God was under no moral obligation to bestow the same grace on every human being simply because He chose to bestow a singular grace on Mary. The Theotokos has a unique place in salvation history as the Mother of the incarnate Son of God. She is the peak of creation, and a unique vocation can fittingly be accompanied by a unique grace; nothing in Scripture establishes that every grace God gives to one person must therefore be given equally to all. Actually, Scripture establishes the opposite, see Romans 9:11-13.
The Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church hails the mother of God as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim”.
Cherubim and Seraphim are traditionally among the highest ranks of the angelic hierarchy. And angles are superior to mankind (Hebrews 2:7).
The Second Council of Nicaea (787), recognized as ecumenical by both Catholics and Orthodox, likewise speaks of Mary as: “exalted above all the heavenly powers.”
St. John of Damascus, one of the greatest Fathers of the Eastern tradition, speaks of Mary as “Queen of every creature.”
St. Germanus of Constantinople says: “your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels.”
And John Damascene expresses the incomparable distinction between Mary and the other servants of God: “limitless is the difference between God’s servants and His Mother.”
St. Gregory Palamas is even more explicit, and in his homily on the Dormition he says that Mary “has ascended incomparably higher than the angels and the archangels” and even above “all the super-celestial hosts that are found beyond them.”
So I really see no problems at all. The Holy mother of God is a creature, but an extremely special one, she is the full of Grace, an example of devotion and obedience to God from the beginning.
Of course God could have done that for everyone. You can say that about miracles as well. Of course He can heal every child of bone cancer or prevent it altogether. Not doing so makes Him cruel? That is one of my chief complaints with theistic personalism. My response is God is not a moral agent. He has no obligation to His creation. We get what God freely wills to give us. What He chooses to supernaturally heal for the overall good of creation is somewhat mysterious.
You are just rehashing the problem of evil though this stems from theistic personalism which sees God as a moral agent with duty (duty imposed by who?). In my view, God permits physical defects, suffering and sin in particular things for the sake of the broader order of the universe. If He chose to grant Mary --the mother of Jesus–special grace, we are in no position to question Him. You can question whether He ever did this but to deny Him the right to some miracles and not others is not a good posture to take.
The IC is a late official doctrine so I get why non-Catholics would be suspect of it but its precepts go way back. Yes, we do see Mary as the new Eve (and Ark) which goes back to the early church
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 100) talks about Mary as the new Eve. Even more interesting to this discussion is how Ienaeus runs with it. In Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) he says Mary’s obedience unloosened the knot of Eve’s disobedience. Here is the funny part for us here. Since Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John the Apostle), we can claim this is reliable information or had deep roots in Johannine teaching. The same reasoning used to justify the authenticity of Irenaeus’s views on the Gospels can be used to support Mary as a new Eve. Funny how that works isn’t is?
“And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”
It’s almost like I’m reading Paul.
Have you seen Brant Pitre’s work on this? Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist is really good as is Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary:
He does a good job of seeing both through the lens of first-century Judaism.
He actually went on a call with atheist Alex O’Connor to go over it.
You can see him talking about Mary in a long interview before you buy:
Pitre is one of my favorite scholars today. He has bonafide credentials as a historical Jesus scholar as well. He argues from within the mainstream which is cool.
But, that does not mean I am materialistic par se. It is an argument. It is a valid argument against the need for transubstantiation, which is very much a physical (materialistic) concept.
What you continualy seem to do is mistake an argument for the belief. They do not have to correlate. It is like your claim about scientific theories. If I am to argue against a concept that is materialistic by nature, it is prudent, even necessary (to be understood) if I try and sit in the mindset of the argument.
Richard
Edit,
at the risk of being accused of a personal attack:
You continually dismiss or refuse to answer arguments that do not match your framework while, getting angry at anyone who dares to question the validity of your own frameworks of language and academics.
Christ Himself drew the line by saying ‘The flesh is no help at all’ (John 6v63). If eating literal flesh was the point, Jesus wouldn’t have said the flesh is ‘no help.’ The Spirit gives life and the physical element is the sign, not the substance.
Transubstantiation wasn’t defined until 1215, and using Justin Martyr’s statements does not support anything remotely close to a physical metamorphosis. The whole ‘real presence’ vs empty memorialism is a false dilemma crafted by some apologists in order to slide to transubstantiation, as if they’re the same thing.
We can trust a historian’s report of what happened without accepting his interpretation of what it means. Meaning, I can trust Irenaeus that the four Gospels were received by the churches. I don’t have to accept his (or Justin’s) theological reasoning on every doctrine, the moment they’re not backed by Scriptures.
Same goes for Mary as the ‘new Eve’, here’s a click baity quotation since that term annoys me so much :
we can firmly conclude that there is not only no mention of Mary being the “New Eve” from the Fathers, but more importantly no one taught that Mary was the “New Eve,” the way in which Catholics define it today, in any sense. From this, we must conclude that the Fathers did not teach that Mary was the “New Eve” at all, let alone “forcefully.”
But (1) it makes Him cruel, (2) it’s unnecesary; and (3) there’s already a model in the Gospel that if applied to Mary gives greater glory to Christ.
That third is one I encountered in some ancient church readings assignment: it said Mary was purified not at birth but at the conception of Christ Who by His arrival made her clean just as by His presence He made the woman who touched His garment clean. It also gives greater glory to Mary, making her like the Temple which was just a common building until the Glory filled it. It’s part of the “reversal” theme where in the OT if something clean touched something unclean the former became unclean, but with Christ the reverse is true: His ‘cleanness’ makes clean what was unclean.
It also fits with an ancient icon where the words of Gabriel are written in a line that goes from his mouth to Mary’s ear and then to her womb, showing that it was the Annunciation that delivered the Word to the world.
I heard an Orthodox priest expound on this saying that whereas Eve was not a sinner yet disobeyed, Mary was a sinner who obeyed; the one by disobedience infirmed all, the other by her obedience welcomed wholeness for all.
It makes a lot more sense that way.
Just a small comment on picking particular churches as negative examples:
When we are discussing about the teachings in the biblical scriptures and early (catholic but not Catholic) church, we should concentrate on these teachings, or if you will, how the teachings of your church fits to the earliest teaching. Unfortunately, there is such a diversity of teachings globally that picking an example that you think is negative is mostly irrelevant for the discussion.
The Church of Sweden is a special case because it was a state church until the year 2000. What was exceptional was that the governments (at least those lead by social democrats) used actively their political power in the nominations of the priests. Although the church selected a candidate/candidates, the government could interfere and reject a candidate that did not support such interpretations that were important for the government. That was applied especially in the acceptance of female priests - any candidate that did not accept female priests was rejected.
That kind of government interference stopped when the state and the church were separated during the year 2000 but by that year, the clergy in the church were already a selected group with particular kind of interpretations. When they nominate new priests, these are likely to support same kind of interpretations as those nominated by the year 2000 support - interpretations that many would classify as liberal.
The church councils within the Church of Sweden are democratically elected executive boards. Unfortunately, politics is involved in these elections. Some lists of candidates in the elections are tied to traditional political parties. Therefore, the results of the elections reflect the opinions in the contemporary society, rather than what the scriptures teach or whether the candidates are committed believers. That, together with the liberal clergy, ensures that the trends in the society seep into the actions and interpretations within the church.
One sign of this phenomenon is how the church is present in the Pride events. Church of Sweden is an acitive participant in Pride events and strongly supports the rights of LGBTQ+ people. It nominated the world’s first openly lesbian bishop (first in a major Christian denomination). Same-sex weddings started in the year 2009. We may agree or disagree with these interpretations but this all reflects what is happening in the surrounding society and seeping into the church. I would call such attitudes and interpretations quite liberal.
I think there is a great deal of politics and political correctness i the way churches have handles modern sexuality. No one can deny that Biblically homosexuality is a no no. However, the fact that slavery is now considered wrong seems to have been used as a precedent of adapting theology to modern culture. Perhaps taking a stand on sexuality might be seen as one stand too far, and the church needs public acceptance and support. As it is legislation has basically taken marriage out of the *exclusive" domain of the church so forbidding singles sex just sends the church further out into the extreme.
I will declare freely my dislike and distaste of homosexuality but I have know many “gay” people who have not flaunted their views and as if you did not know their sexuality you would consider them average Christians. I guess what the eye doesn’t see the heart doesn’t grieve over, so leave it to God to judge, not me or even the church as a whole.
It would seem that modern biology suggests that sexuality could be genetic beyond the basic XY gendering. We then get the automatic Original or otherwise sin and human falling corrupting even DNA, but I see no need to scientifically influence all theology or justify sin with science (or vice versa)
The net result is that the modern church would seem to prefer political correctness to biblical assertion and dogma. If we wish to “judge” the church for that, perhaps we are ignoring some Biblical themes ourselves.
@St.Roymond there is a big difference between judging for personal use and morality and broadcasting or declaring such judgement on or at others. I would agree Paul says we must judge or discern, but not at the expense of breaching Christ’s declaration on judging and judgment. One is private, the other is not.
I think the Immaculate Conception is probably the most difficult of dogmas to justify to non-Catholics. I wouldn’t even try to convince you to believe it. I would defend it though. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a wonderful resource for understanding what Catholics believe:
It admits quite readily and honestly: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
Your (1) was already addressed and shown to be false. It just the problem of evil rehashed and treats God as a moral agent. It would be cruel for a human with the ability to stop a child from getting bone cancer to not do so. God is not a moral agent under natural law like us. God created an ordered world and it runs and leads to a lot of pain and suffering at times. He has no duty to us. Full stop. It’s the height of human delusion to think there is some external standard of goodness we can judge God by. God is goodness itself with goodness being controvertible to being and also love. Creation and any act of forgiveness, grace, love and eternal life God bestows on us are gratuitous acts of love overflowing. God benefits in no way from us.
