What need would the "immaculate" "Mother of God" have for a Savior?

Dangus ^ | 3-20-2011 | Dangus

[dangus]

"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." -- Luke 1:47

It is undeniable, that "Savior" in this sense alludes to being saved from sin. So the question is: If Mary had never sinned, or was never guilty of original sin, as the Catholic Church states, why would she need a Savior?

As in English, in Greek word for "Savior" ("soter") comes from the word for "safe" ("sozo"). In modern English, the connection between "safe" and "heal" is largely lost, but "salvation" retains the root, "salv," from "salve," meaning "heal" or "a healing ointment." Thus, the notion of a "savior" being one who restores health, or undoes harm is not a completely incorrect notion. But neither should it overshadow the fundamental meaning that a "savior" is one who prevents harm, as much as one who restores one from harm.

Therefore, it should hardly be surprising that one who has been prevented from original sin should rejoice in her "savior" from original sin.

In fact, the term "savior" in Greek has a connotation of a god who preserves his people. As explained in the Protestant lexicon, Strong's Concordance,:

The name was given by the ancients to deities, esp. tutelary deities, to princes, kings, and in general to men who had conferred signal benefits upon their country, and in more degenerate days by the way of flattery to personages of influence.(Wigram) The word soter was a common Greek epithet for the gods (e.g., Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes), active personalities in world affairs (e.g., Epicurus) and rulers (e.g., Ptolemy Philopator, and later Roman Emporers). (cf. LSJ and BDAG)

God certainly was Mary's Lord and Protector, who kept her safe from sin. That does not mean she sinned.

But doesn't Paul state that "all have sinned?" Is Paul wrong?

Not in the least. As Protestant theologian Charles Spurgeon explains (in an alternate context) the meaning of "all," (in Greek, "pas"):

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

In context, what Paul is saying is that Jews (in general) and Greeks (in general), and every other people (in general) have sinned. To establish that Jews are no better than any other people, he quotes the prophet Isaiah,

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways and the way of peace they do not know.
" "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

In this passage, the prophet is describing the Jews around him, and uses the phrase, "There is no-one righteous, not one." It's been argued that the prophet is describing in a prophetic sense not just the Jews around him, but the universal condition of man, as a result of original sin. It might make sense to say that all we who have committed original sin are not righteous in a sense, since our righteousness is imputed righteousness, earned not by our own effort, but by Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.

But that same passage asserts that not one has done anything good at all, that they know not the way of peace, and there is no fear of God among anyone. Even if our righteousness is merely imputed, and our ability to do good relies entirely on Christ acting through us, regenerated Christians do good, know the way of peace and fear God. As such, we know that Paul is using that passage only to establish that Jews need Christ as much as Gentiles, for they have been as wicked as Gentiles, he is not using that passage to describe saved Christians.

But the Blessed Virgin Mary lived (in part) before the Holy Sacrifice, the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit? How can she have been saved from sin?

The bible explicitly states that salvation occurred anticipating these events. For the prophet Simeon stated upon seeing the infant Jesus, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation." How could this be? Whose salvation has he witnessed?

Mary's.

[dangus]

Well, folks, I’m going to bed. I stayed up a few extra hours because I had napped so long this afternoon, but I must now say good night. I’ll try to respond to any issues anyone raises as soon as I can.

[johngrace]

Good night !! LOL

[Semper Mark]

"Now, Christ permitted himself to be desecrated, but it was evil that he was desecrated, an evil which he permitted, but did not commit. To be born in an impure vessel would be God himself committing an act of evil against God’s own holiness."

Then, how was the curse of Adam circumvented in Mary's lineage?

And, are you saying that contact with sinners would've made Christ unholy?

[Just mythoughts]

>> Now was the filled to the brim overflowing grace before the conception or after? <<

Christ died to atone for our sins. If Mary sinned, and those sins were removed before Christ’s death, then the removal of her sins was not a result of Christ’s death, and therefore, his death was not necessary for the removal of her sins. On the other hand, if she was saved from sin BEFORE she could be guilty of it, then she could be sinless WHEN Christ was conceived, not only after his death.

It is difficult to determine how the weight of any given Scripture is weighed... And some just have great issue with Paul.. BUT

In a nutshell Paul says in Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children (that would include Mary) are partakers of flesh and blood, He (Christ) also Himself likewise took part of the same; THAT through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

There is NO Mary Grace and she is NOT exempted from having sinned. To be in a flesh body, allll except Christ have sinned, it was in Him and His grace that 'freely' justified any one of us and that also includes Mary. She did not nor could not received that grace until His death and her death. (well the death of her flesh body when her soul/spirit returned to the Maker, just like the rest of us. Well except for Enoch and Elijah... Mary's flesh died and she was buried....

Now I have read there are traditions that she is buried somewhere in England.... oh I know that one will cause a Mount Vesuvius type eruption.

