phat catholic apologetics

Short Video of My Wedding

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:24:00 +0000

Here's a little preview of the wedding video that Amy and I had made. I am told it is not finished yet, but it will give you some indication of the joy of that day. The song in the background is "Book of Love," by Peter Gabriel. It was the song that Amy and I chose for our first dance. Oh, and the two testimonials at the end of the video were recorded towards the end of the reception, when Amy and I both were about to pass out from exhaustion.

Thank you Lord for my beautiful wife.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

NBC Tackles the Abortion Issue

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:07:00 +0000

Check out this amazing clip from an episode of Law and Order: SVU

I never saw the episode myself, so I don't know what the verdict ends up being. But, as it stands by itself, this clip does a good job of exposing a little bit of the horror of the abortion industry. The whole reason the defense attorney is frustrated is because he knows that the jury has just been awakened to that horror and he will be hard-pressed to create the cognitive dissonance necessary for the jury to not feel completely repulsed by what the doctor has done.

I'm surprised that this episode even saw the light of day. What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Planned Parenthood's Declaration of Debauchery

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:33:00 +0000

Halloween and All Saints/Souls Day

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:00:00 +0000

There is much confusion about the origins of Halloween, and about what the Church celebrates on and around this day. Sometimes it can be a little difficult to make sense of it all. As a result, I offer the following links to articles and other resources that will help you to learn more about these holidays, and to defend them against the oh-so-typical charge that Catholics are pagans (in case you're wondering, we're not). I say Protestants just don't know how to throw a party like we do! (evidence here)

Have fun everyone! Be holy!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Catholics Come Home

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:23:00 +0000

The Truth About the Senate Bill

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:02:00 +0000

Going to the Chapel

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:29:00 +0000

.... and I'm gonna get married.

About to drive to Louisville to take the plane to Maine. Please pray for me that the trip goes well. Me and planes don't get along very well.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

SoulWow: Removes Stains .... from Your Soul

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:41:00 +0000

October: Month of the Rosary

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:06:00 +0000

In honor of the most Holy Rosary, which we take up as our sword and shield particularly during this month of October, I have collected the following resources for your edification:

General Articles

A Brief History of the Rosary

Family Rosary in the Irish Home

How to Recite the Holy Rosary

Light for the World: New Mysteries for an Old Prayer Form

Little Rosary of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini

New Advent: The Rosary

New Mysteries for the Rosary

Pope Calls for a Rediscovery of the Rosary

Pray the Rosary, Enter Deeply Into the Mystery

Praying the Rosary

Rosary Scripture Citations (a Word doc)

St. Louis de Montfort's The Rosary

The Garden Way of the Rosary

The Rosary

The Rosary and the Christian Wake

The Rosary Dissected

The Rosary in History: From the Beginning to the Consolidation of its Actual Structure

The Rosary Encyclicals (go here for a summary of the Rosary encyclicals)

Adiutricem (On The Rosary)

Consueverunt Romani (On the Rosary)

Diuturni Temporis (On The Rosary)

Fidentem Piumque Animum (On The Rosary)

Grata Recordatio (On The Rosary)

Ingravescentibus Malis (On The Rosary)

Ingruentium Malorum (On Reciting The Rosary)

Iucunda Semper Expectatione (On The Rosary)

Laetitiae Sanctae (Commending Devotion To The Rosary)

Magnae Dei Matris (On The Rosary)

Octobri Mense (On The Rosary)

Rosarium Virginis Mariae (On the Most Holy Rosary)

Supremi Apostolatus Officio (On Devotion Of The Rosary)

Rosary Apologetics

Common Questions and Concerns about the Rosary

Not In Vain: Repitition and the Rosary

All Mothers Are Alike....Save One

Devotion to Mary Is the Result of Devotion to Her Son....and Vice Versa

Did Jesus Renounce Marian Devotion? (Lk 11:27-28)

Don't Confuse Catholic Poetry with Catholic Doctrine

How to Explain Mary to a Sola Scriptura Protestant

Is Mary a Pagan Goddess?

Is Mary Worshiped By Catholics?: The Latria/Dulia Distinction

Is the "Catholic" Mary an Imitation of Ancient Pagan Goddesses?

Mariology?

Mary Worshippers Need Not Apply

Mary: Seventh-Day Misconceptions

The Original KJV Honors Mary

Why Don't We See Marian Devotion in Paul's Epistles?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Hiding Behind Hyde

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:49:00 +0000

For more information on how exactly the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the House Health Care Reform Bill, go to www.StopHyding.com

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Those Mormons Have At Least One Thing Going For Them

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:40:00 +0000

Love Divine, All Loves Excelling
Charles Wesley

Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling;
All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion,
Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation;
Enter every trembling heart.

