In fact, in ancient Hebrew there is no word for cousin. To a Jew of Jesus' time, one's cousin was one's brother. This familial principle applied in other Semitic languages as well, such as Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, His cousins would even assume the legal status of siblings for Him, as they were His nearest relatives. Finally, the word "firstborn" raises no real difficulty because it was a legal term in ancient Israel that applied to the child who "openend the womb," whether or not the mother bore more children afterward.

Heretics also quoted passages that seemed--again, to those unfamiliar with Jewish modes of expression--to imply that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations. They would cite Matthew 1:18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit." St. Jerome's antagonist Helvidius placed his question squarely on the word "before" in that sentence, claiming that Matthew would never have applied "before they came together" to a couple who did not eventually come together. Helvidius also cited a passage later in Matthew's first chapter that declares that Joseph "knew her not until she had borne a son" (1:25). Again, Helvidius said that Matthew's use of "until" implied that Joseph "knew" Mary afterward.

This is a classic example of amateur exegesis. It was definitively and easily leveled by a professional biblical scholar. Responding to Helvidius, Jerome demonstrated that scripture "often uses a fixed time...to denote time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, 'Even to old age I am He' (Is 46:4)." Jerome thundered on: "Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?" The answer of course is no. Jerome goes on, then, to quote Jesus, Who said: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Wryly, Jerome asked Helvidius if he thought the Lord would then forsake His disciples after the close of the age. Jerome multiples such example, but we don't need to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that those who question Mary's virginity don't have a page of scripture to stand on--and Christian Tradition is univocally against them.

If they wanted to find a message implicit in scripture, they should have examined the first chapter of Luke's gospel. There, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary--who was then betrothed to Joseph--and tells her that she will conceive a son. Mary responds: "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Lk 1:27-34).

Now, this would be an odd question if Mary had planned to have normal marital relations with her husband. The angel had told her only that she would conceive a son, which is a commonplace event in marriage. If Helvidius were right, then Mary should have known exactly "how shall this be." It would happen in the normal course of nature.

But that, apparently, was beyond the realm of possibility for her. The unspoken assumption behind her question is that, even though she was betrothed, she should not have an opportunity to conceive a child. How can that be? Some commentators speculate that Mary must have vowed virginity from an early age, and that Joseph knew of her vow, accepted it, and eventually took it on himself. Contrarians respond that vowed celibacy was almost unheard of in ancient Israel. Yet we do find examples of celibacy in the time of Jesus, evidenced in the New Testament by Jesus Himself and by Saint Paul, among others. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest that celibacy was a common practice of some Israelite sects. So it is not unthinkable that Mary could have vowed virginity.

In any case, it is clear from scripture and Tradition that she lived her virginity--so much that, for all future generations, she became its very personification. St. Epiphanius dismissed all arguments against Mary's virginity with the witness of her name. Even in his day (the fourth century), she was well established as simply "the Virgin." A good son firmly defends his mother's honor--though most of the time, he need not do so with long and labored argument. Still, there is a place for proofs as well; and sons of Mary can, if challenged, take up the Scriptures in her defense, as Jerome did.

[bdeaner]

The point is that traditions should not contradict Scripture.

Yes, and Catholic tradition certainly does not contradict Scripture.

Romans 3, verse 10 says, "...as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one.'" Yet, James 5:16 says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If absolutely no one is righteous, then who is James talking about? Luke chapter 1 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous before God. If absolutely no one is righteous, then how can that be? Is Scripture contradicting itself? No, the folks who interpret Romans as saying absolutely, without exception, no one is righteous, are misinterpreting that passage. They are failing to realize that the key to understanding Romans 3:10 is the phrase, "it is written."

Here in Romans, Paul is quoting from the O.T., Psalm 14 to be exact. In Psalm 14 it says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God. They are corrupt...there is none that does good.'" But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the "righteous." Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone.

Just so Paul when he quotes from this psalm. Paul is not saying absolutely no one is righteous, if he was, then how do you explain all the Old and New Testament passages that refer to the righteous? In Romans 3:11 it says that no one seeks for God. Does that mean that absolutely no one is seeking God? No, to interpret it that way would be ludicrous!

Just so verse 23 which says that "all have sinned". Babies haven't sinned, have they? Little children haven't sinned, have they? No! This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. What about John the Baptist? Did he sin? Scripture says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Can someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life ever sin? It's something to think about.

So, it is perfectly legitimate to say that these passages from Romans, when interpreted in context, in no way conflict with the Church's teaching on Mary being without sin.

[NYer]

have you a link to anything on that provocative new encyclical?

CARITAS IN VERITATE

[ctdonath2]

Fine - why don’t we all get that “special dispensation”?

Nothing says she was sinless. “Full of grace” does not equal “sinless”.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thanks for the correction!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Now there's 40,000 denominations, eh??? When you going to provide some proof for this claim???

He won't, because there isn't any proof to that claim. In fact, there are 21 major traditions of protestantism, and 16 of Roman Catholicism, meaning the Roman Catholic Church is nearly as "fractured" as some try to make protestantism to be.

