Untitled

The following is part one of an eight part Catholic Response to an actual letter from an Evangelical Protestant wherein he listed off eight common objections to Catholicism. To read the actual letter in its entirety, please click here

Protestant Objection #1:

According to the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the "Immaculate Birth," Mary is considered to be sinless. It is supposedly true according to the scriptures that when Mary was conceived in her mother's womb, she had no sin and was saved.

Protestant Answer:

The Bible teaches that all people have sin and are even born in sin. The Bible even says that Mary gave a sacrifice for her sins. Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom 3:23; Luke 1:46-47; 2:21-24; Leviticus 12:8.

Catholic Response #1: The Immaculate Conception - The Sinlessness of Mary

Greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am fairly active in discussions regarding the divide in Christianity between Protestantism and Catholicism. I spent the first 41 years of my life as a Protestant and during that time I knew very little about Catholicism - all that I knew was that I didn't agree with the Catholic religion.

Actually, what I REALLY knew was that I did not agree with what I THOUGHT the Catholic Church taught. I was quite surprised to learn that I had many misconceptions about Catholic teachings that gave me a false understanding.

And, quite frankly, when I read the letter you wrote with its eight objections, I would have to say that if the Catholic Church really taught what you say here, I too would fight against such false beliefs. The truth is, however, that very few claims you make here about what we supposedly believe is - in realty - what we actually believe. And in those few places where you have accurately stated our true beliefs, I suspect that you do not know the reasons WHY we believe what we do, nor how we can explain and justify our beliefs to the world.

Therefore you are fighting against something that doesn't exist: a Catholic Church that reflects certain false beliefs you have inserted into its mouth (beliefs you probably learned from someone else who was equally misinformed).

But this is common among most Protestants - I used to do the same thing all the time until I met a well-informed and charitable Catholic who patiently and lovingly shared authentic Catholic teaching with me.

While I do not expect that you will become Catholic just because I share a few things with you (converting people is not in my job description - that is strictly the work of the Holy Spirit), I do hope that you will be willing to learn what we really believe instead of what an anti-Catholic source might have falsely told you.

If, after you learn what we really believe, you continue to disagree with us,
then that is fine. Why? Because then you will have an informed opinion rather than an opinion fed by bogus information from questionable sources.

I was very happy to read your last paragraph, which was:

"As God leads us to minister to our Roman Catholic friends, let us be mindful that we are looking to win the soul out of darkness, and not the argument, [nor to] debate popularity. Our goal is to show the love of Christ and the right way to HIM!"

What you are saying here is that you want us (meaning you Protestants and us "Catholic friends") to engage in seeking out objective TRUTH - regardless of how it might affect either one's "side" of the argument. I agree. We should not look to "win" anything. We should only look for "light" and not "heat." In that spirit I, too, will echo your words and will offer to you a hand in friendship and an eagerness to lead a soul out of darkness.

In this case I am not implying that you are in "darkness" such as that which envelops unbelievers; rather, I am referring to the "light" of Truth about what Catholicism REALLY teaches compared to the "darkness" of being misinformed about Catholicism by anti-Catholic false teachers.

One more thing I really must bring up before I get to any of the specific points you raise is regarding your use of the term "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholic Church."

Believe it or not (and most Protestants are surprised by this) it is inaccurate to refer to the Catholic Church by these terms except within the context of talking about the Western Church specifically, or, the Rites of the Western Church. The name of our Church (meaning the entire Church that is in union with the Pope), properly speaking, is "The Catholic Church" - it is not the "Roman Catholic Church."

Under the umbrella of the "Catholic Church" are about 2 dozen individual Churches. One of the churches is in the West and its proper name is "Roman Catholic" (most American Catholics and nearly all Hispanic and European Catholics fall inside the "Roman" Church) - the other twenty-plus churches are "Eastern" and go by names such as the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, or the Maronite Rite Catholic Church, and so on.

They each have a different structure (for example, a Bishop in one church does not have binding authority in any other church - a Roman Bishop cannot "boss around" a Byzantine Catholic parish), a different "liturgy" (which means an order of Worship - what we say and do at any particular moment during a worship service), different devotional practices, different prayers (in many cases), and a different cultural outlook. What they do NOT have is different beliefs or doctrines one from another. What is binding in one Catholic communion is binding in all Catholic communions (after all God revealed only ONE Truth). Therefore there is no such thing as "Roman Catholic Doctrine" - there is only "Catholic Doctrine."

An Eastern Catholic person would be rather amused to think that their beliefs were considered "Roman" to American Protestants. And they would be less than amused to be called "Roman Catholic" simply because they are under the authority of the Pope. It is no more proper to call the Church (meaning the entire Church under the Pope) by the term "Roman Catholic" than it would be to call our country "The United States of Washington DC" just because the lead office-holder of the country, the President, lives in Washington DC.

