Can Mary's Sinlessness Be Defended?

Here is an argument, mostly directed toward Protestant Christians, in favor of the Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary.[1]

1. Grace is that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (Scriptural supports include Eph. 2:8, "For by Grace you have been saved..." and Rom. 6:14, "sin will have no dominion over you, since you are ...under Grace.")

2. Mary was "full of Grace" [kecharitomene]. (According to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Lk. 1:28.)

3. Therefore, Mary was full of that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (From 1 and 2.)

4. To be "full" of something is to be unable to accommodate any more of whatever that something is. (This just seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word "full.")

5. Therefore, Mary's being "full of Grace" is for her to have been unable to accommodate any more Grace. (From 2 and 4.)

6. If she had lacked Grace at any time, then she would have been able to accommodate more Grace. (Admittedly, this is the least obvious premise. However, I think that it is plausible. Although, with something like water, a bucket's being full-today does not prevent it's having been empty yesterday, in the case of God's Grace, things are arguably different. God is able to view and consider our lives in toto - from their beginnings. It is reasonable to think that if Mary had lacked Grace at any time, then she wouldn't really have been "full" with it.)

7. Therefore, Mary did not lack grace at any time. (From 5 and 6 by modus tollens.)

8. Therefore, Mary did not lack the the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice at any time. (By 1 and 7.)

9. If Mary did not, at any time, lack the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice, then Mary was never separated from God by sin.

10. Therefore, Mary was never separated from God by sin. (From 8 and 9, by modus ponens.)

11. Any person never separated from God by sin is sinless. (From the definition of the "sin.")

12. Therefore, Mary is sinless.

Here is an objection.

If it was requisite that Jesus's parents, God the Father and Mary, be without sin, then it should be requisite that Mary's parents, Joachim and Ann, be without sin.

One way of cashing this out would be as follows. Call this Argument A.

13. If a person, S, is born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.

14. Mary was born without sin.

15. Therefore, Mary's parents were sinless.

There is a confusion, here, rooted in an ambiguity contained in the idea of sinlessness.

On the one hand, someone might think that the Catholic claim is that Mary's freedom from Original Sin was not owed to anything but to her own Good nature. Let us call this the idea that Mary was "necessarily free" from Original Sin.

As far as I can tell, this is not, nor has it ever been, the Catholic claim.

For on the other hand, Catholics answer that Mary's freedom from Original Sin was owed to God's Grace. On this view, the Catholic view, Mary was "contingently free" from Original Sin.

This is no mere verbal jousting. If the claim were indeed that Mary owed God nothing in virtue of her freedom from Original Sin, then the notion that Mary "had no need for a savior" would be obviously true.

On the actual claim, Mary owed her preservation from Original Sin to God. Thus, Mary certainly did need - and had - a savior.

At least one reason to think that Argument A is a failure can be gleaned from this distinction. A person, S, is "necessarily-sinless" if S's sinlessness is essential and could not be otherwise. Moreover, if S *is* necessarily-sinless, then S does not need a savior. If, on the other hand, S is "contingently-sinless," then S's sinlessness could have been otherwise.

Taking these distinctions into account, we could formulate Argument B:

16. If a person, S, is necessarily born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.

17. Jesus was necessarily born without sin.

18. Therefore, Jesus's parents (Mary and God the Father) were sinless.

But Argument B is not extended to Mary. Consider Argument C:

16. If a person, S, is necessarily born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.

19. Mary was necessarily born without sin.

20. Therefore, Mary's parents (Joachim and Ann) were sinless.

Argument C is unsound - by Catholic lights - since premise 7. is false.

It is not the case that "Mary was necessarily born without sin." Mary was contingently born without sin. Her sinlessness was entirely at the Grace and pleasure of God. Jesus's sinlessness was essential. As the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, his paternity conferred sinlessness to Him. But since, again by Catholic lights, Mary was contingently-sinless, Jesus's maternity also conferred sinlessness to Him.