It's simply a slanderous/pejorative statement meant to incite and inflame. Forgive, show him correction, then forget. If he continues with his ignorance it is between him and God.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thanks for the post. I understand that it is inferred. However, it is inferred from one verse only (Luke 1:28), and we have multiple verses in all Gospels and in Acts talking of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Josephus is quite explicit in this as well. Not to mention Paul, who uses the word adelphos (Greek for brother) for James in Galatians, yet also is clear to use the word anepsios meaning cousin in his letter to the Colossians. Paul clearly delineated between brothers and cousins!

Additionally, many of the early Church fathers - Tertullian, Saint Hegesippus, Helvidius, and others - believed in the literal brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ.

I think at best it could be concluded to be an issue taken on faith and faith alone; there is not an established tradition in the early church, and it is not conclusive within the scriptures. This is a sola fide position, rather than one indisputable in scripture.

[NYer]

The Church of Rome was not the only Christian church.

In the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries - up until the split with the Orthodox, there was only one christian church - the Catholic Church. If you know otherwise, plese name them.

[Mr Rogers]

The word for righteous is “dikaios”, meaning:

1) righteous, observing divine laws

a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God

1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined

2) innocent, faultless, guiltless

3) used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life

a) only Christ truly

4) approved of or acceptable of God

b) in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

---

James is obviously using it in sense 1A - a good person. And no one denies there are people who are better than others at doing good.

However, Paul is obviously using it in sense 3, for the preceding sentence is “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.”

I quoted just that verse, but the one prior also makes the case - that ALL ARE UNDER SIN.

In chapter 1, Paul talks about the righteous judgment of God on evil men. In chapter 2, he essentially says, “You felt good while I was condemning homosexuals, but your own words and thoughts condemn you, for you are just as bad in the eyes of God.” Chapter 2 finishes with a reply to those who say, “I’m a Jew, I have the Law of God...”

Chapter 3 starts off by saying, yes, the Jews have much to boast about - BUT NOT SINLESS, since righteousness comes from faith, not obeying the law. And then Paul says, “9 What shall we conclude then? Are we [Jews] any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.”

So Paul’s meaning here does not contradict James, but it does contradict the claim that Mary was without sin, and obeyed the Law her entire life.

Babies are probably born tainted by sin. I say probably, because I haven’t researched the Scripture enough to feel confident of my answer. However, a 2 year old most definitely shows all the signs of sin in his/her life!

And yes, John the Baptist sinned. Matthew 11 records his doubt about Jesus.

If someone can live without sin, why did Jesus need to die? “21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

[boatbums]

are, for example, Michael and Gabriel sinless?

The fallen angels have sinned, the angels that did not rebel have not sinned - yet. They could but they won't.

[bdeaner]

The Catholic Church's position on Mary's sin is more complex and nuanced than some are assuming, it seems to me. See John A. Hardon, Jr., The Catholic Catechism.

The doctrone of the Immaculate Conception is synthesized in the statement:

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular priviledge and grace of the omnipotent God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved from all stain of original sin."

It affirms:
(1) this immunity was a special grace from God,
(2) through the foreseen merits of Christ,
(3) Mary was exempt from original sin contracted by the rest of mankind, and
(4) the exemption took place at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.

Exemption from original sin must have been an extraordinary grace because other human beings, except Christ, are conceived with sin on their souls. However, this does not mean that Mary was necessarily exempt from the universal necessity or need of being subject to sin, i.e., "the debt of original sin," where two kinds of debt are to be distinguished. The remote debt (necessity) simply means membership in the human race, derived by ordinary propagation from sexual intercourse. Christ, other than Mary, did not incur this necessity. Mary did, and therefore had to be redeemed. The proximate debt involves inclusion in the willful act by which Adam, as representative of mankind, sinned and thereby implicated human nature in his fall. As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary's soul had she not been miraculously preserved.

Christ's redemptive merits operated on his mother by anticipation. This preredemption is commonly taught to have consisted in the infusion of sanctifying grace into her soul at the moment of its creation, which was simultaneous with infusion into her body.

Excemption from original sin carried with it two corollary consequences: From the time of her conception, Mary was also free from all motions of concupiscence, and also (on attaining the use of reason) free from every personal sin during the whole of her life.

Like her divine Son, Mary was subject to the ordinary limitations of human nature, except those that involve moral defect. She was therefore free from the effect of inherited sin, which is the unreasoning drive of the appetites (sensual and spiritual), which are irrational precisely because they anticipate the dictate of reason and tend to perdure in spite of reason and free will telling a person that the urge in question is wrong. True, there is no actual sin in concupiscence unless a person consents to an inclination that he knows is morally bad. Nevertheless, concupiscence is incompatible with Mary's fullness of grace, even without consent, it implies excitation to commit acts that are materially against God's will.

If we ask how Mary could gain merit if she was not subject to concupiscence, the answer is the same as with Christ. Certainly the inner drive is an occasion for merit, but not an indispensable condition. Mary acquired merit not by struggling interiorly against a native irrationality, but by her love of God and a host of other virtues. She always had the option of choosing among various good actions; between action and inaction; and among numerous ways of perfoming acts of virtue--all of which are free choices and meritorious before God.

Long before Pius IX, the Council of Trent said that Mary "by a special privilege of God" was exempt from all sin, even venial ones, during her whole life. Like the Immaculate Conception, which is presupposes, Mary's personal sinlessness follows from the Church's constant belief in her spotless puirity and is founded on her dignity as the Mother of God. Some writers of the East, including Chrysostom, held that Mary was sometimes guilty of such minor defects as vanity, as when she urged Jesus to work the miracle of changing water into wine at Cana. They were misled by the notion of woman as inferior to man, and quite incapable of rising above the petty faults of human nature. Yet even they did not charge her with formal sin.

Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of human human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.

Concretely this quality may be identified with perseverance in grace as regards grave sin, and confirmation in grace for lesser sins. In either case, however, her incapacity for sin differed radically from that of Christ. Where his was based on the fact that he is a divine person, hers was an added prerogative. It was absolutely necessary that he could not sin, since God is sinless. It was a free gift of God's mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor.

[Mr Rogers]

In the first 300 years of Christianity, there were a lot of local churches joined by common beliefs, although the differences between the church fathers indicate divisions were not unknown. However, history does not teach that all these churches answered to Rome. That didn’t occur until after 400, and was a source of considerable conflict.

Many divided early on.

“According to tradition the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria which was established by Saint Mark the apostle and evangelist in the middle of the 1st century (approximately AD 42).[1] The head of the church and the See of Alexandria is the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark, currently Pope Shenouda III.” The split occurred, I believe, in the 400s.

Now, who was right - the Roman church, or the Egyptian one? Both claim apostolic succession. So I guess it depends on which Pope you side with as to who the true, 2000 year old church is.

There were other splits as well. That is why the argument “The Catholic Church is the only 2000 year old church” strikes me as silly.

[NYer]

There were other splits as well. That is why the argument “The Catholic Church is the only 2000 year old church” strikes me as silly.

According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

It's pretty straightforward. There can be only one church and we know that church by the four marks of the true Church of Christ.

[bdeaner]

The sale of indulgences is a primary example. Obviously a terrible thing to do. Perhaps they have officially renounced that; I hope so. Purgatory is another one. Limbo, which I think has been recently, I am not sure what the term would be, recalled or changed or what have you.

Indulgences are considered an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The doctrine is not subject to change. But it is subject to clarification, which has happened since the Reformation. Any honest and knowledgeable Catholic will agree that the doctrine of indulgences was abused at a certain point in the history of the Church; however, these abuses were in violation of the spirit of the original doctrine of indulgences, and the doctrine has now been clarified in such a way that these abuses are no longer possible without committing heresy. So, the doctrine of indulgences has not changed, but it has evolved and been clarified to prevent abuses of it. Satan loves to attack what is good. Just look at sex -- intended for an act of love to produce life -- and how that supreme goodness is perverted by Satan, into a seduction into sin, through pornography, adultery, etc. Indulgences are, in spirit, a selfless act of redemptive sacrifice for the good of another, but through Satan's temptations, some people within the Church distorted this goodness and used it for greedy ends -- and they paid the temporal price for those sins. We are all paying for those sins by living in a world in which Christianity has become fragmanted rather than acting as one, united and catholic body of Christ -- a historical consequence of sin comparable to Abraham's sin of impatience which lead him to give birth to Ishmael and therefore the religion of Islam. The purgation of those sins will eventually lead to a reunited Church -- but at the end of the line the doctrine of indulgences will remain, but purified of the possibility for corrupting it for human ends.

The teachings on Limbo were never infallibly taught. It was never an official doctrine endorsed infallibly by the Magisterium, but rather a concept that had entered the lexicon of some theologians, which in turn became part of the Catholic culture. The concept of limbo however has now been rejected by the Church, so it will never become an offical, infallible doctrine of the Church. It simply does not have the support of Scripture and Tradition that would be necessary to establish its infallibility. Limbo now can only be discussed in the past tense, as a misguided but well-intentioned concept of a bygone Catholic culture.

Purgatory, on the other hand, IS an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and will remain part of the Catholic teachings on Scripture and Tradition, and therefore will always be with the Church -- altough, as with all doctrines, there is a lot of room for clarifying those teachings and making them more clear, as with the doctrine on indulgences. Purgatory is a concept that goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Not so with Limbo.

One day soon I will probably post a thread on purgatory, since it should make for some interesting ecumenical discussion. An in-depth discussion of indulgences would also be interesting and worthwhile. Feel free to share Protestant materials opposing these doctrines, again in the spirit of ecumenical dialogue. Hopefully, even if we disagree, everyone is learning something in the process.

God bless.

[Mr Rogers]

Well, most Protestants believe in One Church. We just don’t tie it to any specific denomination. Not Baptist, not Methodist, and not Catholic.

If there was supposed to be one Head other than Jesus, then Jesus and the Apostles kept pretty quiet about it. When Jesus was asked which of the Apostles was the greatest, He COULD have replied Peter. That He didn’t either means He missed a great opportunity, or that He didn’t intend for Peter to be his ‘Vicar’.