And so, with all that being said, let's look at your eight main objections to the Catholic Church.

You said:

1.) According to the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the "Immaculate Birth," Mary is considered to be sinless. It is supposedly true according to the scriptures that when Mary was conceived in her mother's womb, she had no sin and was saved.

I say:

I presume by this you mean the "Immaculate Conception".

I will give you credit for knowing that the Immaculate (Conception) doctrine is regarding Mary's protection from Original Sin. Most Protestants confuse it with the doctrine of the "Virginal Birth" (which is probably why you mistakenly called the doctrine the "Immaculate Birth").

The doctrine does not deal with Jesus' conception by the Holy Spirit nor with His miraculous Virgin Birth; rather, as you correctly point out, it deals with Mary's conception and her Immaculate state (i.e., she was born without a fallen nature due to Original Sin inherited from the fall of our original parents - Adam and Eve).

However, you overstate our position when you make the claim:

"…it is supposedly true according to the scriptures."

Here we must define our terms. The way you word it you are implying that we believe that the Bible is explicit about the doctrine. You are insinuating that we claim the Bible says so outright and plainly so that everything is clearly stated about the doctrine. But the *truth* is that we have never claimed that the Bible is ***explicit*** (key word) about the doctrine. Rather, we claim that the Bible is ***implicit*** about the doctrine and it must be discerned by carefully reflecting on various Biblical passages.

In other words, the Bible “implies” the doctrine. Thus, we can say, in one sense, that it is "true" according to the Scriptures because the Bible gives us hints and clues that it is "true."

Before you claim that we should not develop doctrines based on "hints" and "clues" I will have to ask you to find where the word "Trinity" appears in the Bible. It doesn't. The biblical basis for the doctrine is only hinted at with clues that God is: One by Nature, but Three Persons, co-eternal and of the same substance.

Side note: the term "Immaculate Conception" is used primarily by the Roman Church - but - the Eastern Churches are still bound to believe in its precepts even though they have a different way of expressing it (in other words, we all believe the same thing even though we explain it using different words and terms).

You:

Answer: The Bible teaches that all people have sin and are even born in sin. It even said Mary gave a sacrifice for her sins. Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom 3:23; Luke 1:46-47; 2:21-24; Leviticus 12:8.

Me:

Well - you have really said two different things here.

The first claim you make is that the Bible teaches that "all people have sin". Okay. I agree with you that the Bible does teach this.

Surprised that I would say so? I bet you are. But we must make plain that the Bible, within the context of most of the verses you cite, refers to our inclination to actually sin due to our **fallen nature.** By “fallen nature” I am, of course, referring to "Original Sin.” And of course I would agree with you that all of humanity is subject to our fallen condition.

What these verses are NOT telling us is that ALL of humanity (meaning each and every person with no exception) has literally committed "actual sin" – even when the text is referring to actual sin (such as Rom 3:23).

For example, little newborn babies have not yet done any "sinning" and are not guilty of actual sin. They are subject to Original Sin – but not guilty of Actual Sin (at least not until they are older and then they will certainly and actually sin because their fallen nature will cause them to).

Infants are an “exception” to the word “all.” The same would apply to those who are so mentally impaired that they are not capable of sin (a bedridden person in a vegetative state, or a severely mentally retarded person, for just a couple of examples).

The best example of an exception to the Truth that “all” humans have sinned is Jesus Himself. Why? Because Jesus is "fully human" (as well as "fully divine") - AND - we KNOW that Jesus never once committed "actual sin." He was sinless. Jesus is, therefore, an exception to the verse that states that “all have sinned.”

Thus, we can conclusively state that verses such as Romans 3:23 ("...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...") cannot be referring to each and every human without exception being “guilty” of actual sin – even though all humans (except Christ) are subject to the fallen human condition.

And indeed, if we are to take seriously God's Revelation about the punishment handed down at the Garden of Eden, we must agree that humanity IS indeed subject to sin because of our fallen nature and Original Sin.

We also must take a closer look at the word "all" here.

The verse says that "all have sinned," but does "all" ALWAYS mean "each and every with no exception"? It is a fair question and anyone willing to seek out Truth will honestly consider it. And here we see plenty of times when the Bible uses absolute terms such as "all" when it does not really mean "each and every with no exceptions."

