All have sinned therefore Mary has sinned

[benedictus2]

This quote from Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"; is used often by protestants as a proof-text to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They argue that ALL means ALL.

How does one reconcile that with this passage from the same set of letters to the Romans:

Romans 5:18 For as by one man’s disobedience **many **were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Is St Paul contradicting himself?

 

[Dokimas]

This quote from Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"; is used often by protestants as a proof-text to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They argue that ALL means ALL.

How does one reconcile that with this passage from the same set of letters to the Romans:

Romans 5:18 For as by one man’s disobedience **many **were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Is St Paul contradicting himself?

No contradiction. Only the righteous get to Heaven, not self-rightious, but those, who by faith in Jesus have had the righteousness of Jesus imputed to them. He, and He alone, makes us righteous through faith in His substitutionary death, His burial and HIs resurrection.

 

[benedictus2]

No contradiction. Only the righteous get to Heaven, not self-rightious, but those, who by faith in Jesus have had the righteousness of Jesus imputed to them. He, and He alone, makes us righteous through faith in His substitutionary death, His burial and HIs resurrection.

The point I am getting at is that on the one hand Paul is saying ALL have sinned because we are all descended from Adam but in another he says many, not all, which would imply that not every single person has sinned.

If evangelicals will insist on reading the first verse literally, they are forced to read the second verse literally. So which is which, is it all or many?

 

[JohnDamian]

Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus’ crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whatever of these was more excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.

This argument, developed by Bl Duns Scotus was later developed into this, by Pope Pius IX.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

 

[excubitor]

This quote from Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"; is used often by protestants as a proof-text to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They argue that ALL means ALL.

How does one reconcile that with this passage from the same set of letters to the Romans:

Romans 5:18 For as by one man’s disobedience **many **were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Is St Paul contradicting himself?

If you look at the preceeding verse
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence [5] of one judgment came upon **all **men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the “many” in verse 19 is referring to the great number of men rather than expressing some kind of ratio. It is certain that all men have sinned and judgement has come upon all men. However this word “all” does not necessarily insist that there is absolutely noone who has not sinned. Clearly for example Paul did not intend to include Jesus in his list of “all men” who have sinned. Therefore we cannot assume that there are not other rare exceptions to his list of “all men”. It may also be that Paul was simply not aware of Mary’s sinlessness at that time.

In speech we often use generalities. Paul himself also said “All Cretians are liars” Titus 1.

Does this mean to say that Paul was precluding the possibility that there was just one Cretian who was not a liar. No of course not. He is expressing a general truth.
This is the trouble with speech and human language. Its not always easy to determine the exact intent of the words of the writer or speaker. Therefore we have an oral tradition of the church which fills in the gaps and explains to us what the apostles taught. This helps us understand the proper intent and interpretation of the scripture.

 

[excubitor]

Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus’ crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whatever of these was more excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.

This argument, developed by Bl Duns Scotus was later developed into this, by Pope Pius IX.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Incredibly sound argument. Also if Mary was purged of sin, rather than prevented from sinning, then we should expect that there should be some kind of explanation in the scriptures or tradition to celebrate the mystery of the “Purging of Mary”. As there is no such indicator in scripture or tradition it is safe and quite certain to believe that no purge was necessary and that Mary was “Full of Grace” entirely from the moment of conception.

 

[benedictus2]

Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus’ crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whatever of these was more excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.

This argument, developed by Bl Duns Scotus was later developed into this, by Pope Pius IX.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

I know this and completely agree with everything

My reason for starting the thread is because, protestants, use this as some sort of proof text to prove that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Mind you even a priest was agreeing with them on this.

So I thought, if they insist on reading this ALL literally in the first instance, they are forced to read MANY literally in the second instance. Which puts them in a quandary because it looks like St Paul is contradicting himself.

Also to show that proof texting does not work as seamlessly as they would hope.

 

[mardukm]

Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus’ crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whatever of these was more excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.

This argument, developed by Bl Duns Scotus

I’ve never accepted this “fittingness” argument. Always thought it was weak, before and after I came into Catholic communion.

The early Fathers who refer to the IC never speak of “fittingess.” The majority of them explicitly assert its necessity insofar as Christ was to obtain His flesh from her.

Let’s depend on Tradition, not philosphical arguments, to defend our Faith.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Incredibly sound argument.

