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.
Christ wasn’t under the curse of original sin because he wasn’t conceived naturally. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, so he was sinless.
Your point about “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?” wouldn’t have any impact on her supposed sinlessness. The merits of the Cross remove the penalty of sin from a believer, but that doesn’t mean a believer will never sin again. Paul makes it clear that a believer still has the flesh nature within them that is at war with the Holy Spirit.
So, even if God said that Mary was redeemed before the Cross as you say, that wouldn’t mean that Mary never sinned.
It takes two to conceive, no? Are you asserting that Christ took no flesh from His mother?
So, even if God said that Mary was redeemed before the Cross as you say, that wouldn’t mean that Mary never sinned.
Hmm. I get your thinking, and I should have been more careful in my language. The work of the Cross involves two things: justification and sanctification. I, and most Catholics actually, consider the two of them together as the work of Redemption.
So Christ not only removes the penalty of sin (justification), he gradually makes us holy (sanctification/theosis). I am applying both of these to Mary when I am talking about the merits of Calvary. If she was perfected in grace, then she was both justified and sanctified, which meant she could not sin again, just as we will not sin again in heaven.
I’m off to Mass in a bit, so I’ll try to resume the discussion later.
Yep. Good point. I speak (here) as a Dominican who prays the Rosary daily (okay, ALMOST daily) and, especially this Lent, has added another Mariam “devotion” to my “rule.”
Mary is, IMHO, a beautiful and awesome creation, but, again IMHO, one cannot begin to appreciate her unless one is devoted also to the unmerited Love God brought into the world in His Son.
Quix knows I am skeptical, even dubious, about visions and visionaries. But I can well imagine, not that anyone in heaven is subject to the passion of grief (for God will wipe away every tear and there will be no sorrow or weeping), but to the action of loving concern for all who do not understand that Mary Most Holy is entirely derivative and has nothing that is not given her.
I have a much loved friend who is a musician. He understands that when I praise his work and its power I am praising him.
I don’t think you’ll find a well-edumicated Catholic who disagrees. To call Mary “Theotokos” or “Deipara” is to proclaim the wonder and mystery of the Incarnation.
This coming Friday, 3/25, we Catholics have our second Lenten feast. (Yesterday we celebrated St. Joseph.) It is the Annunciation. That’s not a Marian feast, it’s a feast of the Incarnation.
The self-emptying (Phillipians 2) of Him who was begotten outside of time, leads us to praise Him and everything about Him. His mother is one of those “things about Him” whom we praise.
Your tagline says it all about you realm of belief and worship. You follow a perverted version of the Bible. Because since I am saved , I also am a son of God, part if the family of God. I am, however, not His begotten son. Words matter and newer versions of the Bible corrupt those words. Have faith in a non virgin woman who had sinned if you like...
If I remember correctly, Catholic doctrine holds that we are all born in original sin, i.e., the sin of our parents in conceiving us. (Which is why infant baptism is practiced - to absolve that infant of original sin.) Matthew 12:46: While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.
This implies that at sometime AFTER Christ's birth, Joseph knew Mary in the Biblical sense.
>> Then, how was the curse of Adam circumvented in Mary’s lineage? <<
God said so?
>> And, are you saying that contact with sinners would’ve made Christ unholy? <<
No, I’m saying that to be born of an impure person would have offended Christ’s divinity.
Jesus had a little more than contact with Mary. He became flesh of her flesh and blood of her blood. You do know that a baby shares its mother’s very blood, don’t you? Any impurity in the mother’s blood passes to the baby, which is why mothers can’t drink and even have to very careful which medications they take.
Now, Jesus certainly was greatly mistreated during his life. But that was PERMITTED by God, not COMMITTED by God. It was evil that he was mistreated, and God cannot perform evil.
>> Might even say that Mary’s overflowing perfect grace came from Christ. <<
Absolutely. But Christ pre-existed Mary.
Still busy constructing those skyscrapers of farcical ‘theology’ on slivers of toothpicks of Scripture having nothing to do with the skyscraper.
Fascinating in dreary, sad sort of way.
>> 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. <<
It’s been explained that Paul isn’t saying what Protestants scandalously insist he is saying. But, yes, if Paul HAD contradicted the gospels, the gospels would’ve remained, and Paul’s writings would’ve been given the boot, even though Paul’s letters were likely penned before at least two or three of the gospels.
This girl’s Heavenly visitation/vision is AT LEAST as valid as a long list of RC such.
Your post is nonsensical to me, including your question.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
>> If Mary was immaculately concieved, it would have been by the Holy Spirit which would make her God as Jesus is God. <<
Says who? Were Adam and Eve God? Are the angels God?
If the bible doesn't specifically say that a person other than Jesus sinned and/or is a sinner, then is there a biblical argument that that person is without sin? If so then there is no point to this discussion because there is no real interest in the bible here.
>> 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. <<
You actually think that it’s better to have sinned and be imputed as holy, than never to have sinned at all? To have committed evil, so that Christ must pay for that evil with his own agony and death, than never to have committed evil? Certainly, Christ’s show of love is far greater to we who are redeemed by his suffering and death, but how much more sublime it would have been if we had not killed him with our evil.
In dealing with Catholic beliefs about Mary on must remember he is dealing with people who follow popes who make pilgrimages to the grave on one who believes:
1. It was through the Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus came into the world, and it is also through her that he must reign in the world.
2. Because Mary remained hidden during her life she is called by the Holy Spirit and the Church “Alma Mater”, Mother hidden and unknown. So great was her humility that she desired nothing more upon earth than to remain unknown to herself and to others, and to be known only to God.
3. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, “Who can she possibly be?”, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.
4. God the Father willed that she should perform no miracle during her life, at least no public one, although he had given her the power to do so. God the Son willed that she should speak very little although he had imparted his wisdom to her. Even though Mary was his faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that his apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.
Then it's all good, because we don't worship her. We thank her, we ask her to put in a good word for us with her boy, we recognize that she was the best woman who ever lived, and we know that God esteemed her so greatly that in heaven she is clothed her with the sun and crowned her with stars (Revelation 12:1), but we don't worship her; that's something quite different.
I don't believe this "vision" anyway. The Scripture is pretty clear that in heaven nobody sits around weeping in pain. There is no more crying or tears. Do you seriously imagine the Savior is going to let his mother spend thousands of years doing nothing but crying and suffering?
The Blessed Virgin Mary held within her, the most Holy Son of God and Son of Man.
Of course she was pure to be the Ark of the New Covenant.
“Hail Mary, full of grace.” is how the Archangel Gabriel greeter her.
How could the Blessed Virgin Mary be “full of grace” if she had sin on her soul?
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.