Skip to content

Do You Have A Permit For That Rosary?

December 9, 2010

This one goes out to all of our Catholic friends.

To our Protestant friends, just ignore the heretical statement about Mary being the only human born without sin (guess that excludes Jesus) and the “fact” that Mary is God’s “five star general”. Although I think that last bit is pretty awesome.

Apparently, Jesus is going to lay the smack down on the Antichrist with Mary’s rosary and scapular. Should be fun!

Fun fact, the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse is Roman Catholic!

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Andy F. permalink
    December 9, 2010 12:28 pm

    Ok, ok, I’ll take the bait. First of all a blanket apology for Tapley. Can we insert in the fun fact line above, “heretical” or “crazy” before the word Roman Catholic?

    Now, to correct the major errors. It is true that Mary was the only human being conceived without sin. Jesus Christ is Theanthropos (God-man) therefore, to clarify the statement to avoid confusion, Mary is the only exclusively human being to be conceived without sin. If she is the new ark of the covenant as the Church fathers said and Luke alluded to in 1:43, then we know she must be Immaculate. Check Exodus 25 and 2 Samuel 6 for cross reference.

    Contrary to Tapley’s statement, Jesus did die for Mary’s sins. The Church teaches that Christ’s sacrifice is eternal (once and for all Heb. 10-10) and therefore works out side of time and space. It works for Adam’s sins and everyone else after him. Mary was preserved from sin outside of time and space. Like the Divine Attributes, which are a mystery to man, so also is the Immaculate Conception. We can’t explain the details, we just know what happened. Adam and Eve weren’t conceived.

    There is no official Church teaching that Mary is God’s 5 star General. However, this is most likely analogous to the notion of the Queen Mother’s power in the Davidic dynasty. They are second in command.

    The Rosary/Scapular teaching is private interpretation. There is no public revelation after the death of the last Apostle (St. John the Beloved). Tapley can have this opinion and still be in good standing with the Church.

    The Catholic typology implied in the David story (though I personally have never heard of it this way) of David=Jesus and Goliath=Antichrist/Satan could be better interpretted if we understand that David brings salvation to his people through a rock that marks Goliath on his forehead. The New Covenant built upon the Rock (symbolic of Christ/Peter/Church) has defeated the antichrist through salvation in the House of David, the Church.

    Happy Advent!

  2. December 9, 2010 1:44 pm

    I’m glad you took the bait, Andy. It’s been a while since I’ve had a good theological conversation.

    What prevents me, and I would suspect many other Protestants, from accepting this sinless version of Mary is that it doesn’t stem from an exegetical analysis of the text, but rather an Augustinian isegesis. The sinlessness of Mary is only necessary if one subscribes to an Augustinian understanding of sin in which it becomes this genetic disease passed on through intercourse. However, I find this to be an unnecessary, not to mention unbiblical, ontological move on his part. Augustine gives unnecessary, but also undeserved ontological status to sin, or evil. It becomes this thing attached to the flesh. Therefore, the sinlessness of Mary is necessary in order to preserve the sinless of Jesus and thus salvation itself. But even this is problematic in that if, as Augustine suggests, sin is something passed on in the flesh from generation to generation, then Mary herself had to be born with it since she was conceived by sinful parents.

    Personally, I prefer Paul’s understanding of sin rather than Augustine’s. Its far less problematic, not to mention it is more in keeping with the biblical narrative. In Romans 5 Paul talks about Jesus being the new Adam. What I hear him saying, especially when viewed in light of Philippians 2, is that we are not guilty of sin because we were born with it, or because Adam and Eve sinned thousands of years ago. Rather, we are guilty of sin, because we continue to repeat Adam’s pattern of sin, his “snatching at divinity” to borrow a phrase from Philippians. In other words, sin, or evil, has no separate ontos apart from our own willful engagement of it. In this way, whether Mary ever committed a sin or not is irrelevant to Jesus’ own condition and we are not, like Augustine, forced to construct an idea to sustain our theological system and then force it onto the text.

  3. Andy F. permalink
    December 9, 2010 3:07 pm

    I will reply to this next week. I have finals on Saturday. This one is gonna be fun, I can already tell! 🙂

  4. Andy F. permalink
    December 9, 2010 3:18 pm

    Btw, the Church Fathers, Augustine included, did not consider exegetical analysis of Scripture to be its primary mode. Typology and isegesis are traditionally how the Apostolic Fathers read the Scripture. We must consider this to be a legitimate way of seeing the Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit that gives the Church the authority to read between the lines. Check 2 Peter Chapter 1 (namely 16-20). Peter’s “we” is a reference to the Magisterium of the Church as headed by the pope in which Augustine later became a part of.

    Regarding “seminal transferrence of sin,” I will have to get polished up on to go to bat. Lately I’ve only had my nose in philosophy books.

  5. Andy F. permalink
    December 9, 2010 3:29 pm

    To clarify the first sentence of the above post, I am saying that exegesis is not the primary mode of the Church fathers to interpret the Scriptures. I am saying that Isegesis/Typology were the primary modes.

  6. Andy F. permalink
    December 13, 2010 1:46 pm

    Okay sir, I have returned. First of all, the Church has never officially taught that sin is transmitted through the semen of the father. I heard this “Augustinian seminal transmission” argument before from a religion major once at TNU. I reckon in the religion dept. they take the liberty of assuming that if Augustine or Aquinas farts, then that is magisterial teaching and bona fide Catholicism.

    As orthodox Christians, (those agreeing on all tenets of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), we believe that Christ had two natures. These two natures are united hypostatically (Chalcedon 451). Therefore we know that we have a human nature; nature being that which philosophy refers to as “essence in action.” Human nature is abstract unless it is personified in a hypostasis that carries accidental properties. However, we can know the difference of nature in a black bear and a black car in Wyoming. Their common accidental properties, both being black and in the same geographical area, are the only things we can conclude about the two in common. Both have different purposes. One is a creation of God, the other of man, etc.

    That being agreed upon. No one can proclaim that original sin is transferred through a male (who alone has the ability to produce semen) anymore than it is transferred through a female. Male and female are accidental properties of human nature. If a male and a female were different in their essence/nature, we would need two different Christs or a Christ with three natures so that women could be saved as well as men. Therefore, as the Scripture says in Ephesians 2:3, “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath,” then we must conclude that human nature “as one body of one man”(St. Thomas Aquinas De Malo 4,1) is the path by which we inherit original sin. However, the Church speaks clearly that we cannot fully understand the mystery by which original sin is transmitted. (Catechism 404)

    In conclusion, to say: A)Augustine’s understanding of the transmission of original sin is incorrect analysis of the text and therefore; B)Catholicism’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception is unbelievable; then one has committed an inductive fallacy known as the “unrepresentative sample.” St. Augustine is not the Church. St. Thomas is not the Church.

    Peace, bro. I’m looking forward to your new conclusions.

  7. Andy F. permalink
    December 13, 2010 1:54 pm

    I need to clarify what seems to be contradictory statements, that Augustine is part of the magisterium of the Church and he is not the Church. Much of what Augustine or Aquinas or any other Doctor of the Church had to say has been accepted as magisterial and official Catholic teaching. However, whatever they say has to fall in line with the continuity of Tradition. This would include not contradicting Sacred Scripture. If Aquinas says, “yellow is the only color that can be worn and is necessary for salvation,” then we know he’s a nut. Why? The Church has never made any soteriological commentary regarding the color yellow, therefore, Aquinas has proposed a novel idea and it is not for public application even if God himself told him. We believe revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

  8. December 16, 2010 10:31 am

    Sorry about the delay in getting back to you Andy. I think ultimately the issue I and most protestants would take in regards to Mary is that there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest even the need for her to have a sinless nature. Personally, I would think that there would be at least a hint of it somewhere in the New Testament, but there’s not. I can’t even think of a place outside of the gospels where she is even mentioned. Although with your Catholic background maybe you know one. Even in the Gospels she seems to be a fairly minor character. I know that sounds ironic as she was the mother of Jesus, but the writers of the Gospel don’t seem very interested in her beyond the first few chapters. Yes she gets a few mentions, but it is always in regard to what Jesus is doing and it’s only Elizabeth that gives her any significant praise. Outside of the gospels she becomes a completely irrelevant character. It would seem to me that if Mary or her sinful/sinless nature was of such importance, then there would at least be a passing mention of it in scripture somewhere, anywhere. But Paul, at least, builds his case for our salvation not our her faithfulness or sinlessness, nor ours, but only on Jesus’. So, all that to say, I’m still not understanding why she needs to be sinless if the text itself doesn’t seem interested in it at all. Which is why I return to my earlier contention that her sinless is only required in order to support an extra-biblical theological structure that the text itself doesn’t seem to deem important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: