I'm not sure we can with total confidence stipulate that God supplied, somehow, a Y-chromosome. I do see how that would make sense, since in nature, parthenogenesis (as in mollusks, worms, certain marine invetebrates) always produces in effect a clone of the mother, a female. However,the Orthodox Liturgy/Byzantine Liturgy for Holy Saturday calls Jesus "the son conceived in the womb without seed." Since the seed is the male gamete, this seemingly rules out a male gamete.
So why is Jesus a male? I think the safest answer is "We don't know." Interestingly, Orthodox/Byzantine theology also speaks of human seed being gradually prepared by God through many generations, until at last a "pure seed" from Joachim (Mary's father) brings about the conception of Mary in her mother Anna's womb. (St. John Damascene). Although they do not use the term "Immaculate Conception," this would be a good account of what the dogma means: that Mary was born of good seed, i.e. from her natural father, in the natural way, but uncontaminated by bad seed.
Since Gen 3:15 prophesies that it's the "seed of the women" which will defeat the Serpent, the term is interesting. Again, I think it's something we just don't know.
I think part of the Catholic-Protestant difference here is that we do not have the same doctrine of Original SIn. The Catholic understanding is that Original Sin is not "sin" in the ordinary sense of the term. It is not moral guilt. It is, rather, a lack of something. It is the lak of a fully robust human nature as God intended our nature to be, as the perfect image and likeness of God, able to perceive Him and have fellowship with Him. It is a deficiency, a defect which causes us to experience a darkened intellect, a weakened will, a propensity to do evil, defects of mind and body, and morbidity and mortality: we get injured, we get sick, we die, we decay.
If I am understanding Protestants correctly, Protestants hold that Original Sin is a radical change of nature, an active moral evil rather than a passive deprivation of wholeness and grace.
And so Protestants think we ascribe a superhuman nature to the Blessed Virgin, radically different from that of her parents, and from that of Adam and Eve. But we don't believe that.
We believe she inherited human nature from her parents, just like we inherit it from ours, and Jesus inherited His human nature from her. But she was not deprived of that supernatural, unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had when they were first made,blessed and fresh from the hand of God.
Unless Jesus wasn’t truly fully human, He would have a Y-chromosome, as well as an X. Those two chromosomes are of the forty-six we have in every cell in our bodies, if I recall biology correctly. As for Jesus’ conception, there’s really nothing we know about it, including about His DNA and if it came from Joseph and/or Mary or not. To say otherwise is only speculation about something the Lord hasn’t revealed. Genesis does speak of the seed of Eve, but seed in the Bible carries the meaning of offspring, which would seemingly be how it it used in the same place in Genesis when the Lord is addressing the snake, whom Revelation tells us is Satan. We don’t what it means that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and we know God can create from nothing and appear from nowhere, so we can’t know how Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb except that it all went completely according to God’s eternal plan, for His purposes.
On original sin, if it is merely a deficiency (I’ve heard it described as an imcompleteness, too, in the Catholic view), then why would God judge people and send them to Hell for eternity? The Bible, taken altogether, answers that. The short answer, though, is our own sin, our own turning away from God in rebellion. There is so much mystery to much of this, but that we break God’s commandments, and our consciences bear witness to us doing it, that much at the least is clear. If we come to see sin as the Lord does, and our own sin, and believe that we’re under eternal condemnation for it, then we see we have a problem in that there’s no greater threat than Hell, and we need God’s forgiveness and salvation.
On Mary, again we know so little of spiritual truths, only as much as the Lord has willed us to know at this time, but enough for His purposes. But even to say that Mary had Adam and Eve’s original sinlessness doesn’t lead to the conclusion that she remained without sin because, after all, when temptation came, they sinned.
The rejection of certain beliefs about Mary by evangelicals comes primarily from how Catholicism gives her so many attributes of God, including having her worshipped while denying that it does so. I know you and other Catholics reject those conclusions, but evangelicals reach them not only through the logic of Scripture, but then also through experience. When I pray or meditate it’s communion with the Lord, and constantly through the day He’s on my mind and I’m talking to Him. God is a jealous God, and I’m jealous for that communion with Him because it’s so enjoyable and satisfying. I would truly never want to give up any time to talk to anyone else in the spiritual world, and Cont’d
the thought of it only alarms me. I cannot pray to (address) two beings at the same time, so why if the Lord has filled every space of my prayers would I ever switch from Him to a creature for some of them? I believe it would be wrong, and considering the sweetness of communing with the Lord, I have no desire to seriously consider doing so in the first place.
Then I consider all that I’ve heard and seen Catholics say about and do towards Mary that’s troubling, which is added to all the time. Talking the other day about living the Christian life, a Catholic radio host said it’s “for Jesus, through Mary.” Two others recently said that Mary of course would have given Jesus His Jewish spiritual education and Joseph “would have understood.” So she was the spiritual head of the house, exactly contrary to what Scripture says? And then Catholic prayers say to stand before Mary “sinful and sorrowful” and that she’s always aided those who flee to her for protection. If I’ve always done those things with Cont’d
Pope Benedict’s words on it in rejecting it were ambiguous. He certainly seemed to find it reasonable, which, with Catholicism’s beliefs on Mary, likely most Catholics would. The Wikipedia article on it is quite helpful and revealing in quoting from the debate about it. There’s a lot of acceptance for the idea, it seems, but for the thought that it would be imprudent to formally adopt it, and despite the Catholic Church officially not believing it, it seems many high officials do, without any disciplining them for it. Yet if you take all that the Lord has revealed to us, it has to be considered utter blasphemy. The heresy’s supporters say that of course, as redeemers, Mary isn’t equal to Jesus, but that’s a lie of the serpent, to deceive. In being a redeemer who’s a creature, they couldn’t claim her as such in the first place, but they do as much as they possibly can to bring her to equality by calling her “CoRedemptrix.”