Breathe, O breathe Thy loving Spirit,
Into every troubled breast!
Let us all in Thee inherit;
Let us find that promised rest.
Take away our love of sinning;
Alpha and Omega be;
End of faith, as its Beginning,
Set our hearts at liberty.

Come, Almighty to deliver,
Let us all Thy life receive;
Suddenly return and never,
Never more Thy temples leave.
Thee we would be always blessing,
Serve Thee as Thy hosts above,
Pray and praise Thee without ceasing,
Glory in Thy perfect love.

Finish, then, Thy new creation;
Pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see Thy great salvation
Perfectly restored in Thee;
Changed from glory into glory,
'Til in heaven we take our place,
'Til we cast our crowns before Thee,
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.

The Essence of Michael

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:38:00 +0000

This right here is pretty stinkin incredible:

I provided the video from YouTube instead of the one from Yahoo Video, so it should be working now. Also, apparently, one guy did all the vocal parts, video taped himself doing each part, and then combined each recording of himself into one video so that it looks like 7 different guys are involved.

I think the guy on the left providing the cymbal sound is a different guy, but still, crazy good.

Dope Vocations Video

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Quick Update

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:07:00 +0000

My tract on the Immaculate Conception is finally complete. See Part 1, which is the initial defense, and Part 2, which is a response to common objections. I have tried to make this tract as comprehensive as possible so that the reader will have, in one article, the various arguments in defense of the Immaculate Conception that one usually finds scattered throughout various different articles from different Catholic sites all over the internet.

I hope you find it useful and, as always, your comments are appreciated.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

What Is a Prophet?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:19:00 +0000

In the Old Testament, a prophet was someone who brought the word of God to the people by the power of the Holy Spirit. “He has spoken through the prophets,” as we say in the Nicene Creed.

Sixteen books in the Old Testament (the “prophetic books”) are by or about these prophets. The four “major prophets” are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The 12 “minor prophets” are Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Of course, Moses, the greatest Old Testament prophet, is traditionally regarded as the author of the first five books of the Bible. There are also many noteworthy prophets who did not contribute to the canon of the Bible, such as Samuel, Nathan, and Elisha. There were female prophets too: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and Philip’s four daughters.

Sometimes, in speaking for God, a prophet would foretell the future, and the legitimacy of his prophetic office was confirmed when his prophecies came true. Often his role was to convict the Israelites of their sin and to implore them to return to the Lord and remember the covenants He established with them. A prophet would also interpret current events in light of God’s plan for his people and warn them of His impending judgment (which usually came by way of the Israelites being conquered by their enemies). After the exile, when all the nations of Israel were scattered, the prophetic message was one of accepting the justice of God’s punishments and preparing for the coming Messiah.

A genuine Old Testament prophet was always directly called by God Himself, and he received the message he was to deliver by way of visions, dreams, and audible encounters. The prophets always spoke the “hard truths” that no one wanted to hear, and as a result they were often persecuted by their own people. The last and greatest of the prophets was John the Baptist, who was the immediate precursor of the Messiah and paved the way for Him with his message of repentance.

Jesus, of course, is the Priest, Prophet, and King par excellence, and in Baptism we are empowered to participate in that three-fold ministry of Christ. We are prophets today whenever we speak the truth with boldness, convict people of their sin, bring people to Christ, or share the teachings of His Church with others. Such actions often require sacrifice, just as they did in Old Testament times, but it is a calling that we all have been given and that we must undertake.

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Mozart's Sonata in C Major .... on Two Guitars!

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:27:00 +0000

This is easily one of the coolest things I've ever seen. My mouth literally dropped open when I saw it. Wanna know what mad skillz is? Exhibit A:

New Content Coming Soon!

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:16:00 +0000

Over the next couple of days I will be back-dating a bunch of posts and spreading them out over the last two months in order to provide content that I wrote but did not have the time to post on my blog. So, check back often -- and scroll down! -- to read those posts as they appear. Some of them are short, others are long, but I think they are all helpful and instructive.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Poll-Release Monday #67: The Final Poll

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:24:00 +0000

I have decided that this will be my last poll. As you have undoubtedly noticed, I no longer have the time to update the poll as often as I would like. So, I feel that it would be best to just conclude that feature of my blog, instead of leaving people wondering when the next poll will come.

Here is your final poll question:

True or False?: In the celebration of the Eucharist with the apostles and his commandment to them to celebrate it until His return, Jesus constitutes the apostles as priests of the New Testament.

What say you? I'll keep this poll in the sidebar for a month. If you want to vote after that, see the poll archives. The answer to the poll question is here.