I don’t think there’s anything sound about it. I think it is sophistic (sorry to say).

Also if Mary was purged of sin, rather than prevented from sinning, then we should expect that there should be some kind of explanation in the scriptures or tradition to celebrate the mystery of the “Purging of Mary”. As there is no such indicator in scripture or tradition it is safe and quite certain to believe that no purge was necessary and that Mary was “Full of Grace” entirely from the moment of conception.

That’s not very sound either. It’s an argument from silence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Canto]

The point I am getting at is that on the one hand Paul is saying ALL have sinned because we are all descended from Adam but in another he says many, not all, which would imply that not every single person has sinned.

If evangelicals will insist on reading the first verse literally, they are forced to read the second verse literally. So which is which, is it all or many?

Reading the first quote with the surrounding verses I don’t see a contradiction.

Romans 15 “replenished with all knowedge” Do there Romans know all there is to know bar nothing?

Matthew 3:5 “Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan” Every single Judean bar none went out to him?

The Greek word all (pas) does not mean every single itty bitty person bar none.

Hope this helps.

 

[benedictus2]

Incredibly sound argument. Also if Mary was purged of sin, rather than prevented from sinning, then we should expect that there should be some kind of explanation in the scriptures or tradition to celebrate the mystery of the “Purging of Mary”. As there is no such indicator in scripture or tradition it is safe and quite certain to believe that no purge was necessary and that Mary was “Full of Grace” entirely from the moment of conception.

How I would explain the Immaculate Conception is this:

Imagine a deep pit full of unimaginable filth and death. In each and everyone’s case, Christ dives down there to rescue us after we have fallen.

In Mary’s case, He steps in before she fell into the pit. I have this image of superman (the one with Christopher Reeves) when he flies down and scoops Lois Lane when she fell thus preventing her from hitting the ground.

The counter argument is how can that be since the death and resurrection came after Mary’s conception?

So I would answer that the graces that flowed from the Life, Death and Ressurection of her son was infused into her even prior to her conception. Something we all receive only after the fact, at our baptism.

This is not hard to conceive considering that the people of the OT were still all saved by Christ (Abraham, Moses, etc) even though they died years before the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

Reading the first quote with the surrounding verses I don’t see a contradiction.

Romans 15 “replenished with all knowedge” Do there Romans know all there is to know bar nothing?

Matthew 3:5 “Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan” Every single Judean bar none went out to him?

The Greek word all (pas) does not mean every single itty bitty person bar none.

Hope this helps.

That is exactly what I am getting at. What can’t read the ALL in the first instance as literally ALL unless one wants to read the second instance as literally just MANY not ALL in which case it is not a good proof text to use against the Immaculate Conception.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother benedictus2,

What I’m going to write, I write not to criticize, but to help you develop and refine your skills as a Catholic apologist.

How I would explain the Immaculate Conception is this:

So I would answer that the graces that flowed from the Life, Death and Ressurection of her son was infused into her even prior to her conception. Something we all receive only after the fact, at our baptism.
It is actually erroneous to say that Grace was infused “prior to her conception.” If you think about it, prior to her conception, she did not exist, so there was nothing to infuse the Grace into. What the dogma states is that the Grace was infused AT her conception.

This is not hard to conceive considering that the people of the OT were still all saved by Christ (Abraham, Moses, etc) even though they died years before the Resurrection of Christ.

This is not actually a good argument. Abraham, Moses and the righteous from OT times were not “saved” until after the Sacrifice of Christ. So bringing them up would only put you in the hot seat in front of professional anti-Catholics.

The best way to approach it is to refer to the Sacrifice of the Lamb that was present in St. John’s vision of Heaven (Revelation). Since Heaven is in the eternal moment, then the power of the Sacrifice was available for God to use at the time when Mary was conceived.

Hope that helps. And keep at it. You do good work for the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dokimas]

The point I am getting at is that on the one hand Paul is saying ALL have sinned because we are all descended from Adam but in another he says many, not all, which would imply that not every single person has sinned.

If evangelicals will insist on reading the first verse literally, they are forced to read the second verse literally. So which is which, is it all or many?

Where does it say in the second verse that some are not sinners? It says that many are MADE righteous.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Timothy 1:12 ¶ And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,
13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Reading in context your quote in Romans 3 —

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 **being justified freely **by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’ve never accepted this “fittingness” argument. Always thought it was weak, before and after I came into Catholic communion.

The early Fathers who refer to the IC never speak of “fittingess.” The majority of them explicitly assert its necessity insofar as Christ was to obtain His flesh from her.

Let’s depend on Tradition, not philosphical arguments, to defend our Faith.

Blessings

I think believing in an argument pronounced ex cathedera by Pope Piux IX is a thing all Catholics should do. When anything is pronounced as an infallible doctrine (like the IC) it is in line with Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture.

 

[benedictus2]

Dear brother benedictus2,

What I’m going to write, I write not to criticize, but to help you develop and refine your skills as a Catholic apologist.

It is actually erroneous to say that Grace was infused “prior to her conception.”

Very good point. How about she existed in God’s mind?

If you think about it, prior to her conception, she did not exist, so there was nothing to infuse the Grace into. What the dogma states is that the Grace was infused AT her conception.

Yes that is the correct way of putting it. Thank you.

This is not actually a good argument. Abraham, Moses and the righteous from OT times were not “saved” until after the Sacrifice of Christ. So bringing them up would only put you in the hot seat in front of professional anti-Catholics.

Well actually that is what I am getting. If these were all saved by Christ, it is not hard to make a parallel that if grace can made available “backwards” so to speak to these people, then it can be done for Mary.

The best way to approach it is to refer to the Sacrifice of the Lamb that was present in St. John’s vision of Heaven (Revelation). Since Heaven is in the eternal moment, then the power of the Sacrifice was available for God to use at the time when Mary was conceived.

That is a great point, the Kairos.

Hope that helps. And keep at it. You do good work for the Church.

Yes it helps very much and thank you.

And no it is not brother, but sister.

Peace and Joy of Christ,

B2

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnDamian,

I think believing in an argument pronounced ex cathedera by Pope Piux IX is a thing all Catholics should do. When anything is pronounced as an infallible doctrine (like the IC) it is in line with Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture.

I don’t entirely understand what you’re saying. Are you saying the “fittingness” argument was pronounced ex cathedra? If that’s what you’re saying, can you show us when and where (in what document)?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[benedictus2]

**Where does it say in the second verse that some are not sinners? It says that many are MADE righteous. **

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

It does not say all were made sinners.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Timothy 1:12 ¶ And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry,
13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Reading in context your quote in Romans 3 —

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 **being justified freely **by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

But this is precisely what I mean. One can’t say this certain word “All” must be read "All because we can then say that “many” has to be read as precisely that - many, not all.

The texts that you have cited does not in any way address this question because all I am getting at is if one insists on reading the first statement as “all” then one must read the second one exactly that - many, not all. Which then seems to imply that Paul has just contradicted himself and in the same letter too.

And I think protestants do read the “many” here as “many” because they don’t believe that all will be saved and they cite this exact verse to prove their point.

 

[Dokimas]

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

It does not say all were made sinners.

But this is precisely what I mean. One can’t say this certain word “All” must be read "All because we can then say that “many” has to be read as precisely that - many, not all.

The texts that you have cited does not in any way address this question because all I am getting at is if one insists on reading the first statement as “all” then one must read the second one exactly that - many, not all. Which then seems to imply that Paul has just contradicted himself and in the same letter too.

And I think protestants do read the “many” here as “many” because they don’t believe that all will be saved and they cite this exact verse to prove their point.

It is difficult to take one verse out of context. Reading all of Paul it seems obvious to me what Paul believes on the issue. How many is many? Could it be all? Could it fall short of all? Does it have to be one and NOT the other?

 

[mardukm]

Dear SISTER Benedictus2,

Well actually that is what I am getting. If these were all saved by Christ, it is not hard to make a parallel that if grace can made available “backwards” so to speak to these people, then it can be done for Mary.

You have to be careful here. Being “saved” is generally regarded as synonymous with “being in heaven.” But the Gates of heaven were not opened until the Sacrifice of Christ occurred. All the righteous who died before the Advent of our Lord were traditionally regarded to have existed in what the Bible calls “Abraham’s bosom.” The Latin Catholic Church refers to it as the Limbus Patrum.

So the OT righteous were not saved until Christ death and resurrection, and it would be a bad example to use them to demonstrate that the Grace of the Cross was made available to them backwards in time.

Blessings,
Marduk