Your (2) can be addressed in the same light. It was unnecessary for Elijah to be taken into heaven. He could have just died of old age like everyone else. The story still claims God took him straight to heaven. God chooses what miracles to enact and if He wants an immaculate mother to bear His Son and later serve as intercessor, that is his call. If you claim everything God does is necessary then you strip God of agency or will. God freely loves, freely sends His Son and freely covers us in grace in the fullness of time as He determines it.
But the Catholic Church actually agrees with number (2). We define the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary but fitting. Arguments that it was necessary to stop original sin don’t work because Mary’s parents were not immaculate and we need to remember original sin is a privation.
You can argue number three for sure. It is a good option for non-Catholics trying not to disconnect themselves from the historic and universal body of Christ the first 1500 years. As I’m sure you know, Luke 1:28 is important. It’s not a debate winner but it can be shown as Mary being full of Grace (or highly favored) before Jesus was conceived. The angel greets her and apparently uses the word as a title. From Catholic Answers:
In Luke 1:28, the word that the angel uses is kecharitomene. So it’s not literally “full of grace,” but its root word is the Greek verb “to give grace” (charitoo). The word is the past perfect tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred. It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. The word was also used as a title. The angel did not say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene” but rather, “Hail kecharitomene.” Therefore the word is not simply an action but an identity.
It is thus difficult to translate because it is a unique use of the word. It has been translated by various scholars as “full of grace”, “graced one,” “one who has been made graced,” “highly graced,” and “highly favored.” In the last instance the translator is using the concept that to be graced by God is to find favor with God. It would appear that any translation should use the word “grace,” because that is the root word..
New Advent says this of Luke 1:28: The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
At any rate, the New Advent article also notes a few prominent fathers made comments that would mean Mary was not sinless. But they also reference many more (and the same one in one case) illustrating Mary as the new Eve and also that the was pure, undefiled, uncorrupt etc.
I think it’s more fruitful to talk about Mary as the new Eve/Ark/Rachel than the Immaculate Conception with Protestants. But I will defend it against arguments that it contradicts the Bible. It certainly does not. Not being explicitly taught in scripture is not the same as contradicting scripture. I believe the seeds are there and when we understand Mary in a first century Jewish context it is plausible. Anti-Mary groups go way too far in their rejection (disdain or contempt?) of the blessed Mother. In running from a fitting but debatable doctrine that Rome has added, they lose sight of what scripture actually does say about Mary. Then again, the first century Jewish context of scripture is usually lost on these groups anyways.
One of the things Non-Catholics do need to be more honest about is the evidence for Marian apparitions and things like Fatima. The latter seems more well evidenced than the resurrection. Some might not like this, but Catholic miracles often make non-Catholics behave as atheists or philosophical naturalists. Mary had an extremely venerated role in the Church (the entire Church) down to Luther. Denying that is akin to denying the real presence. I can say that without expecting you to accept all Catholic dogma on the issue.
I make no distinction between schisms. It is such a serious sin that I would literally rather die than be personally culpable of it (personal culpability obviously doesn’t apply to people born within a schismatic movement, even if every single person, from schismatics to Buddhists, has the duty to seek the truth and act in good conscience. By saying this I’m not denying that 99,99% of those are acting in good conscience, mind you, it was just a remark).
Yeah, I understand. But what I noticed is that there a lot of Protestant churches who are very aligned with the world and with what secular society believes to be right And at the same time they claim (all of them) that they are following Scriptures and they would staunchly refuse every catholic Marian doctrine while at the same time allowing that kind of stuff. Then again, I’m not saying they are conscious hypocrites, the thing is that Scriptures can be interpreted in so many different manners that this stuff is bound to happen, if men are left to their own devices and their own interpretations.
And how could that possibly be different? It couldn’t. Once the regula fidei that guided early Christians is denied, an endless amount of personal interpretations (resulting in tens of thousands of different Church) is a simply unavoidable consequence.
Let me clarify that I’m not condemning at all people who are part of these Churches. As I told you the other day, my own parents are divorced. And one of my closest friends is very much gay. So it’s not like i’m speaking from an high horse or anything like that. I’m not a Pharisee who thinks he is perfect, far from it (I wouldn’t be refraining from taking the Blessed Sacrament, if I did), and speaking merely from a human perspective I would benefit very much from an “easier Gospel”. For the reasons stated above and others I’m not gonna state. The thing is I just don’t believe in subjectivism, I think it’s a (dangerous) fairy tale. Maybe even my military background plays a part In this, but still, if there are atheists regarding God I can be an “atheist” regarding subjectivism. I simply don’t believe in it, it just doesn’t work. Quite frankly, subjectivism is a load of bollocks.
Not to mention that the fathers were far (very far) from being subjectivists and even Scripture has something to say about the itching ears that want to ear what suits their own desires.
2 Timothy 4:1-4: “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebukeand encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