The majority of the polls that I have featured here over the years are still open. So, you may be interested in voting in them as well. The poll archive is interesting because, in a way, it provides a sort of snapshot of my readership: what they like or don't like, how well they know their faith, what interests them, etc. The number of you who visit my blog and read it on a regular basis has waxed and waned over the years (depending, I think, on how much time I am able to devote to my blog), but I have always appreciated you nonetheless.

As for the previous poll, here are the results:

True or False? The Eucharist is also called Holy Mass because it concludes with the sending forth of the faithful to fulfill God's will in their lives.
- True: 35 (61%)
- False: 22 (39%)

The correct answer is:

TRUE, cf. CCC, no. 1332: [It is called] Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives.

I would imagine that the reason many of you voted "False" was not so much the last part of the statement (the "sending forth"), but the first part, where the Eucharist is called "Holy Mass." Personally, I'm not used to calling the Eucharist "Holy Mass." As I understand it, the Mass is where we receive the Eucharist. There is more to the Holy Mass than the Eucharist, although the Eucharist is certainly central to the Mass. So, the identification of "Eucharist" with "Holy Mass" is odd to me. What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Stand for the Unborn

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:41:00 +0000

What Is Purgatory?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:39:00 +0000

People tend to think of Purgatory in a variety of ways:

“Purgatory is a place where souls who don’t deserve heaven get a second chance to be with God”;
“Purgatory is the best that I can hope for in the afterlife, since heaven is only for really holy people”;
“Purgatory is a place where souls work their own way into heaven, since God’s grace is not enough.”

Purgatory is in fact none of those things. Instead, it is simply the final act of purification, or “purging,” that God performs for us after we die in order to make us worthy for entrance into heaven.

We can die in unity with God but still have imperfections on our soul. These include things like venial sins, concupiscence (the inclination or propensity to sin), attachments to sin (the state of finding certain sins attractive or appealing), and insufficient reparation (the state of not having adequately made up for the negative effects of one’s sin). Since heaven is a place where no unclean thing shall enter (cf. Rev 21:27), God desires to purge these things from the persons who die in union with Him.

The first description is a misconception because Purgatory is only for souls that are already in a state of grace or friendship with God. These souls have persevered to the end. The divine life in them remains. If a soul is not fit for heaven, then it is not fit for Purgatory. There are no “second-chances” in the afterlife.

The second description is a misconception, first of all, because Purgatory is not a final destination. Souls don’t go to Purgatory and stay there forever. Eventually, they move on to heaven. Secondly, Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross for a select few. No, He died for all mankind (even you!). Our hope should be in heaven, and in the power of God’s grace to actually get us there.

The third description is a misconception because it attributes a soul’s release from Purgatory to his own suffering, instead of to the work and suffering of Christ. Yes, there is suffering in Purgatory. After all, it is a state of being refined in the furnace that is the burning fire of God’s love (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15; Heb 12:29, Songs 8:6). We certainly can’t expect that to be pleasant! But, our suffering only has meaning and is only meritorious (or, worthy of receiving grace) because of the grace of God. Purgatory is a final application of the grace that He won for us on the Cross. So, it is ridiculous to say that Purgatory is somehow a belittling or a contradiction of that work.

I hope that helps you to understand Purgatory better. For more on Purgatory, see the Eschatology and the Last Things Topical Index Page.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

What Is the Difference Between Mortal and Venial Sin?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:47:00 +0000

The “Glossary” in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines mortal sin as:

A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life (or “sanctifying grace”) in the soul of the sinner, constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will.

On the other hand, venial sin is:

Sin which does not destroy the divine life in the soul, as does mortal sin, though it diminishes and wounds it. Venial sin is the failure to observe necessary moderation, in lesser matters of the moral law, or in grave matters acting without full knowledge or complete consent.

See the difference? Mortal sins are always very serious in nature. Typically, any sin that directly breaks one of the Ten Commandments is a serious sin. If you commit such a sin with full knowledge that what you are doing is sinful and if you freely choose it (as in, nothing is forcing you to do it), then you commit a mortal sin. If the act is sinful but it doesn’t fulfill all three of the above requirements, then it is a venial sin.

Most of the sins that we commit every day are venial sins. These can be forgiven through an Act of Contrition (or some other prayer that shows God we are sorry for our sin and we desire His forgiveness) or by going to Confession. Venial sins are also forgiven whenever we receive the Eucharist. If we die with venial sins on our soul, we can still go to heaven because venial sins do not destroy the divine life within us, they simply wound it. However, that does not mean that we should have a cavalier attitude towards it. We should strive to avoid all sin, including the lesser ones. Venial sins too can be dangerous because the more we sin venially, the more likely we are to commit more serious sins. We know that sin leads to death; it is better to not even go down that road.

When a person does commit a mortal sin, then the divine life in him is destroyed. He no longer has God’s saving grace. If he were to die in this state, then he could not go to heaven. His only recourse is the Sacrament of Confession. If you have a mortal sin on your soul, then you cannot receive the Eucharist until you go to Confession.

Some people deny that there is even a difference between mortal and venial sin. They say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. Scripture clearly refutes this (cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17) as does common sense. After all, I think we all intuitively know that killing someone is not quite the same as picking on your brother.

I hope that helps. For more on mortal and venial sin, see "Is All Sin Equal in God's Eyes?".

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Did St. Paul Really Mean to Say that Bishops Must Be Married?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:01:00 +0000

In one of Paul’s letters, he wrote, “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2). Some non-Catholic Christians try to use this as proof that bishops should be married. However, that is not in fact what Paul is trying to say. Here is the passage again, this time in context:

1 Tim 3:1-5 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?

Now, this passage is not saying that a bishop must be married. Instead, it is saying that if he is married, he must be married only once. In other words, he can't have multiple wives, or divorce his current wife and marry someone else.

It really would not make sense for Paul to say that all the bishops must be married. For one, Paul himself is a bishop and he was never married! He would be disqualifying himself if he said such a thing. Secondly, if "the husband of one wife" (vs. 2) means that he must be married, then by the same logic, "keeping his children submissive and respectful" (vs. 4) would mean that he must have children. Are non-Catholic Christians really willing to go so far as to exclude from the ministry men who don't have children yet or who had children that are now dead? What about men who only have one child (after all, Paul says "children")? Many people would no longer be able to pastor their churches if these Christians were consistent in their logic.

The main point of the passage is found in the last verse: “if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?” All Paul is trying to say is that a bishop must be someone who has all of his affairs in order, who is a good steward of everything in his care. In the first generation of the Church, the priests came from men who already had families. But, over the years, the Church came to discern that men who were called by God to be celibate were better equipped to handle the demands of being a priest and shepherd of God’s flock.

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Overpopulation Is a Myth

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Do the math:

If you would like to learn more about this topic, I suggest the following articles:

The Population Research Institute has a wealth of information as well.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

In Defense of Mary's Sinlessness: Part 2

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:46:00 +0000

[also see Part 1]

With Part 2 of my defense of Mary's sinlessness, I am indebted to the following articles (as well as many of the same ones cited in Part 1):

Contradicting Kecharitomene

In response to the clear implications of Lk 1:28, some point out that in Acts 6:8, Stephen is referred to as "full of grace and power."

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Does that mean that he was sinless too? The answer is, "No." There are in fact many differences between the two passages that effect their meaning a great deal.

The most obvious difference is in the Greek. In Lk 1:28, "full of grace" is the translation of kecharitomene, which, as we have seen, is the perfect passive participle of charitoo, in the vocative case. But, in Acts 6:8, the underlying Greek is pleres charitos (or in some manuscripts, pleres pisteos, which denotes faith, not grace). When the Greek is different, then the meaning usually is too.

In Lk 1:28, Mary is being acted upon by God. This action took place in the past with results that continue into the present. Fullness and perfection is implied by the verb, and this verb is used as Mary's name. In Acts 6:8, Stephen isn't given "full of grace" as his name. Instead, the phrase simply describes something that took place in the past with results completed in past. A continual or perduring grace is not implied by the verb. He was filled with grace at the moment and only for as long as he was performing great wonders and signs among the people. The implications of the Greek are simply not the same. And, like I said before, older translations (cf. KJV, Wesley's NT, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible) and even some modern ones (Third Millennium Bible, YLT, Webster) have "full of faith and power," in which case there is really no parallel at all.

The other passage that Protestants cite as a parallel to Lk 1:28 is Eph 1:6:

Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed (echaritosen) on us in the Beloved.

The KJV, which says, "wherein he hath made us accepted," and the DRB, which says, "in which he hath graced us," perhaps give us a better understanding of the underlying Greek then most modern translations. The word here is echaritosen. While it does have the same base word (charitoo) as kecharitomene, since the inflection is different, the meaning is different.

Echaritosen is in the aorist, active, indicative form. It does not indicate fullness (as kecharitomene does) because it is not in the perfect tense. A look at the context also precludes such a meaning:

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Note that Paul mentions the "grace that God freely bestows on us" (vs. 6) within his discussion of the "many spiritual blessings" (vs. 3) that He grants us. In other words, believers receive many different graces throughout their lifetimes, and these in different measure, as other passages indicate:

Rom 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Eph 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

Jas 4:6 But he gives more grace; therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

2 Pet 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

The "freely bestowed" grace of Ephesians 1:6, then, cannot possibly be considered the equivalent of that "fullness of grace" applied to Mary. Lk 1:28 refers to a single gift of grace-fullness in the life of a person. Eph 1:6 refers to several measures of grace given to believers over their lifespan, and apportioned to each one individually as the Spirit wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11). It refers to a huge group of people, with different gifts and various levels of grace bestowed. Because each gift is given to each believer in different measure, it does not result in fullness as did the one gift given to Mary.

