In my previous two articles, I examined what I saw were the pros and cons of Roman Catholicism and directly challenged the veneration of Mary that is a major part of the Roman Catholic faith. In this third article, I want to lay out my reasoning behind my rejection of the Marian doctrines. I am coming at this from a position of observations I have made over the years, which frees me from the box of Protestant thought.
According to scripture, in the beginning there is Adam and Eve in Eden. There is the command from God. There is the disobedience. There is the fall.
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17 NKJV).
So the curse of the material world, sin, came through Adam. Paul confirms this idea:
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19 NKJV).
What I see is that inherited sin is a particularly male attribute. It is passed from father to child. The sin nature of king David was inherited from his father and he passed on the sin nature to his son, Solomon, and so on and so on.
Now we come to Joseph and Mary. In keeping with biblical history, Joseph had inherited the curse of Adam through his father and Mary through her father. But – and this is the big ‘but’ – only Joseph was culpable for passing on the sin to any children he might have. Though Mary was a sinner she nonetheless could not pass on sin to any children she might have.
So it makes sense that God interrupted the male lineage by supernaturally impregnating Mary with male seed, but not interrupted the female lineage through Mary. For Jesus to be born sinless, it was only necessary to remove Joseph from the process, but not Mary.
With this, the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception and the thought behind it looks unnecessary and unfounded. In fact, there is no biblical basis for the dogma. It is purely grounded in the tradition of the Church.
The core idea is that original sin infects both sexes and is passed on by both sexes. Jesus’ perfection had to be protected from both Joseph and Mary. So while the biblical account records a supernatural conception, church tradition holds the Immaculate Conception, which states that Mary was supernaturally born perfect and without sin.
But this raises questions. If Mary was born without sin to protect Jesus, why wasn’t Joseph also born without sin? Why didn’t God just give a special grace to a child conceived by Joseph and Mary so that Jesus was immaculately conceived? From the Catholic view, Joseph was dismissed as a sinful father and Mary was placed on a supernatural pedestal as the perfect mother.
As I revisit this doctrine, I cannot but help conclude that the Roman Church is in error and has tacked on the heavy weight of an unnecessary teaching that has very questionable foundations. And in this age of feminism, where the deception that befell Eve is spreading en mass, the Marian doctrine is feminism officially sanctioned by tradition, as it elevates Mary to equality to Jesus.
It makes a mere woman equal to God, which is the great temptation that struck Eve in Eden.
it pains me because I really admire the Roman Church in all its greatness. That admiration, however, does not nullify what I see as a serious and grevious error.