Dear brother Second Chance,
1. The dogma created a new species of man--a species of one that has the characteristics of a demi-God. It is one thing to believe that God became man so that man can become God (through a lifelong struggle). It is another thing to believe in the IC, where Theosis is not achieved but granted to a human at a moment of conception.
There are three major errors in your rhetoric here. First, brother, there are only two kinds of beings – ones that don’t need Grace, and ones that do. Demi-gods, like the gods of paganism, do not need Grace - they are self-sufficient half-human/half-divine beings. Mary is not one of those, since she,
like everyone else, needed the Grace of God. Your wholly artificial distinction between Mary and the rest of humanity has no support from the Fathers. It is a very recent and modern rhetorical invention that did not even cross the minds of the numerous Fathers who expressed belief that Mary was made pure by God from the first moment of her existence. Sin never touched Mary.
Second, as there are really only two types of people, not distinguished by the false and artificial distinction you have proposed of WHEN people receive the Graces (should we have another category for people who were sanctified in their mother’s womb – like Sts. John and Jeremiah? Were they demi-gods, too?), it is actually your own version of Mary that is quite unacceptable. Your Mary is a Pelagian invention who does not need Grace in order to be holy in the eyes of God, a novelty that has no room in Catholicism nor historic Orthodoxy. Not even the Latin Saints of the Middle Ages who refused the introduction of the Eastern Feast of the Conception into the West were ever so creative as to make this modern and novel argument of a Pelagian version of Mary (the comments of St. Jacob of Sarug are being discussed by brother Mina and myself, and I daresay his comments, taken in context, in no way lend credence to this Pelagian version of Mary you support).
Third, even after proving to you that the IC does not deprive Mary of her free will, you once again bring up a similarly unfounded claim that Mary did not
throughout her life give a free-will response to the Grace in her. At any time during her life, Mary had the possibility of choosing to reject the Grace that was given to her – that is the thing you don’t understand and perhaps unconsciously misrepresent about the Catholic teaching. Mary and Eve were “utterly equal” before their respective decisions, as St. Ephrem wrote. They both had the Grace of sinlessness, and both had the possibility of freely rejecting the Grace in them. The beautiful thing about Mary is that she responded to the Grace positively throughout her life.
2. The reasonable consequences of this dogma have included the worship of Mary by some, as if she is God,
That’s relative. Easterns freely exclaim, “Mary save us,” something not even Latins would do. “Is Mary a god that you think she can save us?” a Protestant might ask. Please don’t make these inconsistent arguments against Catholics. As the Lord said, don’t judge, or the judgment you have pronounced on others will be turned back on you. In any case, who has actually made a demi-god out of Mary? Is it those who have created a self-sufficient Mary requiring no Grace to be holy in God’s eyes whereby He chose her, or is it Catholics who teach that Mary did indeed need Grace – like everyone else - to be holy in the eyes of God?
and, on the other hand, the debasement of her example to believers as the examplar par excellence of belief and trust in God.
Rather, the debasement is in your creation of a Pelagian exemplar of Mary.
3. The dogma is refuted by the plain text of the Holy Scriptures. It is one thing to resort to the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils when the Scriptures need explaining. It is another thing where there is no need to because the Scriptures are definitive.
What Scriptures? The ones that Protestants use against the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness? I don’t see how that gets you anywhere. You were already refuted earlier in your use of these verses. Here’s the rundown of the debate:
You quoted some verses from Romans to the effect that all have sinned;
Brother Papist called you on the unpatristic ramifications of your use of those verses which implies Mary is a sinner;
You replied by stating you were not referring to the act of sinning, but rather the potential to sin, simultaneously presuming the IC states she had no potential to sin;
I responded to you by appealing to the patristic understanding of concupiscence to demonstrate that Mary still had the potential to sin.
I explained this rather fully to brother Mina, but perhaps you did not read my answer to him, whereby you merely repeat your claim without refuting what I stated, so I will repeat it for you. The dogma of the IC states that Mary was free from concupiscence. Most people MISTAKENLY assume that concupiscence simply means “the propensity or potential to sin.” These people (not only non-Catholic apologists, but even many Catholics), assume thereby that “Mary had no propensity to sin.” But this is not the patristic (and Catholic) definition of concupiscence. To Athanasius, and numerous other Fathers – faithfully followed by the Catholic Church – concupiscence is
NOT the “propensity to sin,” but rather “the disordered use of reason.” Both Mary and Eve had the Grace of perfect reason. Nevertheless, the presence of that Grace does not dictate that one CANNOT sin, as readily demonstrated by Eve. The lack of concupiscence in Mary simply means that she had the Grace of perfect reason. It does NOT mean that she COULD NOT sin.
Or perhaps you are referring to other verses from Scripture that you have not yet provided?
My friend, I hope I have been able to explain a bit better why this dogma is very problematic.
Not really a problem, brother, but just more misunderstanding of the dogma of the IC, which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit will be overcome by the spiritual fruits of wisdom, patience, and understanding.
Blessings,
Marduk