All Have Sinned

The passage most often cited in objection to Mary's sinlessness is found in Paul's letter to the Romans:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

While on the surface this may appear to clearly contradict the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, further disection of the original Greek behind this passage, as well as an examination of the context of the verse within the letter to the Romans and the Psalms (from which it was taken) reveals that Rom 3:23 is not as plain as one may think.

First, the Greek. The word for "all" used here is pas. While on occasion, it can be used to refer to every single person, it is most often used to mean "the majority of people." This is made evident by other verses in Scripture in which the same Greek word for "all" is used. They include the following:

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Yet we know that those who do not accept the grace of Christ will not be made alive in Him. Not every single person has died physically either (cf. Enoch in Gen 5:24 and Heb 11:5; Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11; Sirach 48:4,9; 1 Mac 2:58)

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Yet we know that not every person of Israel will be saved.

Rom 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

Yet not every Roman could be filled with every ounce of knowledge.

Mat 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Yet surely not every single person in Jerusalem was troubled.

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan

Every single person in Judea?

Mat 21:10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Every single person was moved?

You get the idea. Now that we have established that "all" can in fact just mean "the majority," our next question is this: Is that the meaning of "all" in Rom 3:23? To answer this question, one must look at the context of the verse.

First, we'll look at Rom 3:23 within the context of the letter to the Romans.

While Paul is most recognized here for his defense of salvation by faith, he is also interested in how this salvation relates to the tensions between the Jews and the Gentiles. Each group claims that the other is better, or more favored by God. The Jews in particular boast of being under the law and God's chosen people. The verses that lead up to verse 23 are basically a hypothetical dialogue between the Jews and Paul. The Jew is here trying to find ways in which his sin cannot be counted as unrighteousness, yet Paul rebukes every one. The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (a protestant commentary by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, published in 1871) analyzes this exchange rather well (please read it!).

One can see from this exchange and the commentary on it that Paul's obvious intent here is to affirm that neither group is greater then the other. All the objections of the Jew are denied. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Rom 3:9). Rom 3:23 is simply a repetition of this verse. So, we are beginning to see Paul's purpose for saying that "all have sinned."

No One Is Righteous

Some may respond by citing verses 10-12, from the same chapter:

Rom 3:10-12 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."

However, Rom 3:10-12 is a reference to Psalms 14:2-3, which is a direct address to the sinfulness of the Jews. Paul cites the Psalms to further affirm his point that the Jews are just as sinful as the Gentiles, and in that way, no better.

Psalms 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Yet, the surrounding verses show that not even these words are as all-encompassing as one might think. Two verses later he writes that "...God is with the generation of the righteous" (14:5). In the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims "I trusted in your steadfast love...." (13:5), which certainly is seeking after God! In the very next Psalm he refers to "those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right...." (15:2).

Psalms 112:5 (KJV) refers to a "good" man (Heb. towb), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (KJV, 11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14,19), using the same word towb, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (cf. Job 17:9; 22:19; Psa 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16,32; Mt 13:17; 25:46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jam 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). Lk 1:6 itself destroys an exaggerated understanding of Paul's words:

Lk 1:6 And they [Zechariah and Elizabeth] were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

What this shows is that Psa 14:2-3 (and consequently Rom 3:10-12) is a hyperbolic passage. We cannot take it literally because there are indeed good men. David is exasperated by the sin that is so prevalent. Paul quotes these words as a harsh reminder to the Jews, as if to say, "Before you get so puffed up with pride because God chose you to be his people, think about the words of your Father David."

A third set of proof that Rom 3:23 and 10-12 are not to be read as literal, all-encompassing judgments on all of mankind comes from common knowledge and everyday life. Even in the world today we do in fact find millions of people who have not sinned, and even some who never will.

A baby in the womb: A baby not yet born is still a person, just like us, yet he has not sinned. This is even affirmed in Rom 9:11 when Paul says, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call..."

Children below the age of reason: It is common knowledge that until a child's cognitive development has progressed enough to where he can properly determine right from wrong and understand the moral implications of his actions, he cannot sin. Most children below the age of 7 fall into this category.

A vegetative or severely mentally-handicapped individual: I have a cousin who falls into this category. She cannot walk. She cannot talk. She is just as old as me, but forever confined to a wheelchair. This has been her situation since her birth. All of her needs must be met by other people. Because of her impairment she has never committed a sin. She never will.

In response to this, it is often said, "Well the sin in question is not actual sin (sins we commit) but original sin. Well, first of all, I don't see how that can be. Look at Rom 3:10-15 (the context for both passages we are discussing here):

Rom 3:10-15 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood,

Paul is obviously talking about sins of commission (turning aside, going wrong, deceiving, cursing, shedding blood) and omission (not understanding, not seeking God, not doing good) in this passage. These are things that the people are doing -- actual sins -- not original sin.

Secondly, even if the passage were about original sin (as Rom 5 is), I acknowledge that Mary was no different from any other human being in her susceptibility to it. In other words, she was due to inherit the stain just as we all her, but God intervened and kept her from falling into the pit of sin by filling her with His grace. For a woman who committed no sin, that is essentially the only way that God can still be her Savior, as He undoubtedly is (cf. Lk 1:47), and through that intervention His saving work is perfected. Now it can be said that not only did God free mankind from the pit of sin into which they are born and continue to fall, but, in one instance, he actually kept one from among mankind from falling into the pit in the first place.

Finally, we know that it is not beyond God to create individuals without original sin. He has actually done it before. He created Adam and Eve without sin. The angels in heaven were created sinless too. In fact, they have the distinction of being without both original sin and actual sin. So, the letter to the Romans, both in it's scope and in it's purpose, simply cannot do as much work for the Protestant cause as it is often called to do.

You Call Him a Liar

Another passage often used against Mary's sinlessness comes from the first letter of St. John:

1 Jn 1:8, 10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Now, I think there are two ways to approach this passage. The first one is to read it again in context:

1 Jn 1:5-10 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I know this might sound crazy at first, but I don't think this passage is about just any ol' sinner. This passage has in mind those people living in darkness, people who have not experienced the saving work of Christ and who think that they don't need Him. If you look at the pattern of the passage, verses 6, 8, 10 parallel each other, and verses 7 and 9 parallel each other. That means that it is those who walk in darkness (vs. 6) who say they have no sin (vs. 8) and make God a liar (vs. 10).

But, Mary is not among those who walk in darkness and deny that they need Christ. Her spirit rejoices in God her savior (cf. Lk 1:47). She has already experienced His grace in her life (Lk 1:28), and handed herself over to His Will (cf. Lk 1:38). Her soul does not reject the Lord, it magnifies the Lord (cf. Lk 1:46). So, in a variety of ways I think this passage from John's first letter does not apply to her.

The second way to approach this passage is the same way that we approached the passages from Romans: not all men have sinned. This passage from John need not be any more all-encompassing then Rom 3 is.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, there are still more objections to the Immaculate Conception that I have not addressed. But, I think this tract in two parts is still one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject that you'll find on the internet. I have certainly tried to respond as comprehensively as possible, and, as time permits, I may expand this tract to include other objections and responses as well. At any rate, I hope you find my work here to be of service as you set out to defend our Blessed Mother.

Mary, Blessed Virgin and Mother of God .... pray for us.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

In Defense of Mary's Sinlessness: Part 1

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:25:00 +0000

Introduction

First, I must acknowledge that there is no explicit verse that directly settles this issue. At the same time, I don't think that an explicit verse is necessary to prove that something is Scriptural. I think that if the hints are there, and if there is nothing in Scripture that directly refutes a belief, then that belief can be considered Scriptural. I think most people agree with me on that point, but it bears repeating, especially when considering the Marian dogmas. When it comes to Catholic beliefs about Mary, people tend to place demands on the evidence they will accept that are way more stringent and unyielding then the demands that they place on their own beliefs.

The Devil and the Woman

That said, on to the evidence. The best place to start is at the very beginning, with the words of God to the serpent after it has been exiled from the Garden of Eden:

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The passage is called the Protoevangelium (or "first gospel") because it is the first time in Scripture where we see the promise of a Savior for mankind. While, literally, the woman in question is Eve, many scholars admit that Mary fulfills this prophecy. After all, it is her seed, Jesus Christ, who will crush the head of the serpent, defeating Satan with His own Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

But, this passage also says something about the woman. It says that God will place "enmity" between her and the serpent. Enmity is a state of animosity and direct opposition. The woman and the serpent are utterly at odds with each other. They are mutual enemies. What's more, the serpent cannot conquer her, no matter how hard he tries. We see this enmity played out in the Book of Revelation where, again, the woman and the serpent (this time, a full-fledged dragon) are at odds with each other:

Rev 12:13-17 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

As much as the devil wants her, he cannot have her. Why? Because the woman has been spared by God. I bring all this up because I think that this battle between the woman and the devil, which begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation, is symbolic of Mary's own freedom from sin. Sin was not allowed to stain her from the beginning, like it stains us all. She was spared from sin so that she could be the greatest possible vessel and the greatest possible mother for our Lord and Savior. She is "the woman" who the devil could not have.