We can find an excellent example of this principle simply by taking a closer look at Romans 3 itself. Any Bible commentary (even Protestant commentaries) will note that when Paul says in Romans 3:10, “there are none righteous, no, not one” (this verse, of course, somewhat “sets the table” for verse 23 when Paul concludes that because there are none who are righteous, neither Jew nor Gentile, therefore “all have sinned”) that Paul is actually citing Psalms 14 as a reference point. And, of course, his reason for citing Old Testament Scripture to begin with – which Paul did frequently – was always to provide some sort of deeper context to what he was trying to convey to his readers. And Paul NEVER quoted anything out of context since that would only confuse his readers instead of clarifying and deepening their comprehension of his larger message. Therefore we can safely assume that whatever context Psalms 14 can provide will likewise be applicable to whatever Paul is attaching it to (in this case, Romans 3).

So, with all that being said, here is the entire Psalm itself:

1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? 5 There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. 7 O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.

Here we see the author of this inspired text, David, using absolute words several times: "none" (verses 1 and 3) and "all" (verse 3).

We can also note a similar parallel with Romans 3 when Paul “copies” what David wrote in terms of using absolutes such as “none” (verse 10) and “all” (verse 23).

And therefore, if what you say is right, then NONE means "none with no exceptions" and ALL means "each and every with no exceptions." That IS your position, isn't it, since you claim that there are no exceptions to “ALL have sinned”? Right?

Well...

If there are NO exceptions to David's inspired statements that ALL are corrupt and have gone astray AND that NONE do "good" then I must ask you why, then, does verse 5 speak of "the generation of the RIGHTEOUS" if such a thing as even one righteous person (i.e., someone who is not corrupt or gone astray and has done good instead of evil) is an utter impossibility, as per your contention that there are NO exceptions to ALL and NONE in verses 1 and 3?

So if Psalms 14 – which provides the contextual backdrop of Romans 3 – uses absolute terms such as “all” and THEN literally provides an exception to “all” (i.e., the generation of the righteous), then we can likewise safely conclude that Paul, too, would allow for the possibility of exceptions to his own parallel use of the absolute word “all” – exactly and precisely as David did. For if David were to allow for an exception but Paul did not, then Paul would guilty of twisting a text out of context which would be a pretext – and THAT is something that Paul NEVER once did in all of Scripture.

Therefore, just as David’s Psalm 14 had exceptions – so, too, does Paul’s Romans 3. And Jesus Himself is the most obvious exception of all…and one that even Protestants can agree with Catholics about (since we both agree that Christ was sinless).

This, of course, is in addition to the other previous examples I mentioned of infants and those who are mentally impaired - neither are “guilty” of actual sin even though the Bible says that “all have sinned.”

And even in modern English we do the same thing in our use of words that are absolutes.

We say “all” when sometimes we mean it in a general sort of way and not in a literal way. For example, I might say that, “ALL the town showed up for the fireworks show” but I might be making unspoken exceptions for those who are lying sick in a hospital bed or those who might work the late shift at a factory who did NOT show up for the fireworks. In English – and in the Bible - sometimes there can be exceptions to “all” when it is used in a generalized sense.

If it can be demonstrated that there CAN be exceptions to “all"...then...there can be exceptions.

And so that begs the question: is Mary such an exception and on what basis is such a claim made?

There are NUMEROUS hints in the Bible about this (and these would best be gotten into in follow-up letters), but before we get into that we must take a step back and prayerfully consider ***how*** it is that we are redeemed.

It must be remembered that we are redeemed via the Incarnation whereby the ***sinless*** Son of Man (fully man and fully God) Atones for our sins on the Cross.

Now - that begs the next obvious question: if Jesus - as a Divine Being - inherited His divine nature from God the Father via the Holy Spirit - and - as a fully human man - inherited His human nature from Mary then ***HOW*** did He receive a human nature that was devoid of sin (since we agree that He was sinless) if the human nature He inherited from His human mother was fallen (as per the Protestant claim)???

Now, it could be speculated that God could have intervened at Jesus’ conception and prevented Him from inheriting Original Sin (much like we claim that God intervened at Mary’s conception) - but - the problem with that is that such a scenario would mean Jesus Himself ***had a savior*** who saved Him from inheriting Original Sin (i.e., a fallen nature that would make Him subject to an inclination to sin)!!!

This would be highly problematic. Why? Because CHRIST IS THE SAVIOR HIMSELF and so we cannot conclude that Jesus was "saved" from sin at His conception. The Protestant view would have us believe that THE Redeemer “needed” a Redeemer of His own – and that is something that the Bible NEVER hints at.

Rather, it makes more sense to say that Jesus inherited a ***sinless nature*** from His mother.

Is it impossible to believe that God ***could*** create a sinless human (assuming of course that it was His Will)? Well...both Adam and Eve were created without sin (until they fell due to their own fault). Again, here are two "exceptions" (at least up until their willful disobedience).

This is precisely why the Early Church called Mary the "Second Eve." Through the first Adam, sin came into the world and through the New Adam, Jesus, we are redeemed to a supernaturally abundant state that surpasses even Adam's original pre-sinful state. Through the “first Eve's” disobedience humanity fell - through the “second Eve's” (that is to say, Mary's) obedience (in saying "yes" to God at the Incarnation) our Redeemer entered the world and saved humanity.

You cited Luke 1:46-47 (And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” ), and I guess you are referring to Mary's need for a "Savior" as supposedly contrasted by the Catholic claim that she was sinless (and therefore would not need a Savior if the Catholic claim is true).

I would ask you to consider these two scenarios:

A person walks down a street and does not notice that a manhole cover is missing and so he falls into the hole. Let's also say that an eyewitness sees this happen and therefore "saves" the man - after the fact - by pulling him out of the manhole.

In a similar scenario let's say that the eyewitness notices the person walking down the street toward the hole and intervenes beforehand and thus prevents the person from falling in the hole in the first place.

In both scenarios the person was "saved" from the hole - in the former case he was saved *after* the fact, and in the latter case he was saved *in anticipation* before he fell.

Now, would the person who was rescued say, ***in either scenario***, that he had a "savior" who saved him from the hole? Yes.

This is the sense in which Mary needed a "Savior" because if it were NOT for God's intervention at her conception she - being a human - would have "fallen" into Original Sin. She was ***saved in anticipation*** of the New Covenant (that is to say she was saved from Original Sin and the inclination to sin that results from it), whereas we are ***saved after*** the Redemption had occurred.

Lastly (for this letter anyway) it should be noted that the meaning of the greeting from the Angel Gabriel to Mary at the Annunciation was: “Hail, Full of Grace!” This was given as a name and title, it was not merely something "nice" to say. The Greek word used was "Kecharitomenae" which means "Perfectly graced" and he is using it as a *proper name.* Some Protestant Bibles translate the word to mean “highly favored” but that translation is severely lacking and inaccurate for reasons we can go into at later date if you desire to follow up on it.

Now...something that is "perfectly graced" would, by definition, leave NO room for sin - for if sin was a part of something (or someone) then it could not be “perfectly graced", could it? It would be less than "perfect" if sin was a part of it.

Again - just one of MANY hints and clues in the Bible...

Okay - the second point you made was this:

"It even said Mary gave a sacrifice for her sins."

Here you are obviously referring to Luke 2:21-24, which reads:

“And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.’”

Well, all it really says is that "…when the time came for their purification ***according to the law of Moses***…" they went to the temple to offer a sacrifice.

It doesn't say that Mary was sinful.

You can make the argument that if she did not have sins then what was the need for "purification"? This argument has merit - but ONLY at first glance and ONLY by ignoring a few other important passages.

For a closer examination of Scripture will tell you that Mary - at that time (before Calvary) - was under the Law of Moses and therefore if she had refused to go to the temple for her "purification" she would have been disobedient to the requirements of the Old Covenant. She would have therefore sinned.

And that is precisely the same reason why Jesus, too, underwent the ritual of circumcision. In fact, please note that twice in the above passage that the Bible itself equates the “law of Moses” to “the law of the Lord.” Surely a sinless person would not be disobedient to the law of the Lord.

Also - and here is a real solid point – Jesus, just prior to His earthly ministry, underwent the "baptism of John" did He not?

Well - what exactly is meant by "the baptism of John???"

It was nothing less than the Old Covenant ritual baptism for the "repentance of sin."

Okay - what's wrong with this picture?

If Mary's obedience to the law in regard to a ritual purification is "proof positive" that Mary was a sinner in need of purification (as per your assertion here) … this would logically mean, therefore, THE SAME THING as saying that Jesus' participation in John’s baptism of repentance (since it too was an Old Covenant ritual of purification from sin) is ALSO "proof positive" that Jesus was therefore a sinner (and hence needed to be baptized in repentance).

And I don’t think that any Christian, Catholic or Protestant, is willing to say that Christ must have been a sinner since He underwent a ritual of repentance. And so it is illogical to say that in Jesus’ case the ritual itself was unrelated to his state of sin (or sinlessness) while in Mary’s case the ritual IS related to her state of sin (or sinlessness). The Protestant wants it both ways even though the two cases are parallel and not in contrast.

In reality, though, in BOTH cases, we have Mary and Jesus being obedient and serving as ones who are worthy of imitation. Neither Mary nor Jesus needed to be an actual sinner to undergo rituals of purification and/or repentance under the Law.

Thus the assertion that Mary’s sacrifice for purification is proof that she was a sinner actually proves too much (in that it would make Jesus a sinner too) and is therefore a false assertion that over-reaches what Scripture actually tells us.

To go to Part 2, “Mary As Mediator,” please click here.