Ex Cathedra Debate
Phase 2a - Windsor's Responses to Rosenthal's Questions
I was merely reliant upon the definition of the Immaculate Conception
(IC) as has already been quoted and cited. The definition does not
mention her birth, only her conception - and it is the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception, not the doctrine of the Immaculate Birth. That
being said, yes, it is reasonable to assume she was born without the
stain of Original Sin as well. To answer your question directly, yes -
she was born without the stain of Original Sin and no, she did not
somehow pick up the stain between conception and birth.
2) Yes, I am aware of what I would consider other flawed, or at best lacking, translations of Luke 1:28. Kecharitomene does
not have a root of “favored” but a root of “charitoo” or “grace.” Many
Christians have been done a disservice in the lesser rendering of Luke
1:28, even in some modernist Catholic translations.
I do not just imply that Mary is somehow more highly favored, but I
agree with Scripture where she is declared so! See Luke 1:42 -
And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.Her cousin Elizabeth states in verse 43 that Mary is the “mother of my Lord” (God).:
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?In
verses 48-55 Scripture records the truth which Mary herself expressed
that all generations henceforth would call her blessed because of the
great things God had done to her - for all those who fear God:
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me;
and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto
generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm:
he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath
put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath
sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful
of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed
Scripture itself expresses how the Blessed Virgin was more highly
favored than others! Who, among the “others,” can say they are the
mother of our Lord and God? (Luke 1:42-55 DRB emphasis mine).
It is not merely that the Blessed Virgin enjoys grace, but she is “full
of grace.” That “fullness” is what implies sinlessness. I understand
that you may not agree and even prefer a watered down translation - but
again, my purpose in this debate is to demonstrate that this teaching is
not contrary to Scripture - and if it can be implied through Scripture,
it is not contrary to Scripture.
Why would a sinless Mary be required to pay the penalty for sin, which
is death? Because Scripture also tells us, as you have already pointed
out, that ALL men have sin and fall short of the glory of God. In her
inheriting the penalty but not the stain, by that interpretation the
teaching is still not contrary to Romans 3:23.
6) “Is it not true that God would not require a sinless person to pay the penalty for sin?” It is not up to you or I to determine whom God would require to pay the penalty for sin (see Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9). That being said, her own Son, Jesus Christ, was sinless and yet paid that price!
7) You refer me/us to Fr. Hardon’s definition of grace,
part of which includes in a secondary sense “preternatural gifts of
freedom from concupiscence.” There is no conflict in my position and
Fr. Hardon’s definition for I (and we Catholics) do maintain that the
Blessed Virgin was given the preternatural (beyond nature) gift of
freedom from concupiscence (Original Sin). Even if there was
disagreement here, you’re going beyond the scope of this debate to ask
being the case, can you prove that the undisputed interpretation of the
Catholic Church is that Mary's enjoyment of grace means that she is
sinless, which does not appear to be the case, since Catholics do not
universally define it as you have?”
You have presented a false dilemma here. Whether or not Catholics
universally agree with me or the de fide teaching we are debating here
is not the issue! All we are required to argue in this debate is
whether or not the defined teaching of the IC is contrary to Scripture.
Getting into speculations about the universality of acceptance of the
teaching is quite another issue. I will say that those who do not fully
accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
cannot validly call themselves “Catholic.” I repeat, I am not here in
this debate to prove to you the teaching, only that it is not contrary
to Scripture. We need to stay focused.
Word Count: 875