The Ark of the Covenant

Another hint of Mary's sinlessness comes when we meditate upon the parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant from the Old Testament:

Lk 1:28,31,42,45,48 (DRB) and Psa 93:5: The house of the Lord is forever holy, and Mary was a holy and blessed house of the Lord.
Lk 1:35 and Exo 40:35: God overshadowed Mary just as He overshadowed the tabernacle that contained the Word.
Lk 1:39 and 2 Sam 6:2: Both Mary and the ark arise and go to Judah.
Lk 1:41 and 2 Sam 6:16: David leaps with joy at the presence of the ark, just as John leaps at the presence of Mary.
Lk 1:43 and 2 Sam 6:9: What David says at the coming of the ark is almost exactly what Elizabeth says upon the coming of Mary.
Lk 1:56 and 2 Sam 6:11: Both Mary and the ark reside for 3 months in their new locations.
Heb 9:4 and Jn 1:1; 6:51; Heb 5:4-5: Just as the ark of the Old Covenant contained the word of God on the stone tablets, the manna from heaven, and the rod of Aaron the great High Priest, so did Mary contain Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God, the Manna from Heaven, and the great High Priest.

Don't gloss over that last point because it is the most important one. The tablets, the manna, the priestly rod: these objects were the holiest of relics and represented the very presence of God to the Jewish people. As such, the container or "ark" that held them had to be made of the purest and most perfect materials. The ark itself was considered so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it (cf. 2 Sam 6:7; 1 Chron 13:9-10).

As we have already seen, Christ is the word, the bread, the priest. This makes Mary the ark of the New Covenant. And just as the contents of the old covenant demanded a perfectly pure vessel, so does Christ, not as a matter of strict necessity (God could have took on human flesh from any woman) but because His holiness demands only the finest vessel.

The Salutation of Gabriel

With this section, I am attempting to synthesize information taken from the following articles:

Now, let's turn to the Angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary:

Lk 1:28 (RSV-CE) And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

The Greek word that is being translated as "full of grace" here is kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charitoo, which denotes grace. Some versions translate kecharitomene as "hail, thou that art highly favored," but that doesn't really capture the full meaning of what the angel Gabriel is saying here.

For one, To translate charitoo as "favor" instead of "grace" is really to give a bare minimum translation of the word. Ultimately, kecharitomene is derived from the word charis (charis --> charitoo --> kecharitomene), which the KJV translates as "grace" over 83% of the time. The KJV NT Greek Lexicon defines charitoo as "to make graceful, to peruse with grace" as it's primary meaning. When the favor is divine favor, "grace" is always the better translation.

Various well-respected and scholarly reference works confirm this understanding. For example:

"Charitoo can mean to Grace as in Luke 1:28 and Eph. 1:6, provided we understand that this grace is endowed by God..." [The Pocket Word Study of the New Testament, Atlanta Ga., Bernard & Brothers publishing, 1982, pg 348]
"Charitoo...Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon...it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to" [Lexicon To The Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc.Pg. 1739]
"Charitoo: Grace. To Grace.. as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28,... as in Eph. 1:6 were believers are said to be "accepted in the beloved" i.e., objects of Grace" [The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc. Pg. 1471]
"Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek kecharitomene a perfect passive participle of the verb Charitoo (only here and Eph. 1:6)... Abbott- Smith defines Charitoo as follows: endow with charis i.e. 1. (a.) to make graceful; (b.) to endure with Grace (i.e. Divine favor)" [Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle Pg. 52]
"...Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon...it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to" [Lexical Aides To the New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc., p. 966]
"Charitoo. . . kecharitomene, full of grace, Luke, i. 28 (RV. in margin, endued with grace) " [Greek- English Lexicon to the New Testament, by W.J. Hickie M.A, 1945, p. 208]
"Charitoo: to bestow grace upon, Lk 1:28 Ep 1:6" [The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, by Wigram - Green, 1982, p. 915]
"28. kecharitomene... to bestow grace" [A Linguistic Key To The New Testament, copyright 1970, printed by Zondervan Publishing House, edited by Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. Vol. 1, Pg. 140]
"Charitoo. . . to endue with grace... : Lk 1:28, Eph 1:6" [A Manual Lexicon of the New Testament, by G Abbott- Smith D.D, D.C.L., 1929, p. 480]
"Charitoo: akin to A., to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious... Luke I:28 'Highly favoured' (Marg., 'endued with grace')" [Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (unabridged edition), by W. E. Vine, printed by Riverside Book and Bible House, Pg. 424]

You get the idea. Now that we know that charitoo is better understood in this instance as "grace" and not simply "favor," we must now consider what the perfect passive participle would mean.

