How to Defend the Immaculate Conception
By Jason Evert
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 2
February 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontispiece
By Karl Keating
Letters
Apologists Eye
1. Why does the Church teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?
Her conception is never even mentioned in Scripture.
Before presenting the scriptural foundations for the Churchs
belief in Marys Immaculate Conception, know that the person who is
posing this question to you is probably operating with the three
following misconceptions: (1) The doctrine infringes upon the
universality of Christs redemption and the unique holiness of God.
(2) The Church has no scriptural foundation for the teaching. (3)
If any doctrine is not in Scripture it must not be true. Any
adequate defense of Our Ladys Immaculate Conception is incomplete
unless all three of these areas are addressed.
The first issue that you need to cover is sola scripturathe idea
that the Bible is the only rule of faith. In order to understand
the flaws of this theory, familiarize yourself with the Catholic
Answers tract at www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/proving.htm. One
of the reasons why our separated brethren have difficulty accepting
certain Marian teachings is that they do not understand the
scriptural role of sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations
and to teach them infalliblyguided, as he promised, by the Holy
Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:25, 16:13). The mere
fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a
guarantee that it is true (cf. Luke 10:16).
Besides historical evidence and the authority of Tradition, several
biblical texts can be offered. In Genesis 3:15, God states that
there is to be an enmity between the "woman" and the serpent, and
this enmity is shared between her seed and its seed. Her seed is
the messiah, who stands in opposition to the seed of the serpent.
The mother of the messiah is said to share the same enmitytotal
oppositionwith Satan. If Mary, "the woman" had any sin, then she
would not be in complete opposition to the devil. Some argue that
the "woman" refers to Eve, but this can not be the complete meaning
of the text, as Eve is always associated with her collaboration
with the serpent, not her opposition to him. Only Mary, the new
Eve, fits the description of the woman in Genesis 3:15.
An implicit reference can also be found in the angels greeting to
Mary in Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." The
phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word
kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person
being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a
characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive
participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace."
Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection
of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the
grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angels visit, and was
not only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given
time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception
onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first
moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."
Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke
often about the fittingness of the privilege of Marys Immaculate
Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the
honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the
manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments
(the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of
Israels redemption). If this box was created with such honorto
carry a stick, some bread, and stone tabletshow much more should
Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the
new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from
heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption,
Jesus body.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even
if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14
records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified.
There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a
box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself.
After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin"
(Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).
2. If Mary is sinless, doesnt that make her equal to God?
If this question is posed to you, it opens up a wonderful
opportunity to show how the Immaculate Conception of Mary glorifies
God.
Many people are under the impression that one is not quite human if
he or she is sinless. On the contrary, it is when we sin that we
fall short of what it means to be fully human. Since we are made in
the image and likeness of God, we are called to love as God loves.
This is why Christ fully reveals man to himself, as Vatican II
says. He shows us what it means to be perfectly human.
In the beginning, God created no one (neither angel nor human) with
sin, and yet no one was equal to God. When Adam and Eve sinned,
they acted in a manner that was beneath their dignity as beings
made in Gods image and likeness. It was their sin that detracted
from the glory of God, not their original sinlessness. Gods
goodness is most clear when he sanctifies his creation by entering
into it fully with the life of his grace.
This is why the sinless souls in heaven give the most glory to God.
The unique glory of the Trinity is manifested most clearly in
heavenwhere is he surrounded by sinless beings. In their
sinlessness, God has made them most fully what he intended for them
to be. In Marys case, her sinlessness gives the most glory to God,
since his work is made perfect in her. She is his
masterpiece.
3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she
said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?
The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior.
This should be the first issue to address if this question arises.
It was by the grace of Godand not the work of Marythat she was
saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called
"preservative redemption," Mary was preserved from sin at the time
of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the
womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her
conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace
of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as
he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to
Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of
the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her
Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious
manner!
God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by
providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An
ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be
saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought
out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved
in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from
the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain
of sin, what is to prevent him?
4. How can you reconcile Marys sinlessness with Pauls statement
that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?
Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants
and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For
example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of
committing actual sin. By definition he cant sin, since sinning
requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin.
This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when
he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a
time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom.
9:11).
Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been
exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Pauls
statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam
(Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can
also be made.
5. Didnt the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago?
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine
was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of
dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time,
definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under
the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an
ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For
abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in
the Church, visit
www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm).
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy
that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in
its office as teacher; cf.. Matt. 28:1820; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11)
thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being
drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the
Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not
come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.
In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring
the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was
highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition
would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the
work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater
appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is
honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