Hence, Jesus was necessarily-sinless because both of his parents were sinless. His thus being essentially sinless secured His status as savior who did not need saving Himself.

Still, Mary's sinlessness arguably, partially secured Jesus's sinlessness. Although, as has been stated, Mary's sinlessness was neither due to her own nature nor to anything that she had accomplished. Mary was, in other words, saved as the rest of us are: "...by grace ...through faith - and this is not from [herself], it [was] the gift of God - not by works, so that [she cannot] boast". (Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV.)

And, indeed, "boastfulness" is nearly as far from the character of the Virgin Mary as could be conceived. This is why Mary exclaimed: "[M]y spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47, NIV), and why, henceforth, "all generations will call [Mary] blessed" (Luke 1:48, NIV.)

There is no impropriety in reporting that Mary was saved by God's Grace. It is simply that in her case, the saving Grace was given to her at conception, preserving her from the stain of Original Sin, whereas in our cases, the grace comes after our births.

But there is another objection.

Some Protestants immediately object on the ground that verses such as Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 (and so on) imply that Mary sinned.

The problem, here, is straightforward.

21. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)

22. Mary was human. (Self-evident.)

23. Therefore, Mary sinned. (From 21 and 22.)

To see at least one problem with this, consider a parallel argument.

21. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)

24. Jesus was fully human. (From Christian theology.)

25. Therefore, Jesus sinned. (From 9 and 10.)

Obviously, 25. is unacceptable to any Protestant. What can be said about this? What could a Protestant say?

One first-pass reply surely would be for the Protestant to point out that we have good reason, from other Bible passages in the Bible (such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, etc.) to think that the word "all" in passages like Romans 3:23 (et alia) really does not mean "each and every human without exception."

A principle might be asserted such that: "All" means "each and every, unless we have good Scriptural grounds thinking it does not." In the case of Jesus, the Protestant would surely hold, we have good Scriptural grounds for thinking that it does not.

Actually, this need not be construed as making an "exception." One way to view it is in terms of what philosophers call a "restricted domain." A common example goes like this. If I tell John: "Put all the beer into the refrigerator," I probably should not best be understood as telling John to get all of the beer that there is. Probably, I mean something more like all of the beer that I have in the shopping bags, or all of the beer that there is on my table. The point is, most likely, I am using the quantifier "all" in a restricted sense.

Surely it is plausible to think that Saint Paul is using the word "all" similarly in Romans. On this reading, Paul means (something like) "For all of my readers have sinned."

Of course, we could also hold that Paul did indeed imply an exception. Whereas Protestants may believe that Paul meant "For all have sinned except Jesus," Catholics may hold that Paul meant "For all have sinned except the New Adam [Jesus] and the New Eve [Mary]."

Protestants justify their reading by appealing to Scriptural counter-evidence. Catholics simply believe that, in addition to having good ground to make an exception for Jesus, we also have good reason make an exception for Mary.

This does not place Mary on the "same level" as Jesus. As I argued previously, Jesus's sinlessness was essential to him, whereas Mary's was (on the Catholic view) contingent. Jesus was the savior. Mary was saved by Grace (it's just that she was so saved from the moment of her birth).

Finally, Protestants might say: "Yes, but in Jesus's case, the New Testament is more explicit about this exception; Mary's 'exceptional' status must be inferred."

As far as I can tell, to address this worry, Catholics merely need to do two things. Number one, they need to provide a good reason why the the New Testament is not more explicit about Mary's sinlessness. This does not seem too difficult to do. There appears to be a fairly straightforward reason close at hand. The New Testament is primarily about Jesus (in the Gospels) and about Jesus's Church (from Acts onward). Therefore, we receive the most information in the New Testament regarding Jesus and the Church.

However, as a Catholic, I do not believe that the New Testament is entirely silent about Mary's sinlessness. I believe that the New Testament's clear references to Mary as the "highly favored daughter" who is "full of Grace" and who will, by all future Christians, be called "blessed" are best-explained by the doctrine that Mary was sinless.

This leads to number two, Catholics must provide a good reason to think that Mary was sinless. But this good reason has already been set forth. It can be coherently argued from the Biblical datum of Luke 1:28 that Mary's having been "full of Grace" implies her sinlessness.

In order to rebut this, Protestants must find some fault with the argument that was given in its favor. Short of this, Catholics seem to me to be quite within their rational rights to hold that Mary was indeed sinless, as the Church has believed since ancient times.

Notes:

---

[1] This argument is not due to me, but has been adapted and expanded by me from David Armstrong, The Catholic Verses, Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Inst. Press, 2004, pp. 181ff.

Surrejoinder to Clayvessel

Continuation of a discussion from Michael Hoffman's weblog, http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html

PART ONE OF THREE

Dear Clayvessel, I am, by temperament and by training, used to long and sometimes (even often!) tedious arguments. It’s easy for me to forget that not everyone shares these traits.

My text-length is not an attempt to "win" by attrition. My efforts were primarily and sincerely centered on defending my Catholic belief against your claim that "If [Mary] had no sin, she had no need for a savior."

This concern of yours is simply not a tenet of Catholic Mariology. Nor, I respectfully suggest, is it communicated by any of the 30,102 verses in the Protestant Bible. It is simply based upon the deliverances of the "human reasoning" of various non-Catholics (and, in some circles, it has become something of a non-Catholic tradition).

I am sensitive to the worry that the relevant Catholic doctrine renders Mary such that she wouldn't need a savior. What I have personally come to believe is that Mary's need for a savior is grounded in the contingency of her sinlessness, granted to her at the Grace and pleasure of God - and not the outgrowth of any essentially good nature, as Jesus's sinlessess is.

This resolution is attractive to me because the distinction between contingency and necessity is not ad hoc and because I can find no biblical datum that causes me disquiet. I submit that your interesting (albeit enthymematic) argument that if "it was ...required that [Jesus's] mother be without sin[,] then the same requirement becomes necessary for her mother, and her mother, etc" is effectively blocked with this distinction.

Now you speak of burden of proof. It is not entirely clear to me where the "burden of proof" lies, in this case. But since burden of proof might be thought to attach to positive assertions or predications (i.e., to assertions that say things like "S is f") as opposed to negative assertions (such as "S is not-f"), "Mary is sinless" would indeed need evidence in its support.

One trouble with Catholic-Protestant dialogue is brought into sharp focus, here. What standard of evidence shall we use? Non-Catholics (chiefly, Protestants) either expressly affirm or implicitly adopt an evidential stricture known as "sola scriptura." This "formal principle of the Protestant Reformation" essentially limits allowable evidence to, as you put it, "Scriptural supports." Your request that I "support [my] stance ...with any verses you can find" seems to be an endorsement of sola scriptura.

Catholics do not endorse sola scriptura (at least, not on what is sometimes called its formal reading). Given the idea that positive assertions stand in need of justification, those who explicitly affirm or operationally assume sola scriptura - which asserts that "only Bible verses are allowable evidence" - also bear a burden of proof. What is the argument for sola scriptura?

(End 1/3)

PART TWO OF THREE

It is clear that Catholics have a more expansive set of evidence than do Protestants. Catholics nowhere deny that the Bible is God's Word. But I, for one, do deny that "the Bible is God's Word" is an identity statement. I think that it is a predication. The notion that the definite description "the Bible" and "the Word of God" are coextensive is not anywhere clearly expressed in the aforementioned 30,102 verses.

Is it the case, then, that Catholics and non-Catholics can never have any evidence in common? It depends, in part, on what "Scriptural support" comes to. Let me take a moment to try to get clearer on what that phrase plausibly involves - and does not involve.

