I was listening to a brief debate between a Protestant and a Catholic about Mary & whether or not she was sinless. I'm not Catholic myself, but I felt that the Catholic didn't represent his position well. The Protestant said that scripture had evidence of Mary sinning. He cited the passage of the Wedding at Cana in John 2, saying that Mary was wrong to ask Jesus to do a miracle when He did not intend to start his ministry yet. Then he cited Luke 1, talking about how Zachariah was punished for doubting the angel Gabriel when he told him he would have a sin. He argued that Mary sinned in the same way by doubting the angel when he told her she would conceive because she was a virgin. Again, I'm not a Catholic so my church doesn't try to argue scripture teaches Mary was sinless. But I didn't see the Protestant's citations as proof that Mary's sins were recorded in scripture. I think those verses show that Mary is human and not omniscient. What's your take.
Another thing mentioned in the debate was whether or not Mary needed to be conceived without sin in order to have Jesus. The Catholic said Mary could not carry Jesus in sin. The Protestant said that if Mary had to be sinless to conceive the sinless Jesus, then Mary's parents would have to be sinless in order to conceive her. When the Catholic said this didn't apply to Mary, the Protestant replied by saying that in that case, Mary was a greater "god" than Jesus because she could be born sinless from sinful parents. Have you come across this sort of argument in the past?
Hello! Going to answer this kind of quickly, because I would like to go to sleep soon.
I think using John 2 as an example of Mary sinning is an objectively stupid argument, especially in light of Jesus using the Parables of the Persistent Widow and Friend at Midnight in Luke 18 and Luke 11, respectively, in order to say something about the nature of justification and prayer, respectively. Mary continues to plead with her Son, and then tells the servants to "do whatever [God] tells you." If Mary is sinning in this verse, so is every Christian who ever persists in praying for an intention that isn't answered right away.
I think that using Luke 1 is a better potential argument, at least at first glance, because (at first glance) it does in fact seem that Mary is doing just what Zachariah did and was punished for. But, if they are qualitatively similar responses.... why is Zachariah punished, but Mary not? The Church Fathers make their opinion clear; in the words of Maximus of Turin, Zachariah is "unbelieving," and Mary "believing." Zachariah does not believe that it is possible for his wife to get pregnant, while Mary wonders how she will get pregnant when she has not touched a man. It's a difference of scoffing at the miracle vs. wondering how the miracle will be accomplished. This is a view also held by Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, and Justin Martyr.
I think the Catholic commentator made a blunder by trying to defend the (indefensible) claim that Mary needed to be sinless to carry Christ in her womb; I really don't think that you can make an argument for necessity for the Immaculate Conception, but rather an argument for its fittingness. I have seen people argue for its necessity (something not even the Blessed Duns Scotus, champion of the Immaculate Conception belief, did), but I think that it is mostly an attempt to double-down on the doctrine and emphasize its importance rather than a well thought out argument for its truthfulness.
“The seed will grow well, the vine will yield its fruit, the ground will produce its crops, and the heavens will drop their dew. I will give all these things as an inheritance to the remnant of this people. Just as you, Judah and Israel, have been a curse among the nations, so I will save you, and you will be a blessing. Do not be afraid, but let your hands be strong.”
The thought of God’s approaching fills many people with fearful thoughts. But the way Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday should demonstrate for us that instead of fear, we can be both fearless and rejoicing at His coming.
Listen to the podcast of this post by clicking on the player below, and you can also subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or Audible.
https://craigtowens.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/fearless-stewards.mp3
I’ve noticed over the years that some people get quite nervous—even fearful—with the thought of God coming close to then. Some people have told me, “I can’t go to church—the roof will fall in on…
Luke 1:7: But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.
Luke 1:11 - Luke 1:13: And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
An Elderly Greek Woman
Jules Joseph Lefebvre (1836-1912), Oil on Canvas.
It happens a lot. When you have a dog who’s the same color and texture as his favorite rug.
I clumsily shifted mid-step, so my foot wouldn’t come down on his ear. He looked up at me with those big brown eyes, not moving a muscle. Except for his tail, which was thumping the rug.
Completely relaxed. Supremely confident that I wouldn’t step on him. And happy to see me.
The absolute trust of a dog in someone who has known him since he was a puppy. Who has always loved him and who always will.
I want the faith of a dog. But I’ve got the faith of Zechariah.
In today’s Gospel, Zechariah (the father of John the Baptist) is shown as being unable to speak. The verses leading up to today’s Gospel tell us why.
Zechariah temporarily loses his ability to speak. To help him focus on Who had told him that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a son (they had been trying to have a child for decades). Because (as his questions show us) Zechariah was lost in how it would happen.
To the point of doubting that God would make good on His promise. All because Zechariah hadn’t received a technical briefing from an angel or been given the operator’s manual for God’s promise.
Zechariah gets lost in the how, because he doesn’t know the who.
Even though he’s a priest, Zechariah doesn’t really know Who he’s dealing with. Because he doesn’t, Zechariah deprives himself of the peace that comes from a faith and a trust well-placed in the One who has known each of us from before we were born. Who has always loved us and who always will.
Making everything a lot more complicated, a lot more difficult than it has to be. Both for himself and for Elizabeth. Sort of the opposite of peace and calm. And that’s before the divine attention-getter of temporarily losing his ability to speak.
It’s a marked contrast to the calm faith of my dog. Who knows the who (me) very well.
He is supremely confident that I will engage in increasingly awkward and graceless acrobatics, to the point of falling myself, to avoid stepping on him. And he’s right.
He doesn’t move. Because he doesn’t need to. He knows who he’s dealing with.
If someone as flawed as I am can be worthy of faith and trust like that, how much more so for the One whose love is perfect?
May God grant each of us the knowledge of Who we’re dealing with, and the peace and calm that only comes from Him.