>> Isn’t there a scripture about straining at a gnat....? <<

What exactly are you calling straining at a gnat? You make an assertion that a doctrine isn’t biblical. I use the bible to prove it is. And then when I prove my case, you call my citation of the bible, “straining at a gnat”? Is it “straining at a gnat” to fulfill the commandment, “All people shall call me blessed”? Is it “straining at a gnat” to defend the Church which Christ founded against slander (the CHURCH, mind you, not those within it who certainly may be evil)? Is it “straining at a gnat” to appreciate that God made one soul so perfect as to permit himself to be formed within her body, blood of her blood, flesh of her flesh?

Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD thy God, Which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before ME.

Elevating by overflowing brimming with grace of another flesh being as sin free makes that being a deity. Christ said He did not come to change one jot or tittle of the LAW, and it changes not one thing to any other child of God's salvation regarding how much grace Mary was filled. Mary does not sit on the throne of God, or beside God on His throne... YES she was blessed and yes she was fillllled with grace or overflowing if need be said. But she is NOT co-saviour.

[Claud]

Oh? I cannot find recorded anywhere in the WHOLE of the Bible that Mary ever sinned.

ZING!!!

That's always the problem isn't it? We are endlessly grilled to provide reams and reams of documents to prove the doctrine--all of which are intensely scrutinized and challenged. Meanwhile there isn't a stitch of Patristic evidence to *disprove* the doctrine. And that's somehow no problem.

[Claud]

I suppose I could heap up a mountain of evidence snipping and clipping here and there words, to prove any thing.

It's not snipping and clipping at all. It is, unlike the quotes people are tossing around here from the Pauline Epistles, directly relevant to the subject at hand.

Dangus is right. Kecharitomene is a perfect tense verb. That means, in Greek, that the action was already completed. What Gabriel calls Mary is something like "The already-having-been-graced one." This passage isn't explicit when that happened--but it's clear it happened before the Angel spoke these words.

Do you think it is purely an accident that the Greek Church calls Mary the "Panagia", the "All Holy"? You think they can't understand their own language?

[johngrace]

Great point.

[Just mythoughts]

It's not snipping and clipping at all. It is, unlike the quotes people are tossing around here from the Pauline Epistles, directly relevant to the subject at hand. Dangus is right. Kecharitomene is a perfect tense verb. That means, in Greek, that the action was already completed. What Gabriel calls Mary is something like "The already-having-been-graced one." This passage isn't explicit when that happened--but it's clear it happened before the Angel spoke these words. Do you think it is purely an accident that the Greek Church calls Mary the "Panagia", the "All Holy"? You think they can't understand their own language?

Well I suppose then the disagreement comes down to who gets to determine what Scriptures have weight. I can see why Paul is not a big time favorite given he sure did neglect to defiy Mary. I mean really here we have Paul, sinner indeed, elected to pen the majority of the 'NEW' Testament, and all his Epistles instruct that salvation comes from the Heavenly Father in Christ... and then imagine Paul says allllll have sinned and short of the glory, that 'grace' comes from Christ.

Might even say that Mary's overflowing perfect grace came from Christ.

[Just mythoughts]

Sometimes it reads as if the creation and various other man made objects are given far more veneration than the Creator garners even a hint of worship.

[Claud]

That would make her a 'deity', to have never sinned, and Christ said the greatest commandment was to love the Father, not other flesh mortal fellow servants. I can't find any explicit words that said Enoch sinned either, or even for that matter Able.

If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the Tree, they would never have sinned, and neither would we. The Angels do not sin. A plant does not sin. Sinlessness is the natural property of creatures as well as Creator. By itself it doesn't indicate divinity.

Now, on Abel and Enoch, you're right. There is no explicit testimony that they sinned. So if we are holding to the principle of "Sola Scriptura", we must be appropriately cautious and say, simply, "we aren't sure." Maybe they sinned, maybe they didn't. Scripture doesn't say either way.

[PrepareToLeave]

If Mary was immaculately concieved, it would have been by the Holy Spirit which would make her God as Jesus is God.

[Claud]

I can see why Paul is not a big time favorite given he sure did neglect to defiy Mary.

Well of course he didn't deify Mary. If he did he would have been a rank heretic and his Epistles would have been speedily burned rather than circulated to all the Churches. If he deified Mary we wouldn't be reading him at every Mass practically.

And yes, the problem is one of "who gets to determine which Scriptures have weight." I prefer to side with the majority on this. And that's the majority over 2000 of Christian history, with special emphasis on those writers of the early centuries known as the "Church Fathers".

Not only MIGHT we say that Mary's grace ALL comes from Christ, we MUST say it. Not a stitch of it is her own. From the definition

All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.

Everything she has, she gained from God who saved her.

[Just mythoughts]

If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the Tree, they would never have sinned, and neither would we. The Angels do not sin. A plant does not sin. Sinlessness is the natural property of creatures as well as Creator. By itself it doesn't indicate divinity. Now, on Abel and Enoch, you're right. There is no explicit testimony that they sinned. So if we are holding to the principle of "Sola Scriptura", we must be appropriately cautious and say, simply, "we aren't sure." Maybe they sinned, maybe they didn't. Scripture doesn't say either way.