The website NTGreek.org, which is all about teaching people the Koine Greek of the Gospels, tells us (here) that the passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence is being acted upon (instead of performing the action, which is the active voice). The perfect tense indicates that this action was completed in the past, with results that continue into the present and are in full effect. The action is the giving of grace. So, kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charitoo, would literally mean, "you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace." Blass and DeBrummer's Greek Grammar of the New Testament says [emphasis mine]: "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This supports Mark Bonocore when he says (here) that kecharitomene literally means "perfectly graced" or "completed in grace." This is the single instance in all of Scripture where the verb charitoo is used in this way. There is a completeness here with a permanent result. There is a fullness and a perfection to the grace that Mary has received.

She wasn't given grace like we are given grace. She was filled with grace, completed in grace, perfected in grace, and this fullness of grace persisted, it continued up to and through the present. Put aside your presuppositions for a moment and just look at the evidence. This is amazing what has happened here. Note that sin and grace are opposed (Rom 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5,8). Where there is fullness of grace, there is no room for sin. That's why we claim that Lk 1:28 points to the sinlessness of Mary.

Something else that is interesting about this word kecharitomene is that it is in the vocative case. NTGreek.org tells us (here) that the vocative is "the case of direct address. It is used when one person is speaking to another, calling out or saying their name, or generally addressing them." In other words, Gabriel is literally calls Mary "full of grace" as if that were her name. This is important because in the Bible, a person's name often points to an essential element of that person's nature, or the person's defining characteristic. Simon was called "Peter" because he was to be the "Rock" of the Church. Abram was called "Abraham" because he was to be the father of many nations. No other person is so defined by the grace he or she has received that this state of grace becomes that person's name. More and more I think, as we dig deeper into the meaning of kecharitomene, we find that Mary is a uniquely graced individual.

Blessed Are You Among Women

Elizabeth's words to Mary are also important:

Lk 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

The Greek here is attempting to express a Hewbrew/Aramaic idiom that Elizabeth is using in response to seeing Mary. The idiom is baruchah att minnashim, "blessed [are] you from women," which is another way of saying, "You [are more] blessed than [other or all] women." Hebrew and Aramaic do not have superlatives, but they do have ways of expressing the superlative: for example "Holy of Holies" means "Holiest." Technically, this phrase in Lk 1:42 is a comparative, but when you have a comparative where one party is an individual and the other party is everybody else, it ends up with the force of a superlative. If Mary is more blessed than other women, then she is the most blessed of all women. It's a grammatical comparative with the force of a superlative.

You may be asking yourself, "Why is this important?" For some reason, most Catholic apologists simply point out that Mary was the most blessed of all women and they never tell the reader what bearing that has upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I think the answer is found once we examine why it is that Elizabeth called Mary, "blessed among women."

The obvious reason, of course, is because Mary, out of all the women who have ever lived, was chosen to be the mother of our Lord. That certainly makes her the most blessed woman there ever was. But, I think there is also another reason. After all, Mary said of herself, "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). Why? "for he who is mighty has done great things [plural] for me" (Lk 1:49). Her unique motherhood would only be one thing. So, what else has God done in her life that has made her more blessed than any other woman?

I think that something else is the unparalleled divine favor, or grace, that He has given her. Within the context of the Annunciation and the Visitation, the Incarnation and her miraculous motherhood is ever present. But, her very real gracefulness is there too. "Hail, O favored one" [or "full of grace"] (Lk 1:28); "you have found favor with God" (Lk 1:30); "My soul magnifies the Lord" (Lk 1:46).

Why else did God choose her above all other women to be the mother of our Lord? What was it about this particular woman that made her suited for the task? Only Catholics have an answer to that question, and we believe that it is found in the words of the angel. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her and caused our Savior to be conceived within her because God had already prepared her for motherhood by filling her with his grace. Thus, she is "blessed among women" not just in her motherhood but in the preparation for motherhood that she received.

Conclusion

Taken together, Scripture provides some very strong indications that Mary's grace-filled life precluded sin. The early Church, through meditating upon these examples and with the guidance of the apostles and their successors, came to understand that Mary was a creature whom God had spared from the stain of original sin and who, consequently, committed no sins in her life. There is really no point in history in which this was not the common belief of all Christianity until the Protestant Reformation, one thousand and five hundred years after the birth of the Church. I realize that some Protestants could care less about that, but to me that is very significant.

In Part 2, I will tackle some of the objections that are often raised against this dogma.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic