Ex Cathedra Debate Windsor v. Rosenthal

Ex Cathedra Debate

David Rosenthal

Phase 3b - Rebuttal

Windsor stated, "The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son; and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception."

However, nothing in scripture says so. Scripture says that she needed a savior, and has sinned like all others except Jesus.

Windsor stated, "Actually, Jesus was not the first human without Original Sin! Adam and Eve were created in sanctifying grace,without sin. Whereas they COMMITTED the Original Sin, they did not inherit it. For them it was an ACTUAL SIN, and it was by their act that God punished mankind, driving Adam and Eve from the perfect garden and they brought death upon mankind. So Mary is not the first creation to be spared the stain of Original Sin. Which is another point demonstrating the LACK of contradiction on this point to Scripture."

However, although it is true that Adam and Eve did not inherit original sin, which I did specifically mention in my response 5a, this in no way demonstrates the lack of contradiction to scripture of the ex cathedra statement, which is unrelated to that.

Windsor stated, "I find it a bit ironic that you made such a defiant statement regarding ex cathedra statements and that they (without distinguishing) were contrary to Scripture, and you're not well acquainted with one of the two definitive ex cathedra statements! Are there more ex cathedra statements? Perhaps, I believe it is arguable for several others, but the two we've discussed thus far are the only two which are definitively declared to be ex cathedra. Before engaging in THIS debate I would have hoped you would have well acquainted yourself with at least these two!"

However, he does not respond that what I do know about it (reflected in what I wrote to which he did not respond) is not correct. Therefore, it is ironic that he should make such a statement that is apparently without any usefulness as an argument. He apparently prefers to emphasize that I do not know, rather than responding to what I actually stated about it. That is practically a concession, in itself.

In addition, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz has listed six ex cathedra statements in Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6. [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_infallible_declarations] So it is ironic that Mr. Windsor should criticize me for that which could be said of himself.

Windsor stated, "You continue: "That being said, I am unaware of anything in scripture that supports the assumption that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her life. I doubt that it took place. I expect that there would have been early mention of it from one of the writers of scripture who outlived her.†Now keep in mind the question of our debate! I don't need to show support for the teaching in Scripture, but you must find where the teaching is CONTRARY to Scripture. Now, since there are at least TWO OTHERS who were bodily taken into Heaven, [sources deleted by Rosenthal to avoid redundancy] you would be forced to concede, a bodily assumption is NOT contrary."

However, That two others were assumed in no way provides support for Mary's supposed assumption, any more than that God having slain 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night supports Peter's cutting off of the ear of the high priest's servant in the Garden of Gethsemane. In both cases, there is no relation between the events or supposed events. If is not a contradiction of scripture, neither is it supported by scripture, which makes no mention of it.
Windsor stated, "I would add Abraham to this list too - for "Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad." (John 8:56How could Abraham "see" His day if he did not have physical eyes to see with and was not in Heaven? So again, THIS ex cathedra teaching is clearly NOT contrary to Scripture. Whether or not YOU believe or accept it is not the issue of this debate. I believe all you have left on this point is to concede, it is not contrary to Scripture."

However, this seems to have been a less than rational departure from the debate by Windsor, which has no apparent relation to anything comprehended by the topic.

Windsor stated, "I asked: "You consistently ask, "If Mary were sinless, why should she be required to pay the penalty for sin, which is death?" Are you willing to admit that the ex cathedra statement does not make mention of the penalty of Original Sin, only the stain?" And you responded: "Why not?" Thank you, that was all I wanted from that question."

However, I added, "Although no mention is made of the penalty for sin, but only of the stain, it naturally follows that, since the penalty of sin is death, and since Mary inherited the same original sin as all other humans after Adam, except for Jesus, that Mary should also die as a result. Which is what happened." Windsor did not respond to that.

Windsor stated, "I asked: "Are you cognizant of the fact that the angel's declaration to Mary was PRIOR to her accepting of her role? Before she had done anything, she was already graced by God!?" You responded: "Indeed, she was highly favored beforehand, as she was chosen for the honor. She was chosen long before she was born." So you agree that Mary was graced before the Angel Gabriel made the Annunciation - and even went further to say that she was so graced "long before she was born!" Well, there you have it! You AGREE with the Catholic teaching!"

However, while it is true that Mary was highly favored long before she was born, the same is true of every other Christian who was chosen before the creation of the world, as expounded in Ephesians 1:3-14, the details of which leave no room to suppose that our grace is in any way inferior to that of Mary:

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%201&version=NKJV]

Windsor stated, "When I brought up St. Augustine's teaching on the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, you were "not aware" he said those things. You are now. You deflected and changed the topic within your single paragraph response to "full of grace" and St. Stephen."

However, I did not deflect nor did I change the subject, but merely pointed out the fact that Augustine had not stated that Mary was sinless. Windsor has chosen to ignore the fact of this. And I pointed out that Augustine stated that Jesus was the only one to have had an immaculate conception or birth, which Windsor also ignored.

Windsor stated, "Does Scripture say St. Stephen was "full of grace?" Well, it actually says he was "full of grace and fortitude (power)"- so logically speaking that's 50% grace and 50% power!"

However, it is not at all logical to draw that conclusion. Stephen was full of grace and full of power. The capricious wish to contradict the scripture that Mr. Windsor here demonstrates as though it were a joke is more like a disgrace and a mockery.

Moreover, scholars do not agree that "full of grace" means what Mr. Windsor insinuates. For example, on a web page dedicated to the discussion of the meaning of "full of grace", Matt Slick published the following:

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one?  It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc.  It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

  • 5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
  • 5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.2

Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.


Word Count: 1039 (not counting quotes from Windsor)

Back to Ex Cathedra Debate Page

Back to ACTS Homepage