Of what kind of Tree did they eat? Was it a mythical tree, a literal tree, or an imaginary tree? I think it is necessary to know what the sin was if I am going to be required to be held to account for that original sin?

When did Lucifer fall? Was it before the Garden of Eden or after? Seems to me that for there to be a tree of the knowledge of good and evil planted in the garden along side the Tree of Life, before Eve was created, some action had already taken place. Eve is called the mother of all living... and she most definitely sinned, so is that a problem for that Christ was to come out of her descendants?

What does the word angel literally mean? Because I do not agree that Angels do not sin. There are good angels and evil angels.

I do not understand why so much effort and energy is invested in the art of perfecting Mary, when it does in fact take so much effort and energy. There is nothing any of us living in these flesh bodies today can do to change anything that has gone before us. Perfecting Mary has nothing to do with what is to come in future days.

[Just mythoughts]

Well of course he didn't deify Mary. If he did he would have been a rank heretic and his Epistles would have been speedily burned rather than circulated to all the Churches. If he deified Mary we wouldn't be reading him at every Mass practically. And yes, the problem is one of "who gets to determine which Scriptures have weight." I prefer to side with the majority on this. And that's the majority over 2000 of Christian history, with special emphasis on those writers of the early centuries known as the "Church Fathers". Not only MIGHT we say that Mary's grace ALL comes from Christ, we MUST say it. Not a stitch of it is her own. From the definition All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime. Everything she has, she gained from God who saved her.

I do not see how Mary escapes the original sin given she was born into the family of Adam and Eve.

I personally like Moses writings and Jeremiah is one of my favorites, but not to the exclusion of the rest of them.

[Semper Mark]

"...that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.

Where was the curse of sin circumvented in Mary's lineage?

[Claud]

Sometimes it reads as if the creation and various other man made objects are given far more veneration than the Creator garners even a hint of worship.

I understand completely. That I think is one of the tragic consequences of the Reformation. Let me try to explain.

It used to be that sacrifice was the way we gave adoration to God. Not just prayer, but primarily sacrifice. Cain and Abel made sacrificial offerings. Abraham the same. And when the Romans were trying to smoke out the Christians, they didn't just say "pray to Minerva", they tried to make them sacrifice to Minerva.

Now Christianity had sacrifices and altars as well, since the very beginning. The offering was of course not bulls or goats but the Eucharist, but it was still regarded as a true and proper sacrifice. This changed with Martin Luther. The only kind of offering he would admit was the sacrifice of praise and worship. So what happened in Protestantism was a total abandonment of the idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice in favor of personal prayer.

This is why we do not see eye to eye on veneration of the saints anymore. Because the Protestant, whose only offering to God is one of prayer, sees the Catholic praying to saints and honoring them, and thinks "Aha! They give to the saints what they should be giving only to God! That's idolatry!"

But he forgets that he only is looking at half the picture.

To us, prayer is just a method of communication. I pray to Our Lady because she doesn't have a PO Box or a telephone number. I do know where she lives though. She's in God's house, and the Master of that house hears all of my prayers. So if I pray, I trust that God will hear my prayers, and forward them along to her. That's it. Do I kiss images of Mary? Of course. I'd also kiss a photo of my wife. And as for the bowing down stuff, well heck, I bow down to lots of people. I've bowed to a lady when I am feeling particularly chivalrous. These are gestures of respect and honor--not divinity.

Quite simply, reverence is not adoration. Adoration is offering sacrifice to God. And our sacrifice--the Eucharist--is never, ever, ever, offered to the saints. Check the text of the Mass if you like. The Mass is always, always, always, offered to God and God alone. It's never offered to Mary, or St. Joseph, or anyone else. Just God.

So there is an immense gulf between how a Catholic worships God and honors Mary. Infinite, even.

[Semper Mark]

"...but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime."

BTW - If Mary were here in the flesh....I'm sure that she would slap your face.

There's no more sublime manner to be redeemed than Christ's death on the cross.

[Claud]

BTW - If Mary were here in the flesh....I'm sure that she would slap your face.

I'm sure she would too. It wouldn't be for this though.

There's no more sublime manner to be redeemed than Christ's death on the cross.

Which is exactly how Our Lady was redeemed. Only in advance.

[Claud]

I do not see how Mary escapes the original sin given she was born into the family of Adam and Eve.

How did Christ escape it? He was born into that family too, wasn't He?

Christ can apply the merits of the Cross to us after Calvary, right? Well, then, why can't He apply the merits of the Cross to His mother *before* Calvary? Does God live in time? What does "before" and "after" mean to Him?

[Mad Dawg]

Not bad. I will struggle a little with the construction of the nunc dimittis, but I can see it. The Lord is glorious in His works, venite, adoremus.