Posted on 03/19/2011 10:57:34 PM PDT by 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.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.
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."
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.
Butter is yellow
The Sun is yellow
The Sun is made of butter.
Your conclusion fails due to non sequitor - all things yellow are not made of butter.
Where is the error in the logic of: Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of God.
>> she prompts the faithful to come to her son, to his sacrifice and to the love of the Father.... <<
You claim we hold her as a god. And to support this, you cite a passage which plainly states her role is to bring people to the Son and to the Father. That’s pretty funny.
>> she is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts <<
You’re dealing with an historic, translated document. Please look up the real meaning (not the colloquial, American meaning) of the word SUBJECT, as opposed to OBJECT. I’m not terribly familiar with the source, but it’s obvious she is not who is being ultimately worshipped, since her purpose is to bring people to CHRIST.
As for Saint Louis de Montfort, I can confirm he is a saint, so he is CERTAINLY not regarded as a heretic. In fact, I know him to be quite influential. But not being familiar with his thinking, I’m in no situation to deal with proof-texting him.
But why are we proof-texting St. Louis de Montfort? Does he establish doctrine? Does he speak as the church? Even when I go to the home page of that web site, I see pictures of Jesus being crucified, Jesus in the garden in His agony, Jesus beThe normative mode of Catholic worship is the mass. And the Latin mass scarcely mentions the Blessed Virgin Mary. I’m not saying that’s a good thing; I’ve recently started attending a rite which uses an even more ancient liturgy, the Greek Melchite Church of Lebanon, and Mary is fair deal MORE prevalent in that liturgy.
dangus: You claim we hold her as a god. And to support this, you cite a passage which plainly states her role is to bring people to the Son and to the Father. That’s pretty funny.
What's so funny about that? That's attributing the work of God the Son to Mary. That is making her part of God then.
If Catholics don't hold her as God, then why do they keep attributing to her the characteristics of God?
John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Can I give this a lash, as one who also does not understand the Catholic position?
1) By definition, the mother must precede the child.
2) God has existed for all eternity.
Therefore Mary does not completely fit the definition of “mother” with respect to God.
INDEED.
Thanks for your reply. What follows is not specific to Catholicism but is common to most Protestant theologies as well.
That the Son was homoousios (of same substance) as the Father goes back to and before Nicene Creed which declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. We do not hold that Mary is the mother of God the Father or the mother of the Holy Trinity, but mother of God the Son.
Orthodox (trinitarian) theology, that Jesus is fully human and fully God, (this is contra various heresies referred to earlier.
The Council of Chalcedon, which Anglicans and most Protestants hold as ecumenical, declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person - a hypostatic union - which cannot be separated and still be Jesus.
If we hold that Mary gave birth to Jesus the human, but not Jesus God, we split what cannot be split - Jesus, fully human and fully divine. If we say Mary gave birth to one nature of Jesus and not the other nature, we err, because mothers give birth to persons not natures. Jesus is a person who was born of a woman, Mary.
Monophysites and Nestorians disagree on the person of Christ and therefore have a different Christology, heretical to Orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
Though it wasn’t part of your question, I should add the significance of all this. It is crucial to the Incarnation and the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity.
Those who have a different view of these, invariably have a different view of Mary as the mother of God. It all fits together in the fullness of the (Orthodox) Christian faith.
People are usually pretty shocked when I post De Montfort. I have a friend and we have always had spirited debates about whether or not the Catholic Church is Christian. When I showed him these rantings from De Montfort he was completely speechless and didn’t want to discuss anything about RC differences between Protestants anymore. This is the very most extreme example of what Protestants are protesting.
If you read Catholic writings you will see them dance around the word worship regarding Mary with amazing precision. You posted one of the more rare moments when they actually drop the W word but that's actually pretty rare. However if you look up Worship in a thesaurus you will see they freely use every word that means the same all the while saying "we don't worship her". Yet another way that they get to have it both ways.
>> What’s so funny about that? That’s attributing the work of God the Son to Mary. That is making her part of God then. If Catholics don’t hold her as God, then why do they keep attributing to her the characteristics of Go <<
Since when is doing the work of God being God? Like all Christians, she is a part of the body of Christ.
“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” 1 Cor 12:27
Now what is the work of Christ? He said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” What did he command Peter to do? “Shepherd my sheep.” (Yes, although the KJV wording obscures it, it’s the same wording.) Does that make Peter God? Of course not.
Jesus healed. The disciples healed. Is that blasphemy?
Jesus raised various people from the dead. The disciples raised various people from the dead. Is that blasphemy?
Jesus came to proclaim the Good News. The disciples proclaimed the Good News. Is that blasphemy?
The notion that Mary is God because she draws people to God is insane. We are all supposed to draw people to God. And we do it successfully, when we do exactly as Mary does it: by telling God, “Let it be done to me according to thy will.” And when we do that, we bring Christ into the world, just as Mary brought Christ into the world.
Actually you prove my point.
GOD has no mother; he is eternal.
Show me the flaw in that logic.
Only fail is your non-sequitor.
Hoss
According to that "logic," God therefore is not eternal and has a beginning. Did Mary pre-exist God?
That's the only way it works.
Fail.
Hoss
You’ve illogically presumed that to be a mother means to pre-exist. Giving that the Son is God, that’s a pretty baseless presumption.
Did Jesus have a mother?
Perhaps a better way to explore and clarify our differences is to ask:
Do you believe in the Incarnation?
In your view what was the Incarnation?
Mary is the mother of Christ. God has no mother.
Calling Mary the mother of GOD is clearly implying that God has a mother, therefore is a created being, putting Mary above God and making God subservient to Mary.
Saying that she is the mother of God is disingenuous, stating as fact something that is not actually true.
Catholics convoluted logic cannot change the meanings of words and the message they convey. If Catholics have to go though such semantic gymnastics to explain that what is said isn’t really what it means, they have failed, in very many ways.
And Christ is…
putting Mary above God and making God subservient to Mary.
That would be an error, but not a necessary one. We have the Magnificant, young Jesus at the Temple, and the wedding at Cana as examples of how this relationship was.
Saying that she is the mother of God is disingenuous…
It would be unless Christ is God and Mary is His mother. Then it is a clear statement of the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, born of a woman, dwelling among us.
Did Mary pre-exist God?
Hoss
No Mary did not pre-exist God. She did pre-exist God Incarnate.
You forgot a major one or two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.