Thanks all!
The reasoning they have, is that if Mary needs to be without sin in order for Jesus to be born without sin, than following this reasoning, Mary’s mother needs to be without sin too.
Any more arguments? I like the ‘hip shooting’ about the vessel, but I’m not sure the protestants will be very much moved by the idea of the Ark as image of Mary.
Read
HERE and
HERE for more information on typology and Mary as the new Ark.
The other argument that might prove useful is the fact that there was a long-standing (since Solomon) tradition among the Davidic line that the Queen was always the Kings mother. This was caused by the polygamy that Solomon involved himself in and the necessity for a Queen. The only responsible way to provide a Queen when faced with more than one wife was to have it be the kings mother. The Queen Mother (as shown in 1 and 2 kings) was given precedence over all other people in the kingdom second only to the King (in this case that would be Jesus). Since we can see in Solomons case that Bathsheba did not always ask for the correct thing out of her sinfulness and was therefore rejected, her sinful nature caused her to be a bit of a… liability (for lack of a better word). But since we can see at the wedding feast at Cana that Christ did not refuse his mothers request to provide wine (even though it was not yet His time) she MUST have asked for something pure, righteous, and good, especially since she made this request of Christ and was not rejected. We can also see her absolute humility in her statement to the servants “Do whatever he tells you”. Now what mother do you know who would say to her son “You need to fix this”, then being told “Woman what problem of this is ours” would simply reply, to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you”? That shows a humility far surpassing anyone I have ever known. Since pride is the primary sin (arguably the greatest of all sins due to its “gateway” nature to the other sins) and humility is its opposite virtue, does it not stand to reason that absolute humility would negate pride, leading to the conclusion that there was no pride? And since Pride is the beginning of all sin (just my opinion here) then how could she sin?
There is also the argument over the greek “kecharitomene” which is properly translated “Full of Grace” and is applied as a title which is used when Gabriel comes to request that Mary bear the Son of God. How can one be “Full of Grace” if one is possessed of sin? Doesnt the apostle tell us that anyone who commits sin is a slave to sin? It is not possible to be BOTH a sinner and Full of Grace. This argument, however, requires them to accept that kecharitomene is a TITLE, not an adjective, which is shown by the fact that Charitoo is an adjective for grace/graced (not sure which off the top of my head) while the pre/suf-fix combination ke and mene always sandwich a word when it is being used as a title (to the best of my knowledge that is true, but i am not a scholar of biblical greek).
There is lots of info about the greek on here, and in This Rock.
This argument is VERY easy to prove the Catholic perspective IF and only IF the protestant is willing to accept the above and put aside their preconceptions of who and what the Blessed Virgin is.
Also, the funny thing is that Mary says “From this day all generations will call me blessed” yet I have almost never heard a protestant call her the Blessed Mary, the Blessed Virgin, or even just Blessed.
FSC
EDIT see
HERE for Mary as the Queen Mother
