Could Mary have redeemed us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zro_x
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is something horrifying in the idea that Jesus did not actually have to die on the cross, but did so to show how much he loves us. Suppose you are a trained life gaurd. You see someone drowning in the pool, and jump in to save him. If your description of the redemption is correct, then a loving act would be to save the person but then drown yourself unnecessarily. No, it seems to me that Jesus must have* had *to die on the cross in order to redeem us.
God is infinite; he is not limited. It may be hard for you or I to comprehend, but by Jesus dying on the cross he gave us the greatest example of loving sacrifice we could possibly ever obtain. Sure, it was not necessary for God to do so, but He chose to.

I’d suggest posting a question the “Ask an Apologist” forum, as this question is one which is actually pretty deep.
 
common Catholic teaching is that it was necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself on the cross in order to save us from our sins. That wouldn’t be the case if God could simply wisk away original sin.
No, it is simply Catholic teaching that this is how Jesus did it.

God restored the covenant in numerous ways in the Old Testament (actually creating humanity (Adam), flood (Noah), giving a son in old age (Abraham), parting the sea (Moses), etc).

For the new and eternal covenant, God sent his son become human and die. This one out of an infinite number of option God could have chosen. God could have also chosen to not save us at all.
 
I would suggest for anyone who wants to read the classic and perhaps most significant treatment of this topic that he check out St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word of God. In it, he spells out the hows and whys of the Incarnation and redemption–and does not fall into the trap of substitionary atonement, which all to often colors even Catholic thought these days.

-ACEGC
 
I would suggest for anyone who wants to read the classic and perhaps most significant treatment of this topic that he check out St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word of God. In it, he spells out the hows and whys of the Incarnation and redemption–and does not fall into the trap of substitionary atonement, which all to often colors even Catholic thought these days.

-ACEGC
Does it bear a *nihil obstat * and imprimatur?
 
No, it is simply Catholic teaching that this is how Jesus did it.

God restored the covenant in numerous ways in the Old Testament (actually creating humanity (Adam), flood (Noah), giving a son in old age (Abraham), parting the sea (Moses), etc).

For the new and eternal covenant, God sent his son become human and die. This one out of an infinite number of option God could have chosen. God could have also chosen to not save us at all.
Yes, but because God is omnibonevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, A death on the cross was the best option God could have chosen. If there were a better option, God would have known about it and would have chosen that. There is something in Jesus’s suffering and death that make it the best possible option. It just doesn’t make sense that Jesus would have died on the cross if he could have simply wisked away our original sin without suffering and dying.
 
I would suggest for anyone who wants to read the classic and perhaps most significant treatment of this topic that he check out St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word of God. In it, he spells out the hows and whys of the Incarnation and redemption–and does not fall into the trap of substitionary atonement, which all to often colors even Catholic thought these days.

-ACEGC
What is substitionary atonement?
 
The natural follow-up question, of course, is, “If God allowed Mary to be conceived without Original Sin, then why wouldn’t He do that for everyone?”
I would suspect because Mary being conceived without Original Sin is important because of what it says something about Jesus.
 
First of all, we need to be careful about claiming what God would or would not do.

That being said, I always understood Original Sin to be something that we inherited from our parents all the way back to Adam. Since Mary was Immaculately Conceived, she was free from the stain and therefore could not have passed it on to Jesus. Furthermore, since Jesus’ Father is God, He could not have possibly inherited it that way, either. TBH though, this explanation seem a little legalistic and lacking in the “awesome power” department that God is so good at. 👍

The natural follow-up question, of course, is, “If God allowed Mary to be conceived without Original Sin, then why wouldn’t He do that for everyone?”

🤷 I know it’s not much of an answer, but see the quote from Isaiah. God does things in His own way, in His own time. Although, I believe this relates to the age-old question, “If God is perfect and can do anything He wants, why didn’t He create a world in which no one would ever sin?” The honest answer is that even the greatest minds of our (and all) times have struggled with this question. Hopefully we will know and understand all when we see God face-to-face. In the meantime, all we can do is hope and trust.
I didn’t know a lot about the idea of Immaculate Conception. So, I just did some research. I guess it was not accepted as Catholic dogma until 1854. The idea was rejected by Thomas Aquinas, and other prominent theologians. Is it a universally held view in the Catholic Church, or is it still subject to controversy?
 
I would suspect because Mary being conceived without Original Sin is important because of what it says something about Jesus.
Right. If God had to choose only one person to be without original sin, Mary would be the obvious choice. But there is no reason why he would have to stop at one.
 