On a narrow construal, one might require a "prooftext." As Hoffman has just noted, though, most - but not all - Protestants affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no "prooftext" for this in the narrow sense of some passage that says "God is Triune." But there are certainly "Scriptural supports" in the broader sense of passages that: (a.) do not contradict the notion, and (b.) serve as premises from which the Trinity can be inferred. From this consideration (and others like it), I am impressed that "prooftexting" cannot be relied upon to provide "Scriptural supports" for all the doctrines that Christians affirm to be true.

Hence, I understand "Sciptural support" in a broader sense. For the sake of defending the Catholic belief, I will suggest a "Scriptural support," in a broad sense, for the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. By "broad sense," I mean that I will state what I take to be biblical truths as premises of an argument, the conclusion of which will be (at least close to) the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. (This argument is not due to me, but has been adapted and expanded by me from David Armstrong, The Catholic Verses, Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Inst. Press, 2004, pp. 181ff.)

Sketched *very roughly*, a broad defense might look like this.

1. Grace is that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (Scriptural supports include Eph. 2:8, "For by Grace you have been saved..." and Rom. 6:14, "sin will have no dominion over you, since you are ...under Grace.")

2. Mary was "full of Grace" [kecharitomene]. (According to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Lk. 1:28.)

3. Therefore, Mary was full of that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (From 1 and 2.)

4. To be "full" of something is to be unable to accommodate any more of whatever that something is. (This just seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word "full.")

5. Therefore, Mary's being "full of Grace" is for her to have been unable to accommodate any more Grace. (From 2 and 4.)

6. If she had lacked Grace at any time, then she would have been able to accommodate more Grace. (Admittedly, this is the least obvious premise. However, I think that it is plausible. Although, with something like water, a bucket's being full-today does not prevent it's having been empty yesterday, in the case of God's Grace, things are arguably different. God is able to view and consider our lives in toto - from their beginnings. It is reasonable to think that if Mary had lacked Grace at any time, then she wouldn't really have been "full" with it.)

(End 2/3)

PART THREE OF THREE

7. Therefore, Mary did not lack grace at any time. (From 5 and 6 by modus tollens.)

8. Therefore, Mary did not lack the the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice at any time. (By 1 and 7.)

However, in its basic form, the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness just is the declaration that Mary was saved - by Grace - from the moment of her bith.

I have to add that "Mary sinned" is also a positive assertion and, by this standard, would also place a burden of proof on its asserter. What is your evidence that Mary sinned? Here you have given verses such as those well-known passages in Romans indicating that "all have sinned." (E.g., 3:23 and 5:12.)

The problem, here, is straightforward.

9. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)

10. Jesus was fully human. (From Christian theology.)

11. Therefore, Jesus sinned. (From 9 and 10.)

Obviously, 11. is unacceptable. As you point out, we have good reason - from other Bible passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15 and so on - to think that the word "all" in passages like Romans 3:23 (et alia) really does not mean "each and every human without exception."

Catholics simply believe that we have good reason to think that Mary is an exception also. Mary is not on the "same level" as Jesus. As I argued previously, Jesus's sinlessness was essential to him, whereas Mary's was (on the Catholic view) contingent. Jesus was the savior. Mary was saved by Grace (it's just that she was so caved from the moment of her birth).

Why is the New Testament not more explicit about this? I should say that there is a fairly straightforward reason. The New Testament is primarily about Jesus (in the Gospels) and about Jesus's church (from Acts onward). Therefore, we receive the most information in the New Testament regarding Jesus and the Church. However, I am a Catholic because I do not believe that the New Testament is entirely silent about Mary's sinlessness. I believe that the New Testament's clear references to Mary as the "highly favored daughter" who is "full of Grace" and who will, by all future Christians, be called "blessed" are best-explained by the doctrine that Mary was sinless.

Still, for me anyway, no Catholic "convinced" me of this so long as I still believed in sola scriptura. So I understand your hesitation and can only recommend to you that you pray and think about the doctrine of sola scriptura.

All the best to you, Clayvessel.

Sincerely,

Matthew J. Bell

(End 3/3)