This is a quote from the article at the beginning of this post:
"I spend most of its pages in classic apologetic defense of Mary as Mother of God, defending her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, her Queenship, and her role in God’s plan of salvation as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. "
Perhaps the Catholic Church does not define Mary in this way, but the author, who is identified as the "Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers" certainly defines her in that manner.
How is it contrary to Scripture to say that Mary was conceived without sin, and committed no personal sin?
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
In Luke Chapter 1, Mary refers to "God my savior". Someone without sin has no need of a savior.
There are many more scriptures we can throw out on the subject, but it is late and I'm tired. And the ones listed here are sufficient to make the point.
With regard to her being conceived without sin, there is no scripture to even suggest such a thing. That is a concept created out of whole cloth. The ONLY time the Bible mentions a virgin giving birth is in reference to Christ himself. Since Mary had a human mother and human father, she also was heir to the same sin nature we all have.
Do you have any evidence that this sentence was written in order to resolve the question of whether Mary was sinless? Is Paul discussing Mary's alleged sinlessness at this point in Romans?
Is Jesus a sinner? The verse says ALL have sinned.
Are infants sinners? Are the retarded sinners? What sins have they committed? The verse says ALL have sinned.
In Luke Chapter 1, Mary refers to "God my savior". Someone without sin has no need of a savior.
The statement, "Someone without sin has no need of a savior" is a gratuitous assumption.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was preserved from Original Sin by the grace of Christ's death and resurrection. I.e., Mary was saved by Jesus Christ. Thus, there is no contradiction between Mary's sinlessness and her having "a savior."
Catholics do not hold that Mary was born of a virgin. We hold that she was conceived by the usual method, but without original sin because God gave her the gift of salvation out of time so that she could be the perfect vessel for Him. She did need a savior. She just got one before anyone else did. Because God can do that. The time thing.
I don’t know exactly where it comes from, you are right that there is no scripture explaining it, but it is beautiful. This one I choose to accept without analysis. Sola scriptura people won’t, and I find that sad.
Love,
O2
Tim Staples has said in the past (I heard him say it on Catholic Answers Live) that the title “Co-redemtrix” is not a title that is dogmatically defined. He also said that in his opinion it will be so defined soon by the Church. This probably explains why he feels free to use it (along with Redemptrix, another title not defined dogmatically but one he feels will be soon).
To be clear though that’s his opinion. I tend to agree with him (that it will be defined dogmatically soon) but it’s not yet dogmatic. So Catholics are free to disagree with applying that title to Mary if they wish.
Correction to my last post : ...along with Mediatix. That is also a title not yet defined dogmatically.
There is NOTHING that galls a Catholic more than suggesting that Mary either had a sin nature, like the rest of us, or that she did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.
They don’t get as worked up about any other single doctrine like they do for those two points.
It reveals their priorities.