Right. If God had to choose only one person to be without original sin, Mary would be the obvious choice. But there is no reason why he would have to stop at one.
He can do anything, so I suppose you are technically correct. But He is God, I’m sure there is a reason. I don’t think God did this randomly. To my best guess (and it is just a guess) I would suggest that it is because we aren’t Jesus. Everything about Mary is because of what it says about Jesus.
 
I didn’t know a lot about the idea of Immaculate Conception. So, I just did some research. I guess it was not accepted as Catholic dogma until 1854. The idea was rejected by Thomas Aquinas, and other prominent theologians. Is it a universally held view in the Catholic Church, or is it still subject to controversy?
Once it is pronounced dogma it is not subject to controversy.

Incidentally, the fact that it was not formally proclaimed dogma until a certain period of time is NOT an indication that it was not true, or not believed, or not proclaimed as a teaching of the Church.

To wit: the dogma of the Trinity was not formally proclaimed dogma until the 4th century. Yet that does not mean that it was not believed and proclaimed prior to that.

Ad hoc: the canon of Scripture was not formally proclaimed until the 16th century Council of Trent. We are not of the belief that it only came into belief at that time, but rather that it was part of the Sacred Tradition–part of the kerygma, given once, for all, to the saints.
 
No, because she was conceived without sin by the graces of her son’s death acting outside of time. It was Christ’s blameless death that protected Mary from sin.
I’m taking the RCIA classes and am trying to sort things out - what do we base this belief on - where does it come from? I understand the logic behind it, but I don’t know where the ideas originate from. Thanks so much for helping.
 
Redemption alone isn’t about a pure and spotless lamb being offered to God. Read “On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius and also the writings of St. Maximos the Confessor and the decisions of the Sixth Ecumencial Council. God taking the flesh of man has as much redemptive power in it as Christ’s death on the cross. Christ did not redeem us just by dying on the cross. That completed the picture but was only a piece of the puzzle of salvation. God becoming man was also part of the piece, as well as the Resurrection (death would have been for nothing if it did not have the Resurrection).
 
Yes, but because God is omnibonevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, A death on the cross was the best option God could have chosen. If there were a better option, God would have known about it and would have chosen that. There is something in Jesus’s suffering and death that make it the best possible option.** It just doesn’t make sense that Jesus would have died on the cross if he could have simply wisked away our original sin without suffering and dying.**
The sentence I bolded is the key here as to why you don’t understand yet, zro. God is a mystery. We do not understand everything He does.

Since He is not limited, he could have just forgiven us, if He chose to. But Jesus wished to show how great His love for us really is, by dying on the Cross instead.

The key here is to accept that you are only human, and can’t possibly comprehend the intentions of an infinite being. All the heresies were caused by men attempting to reason their way through the mysteries of the faith; and they have never succeeded.
 
I’m taking the RCIA classes and am trying to sort things out - what do we base this belief on - where does it come from? I understand the logic behind it, but I don’t know where the ideas originate from. Thanks so much for helping.
They emanate from the kerygma, swplan, which is what was proclaimed once, for all, by the Apostles.
 
They emanate from the kerygma, swplan, which is what was proclaimed once, for all, by the Apostles.
Kerygma means proclamation. I think you’re trying to tell me that the Apostles proclaimed these things in the time of the early church and it was passed to us through reliable hands… I think that’s what it is, but I’m not clear on it - is that right? I’m just trying to figure out how it is that certain conclusions are made.
 
Kerygma means proclamation. I think you’re trying to tell me that the Apostles proclaimed these things in the time of the early church and it was passed to us through reliable hands… I think that’s what it is, but I’m not clear on it - is that right? I’m just trying to figure out how it is that certain conclusions are made.
Kerygma is the Deposit of Faith given to us through Sacred Tradition.

One example is the canon of Scripture. Are you familiar with how the “conclusion” of what books of the NT came to be?
 
Kerygma is the Deposit of Faith given to us through Sacred Tradition.

One example is the canon of Scripture. Are you familiar with how the “conclusion” of what books of the NT came to be?
Some words are confusing to me. Kerygma literally means Proclamation, but through tradition it has come to hold a deeper meaning. ‘Testament’ is another word like that - Testament means a story, recalling, or a history, but through tradition, I’ve been told, it has gained additional meaning.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the formation of the NT… please enlighten me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top