Could Mary have redeemed us?

[runningdude]

Agreed. But there is no stipulation that I’ve read of that exclaims how this freedom from blemishes comes about. I say that it was because of his own death on the cross, you say that it was because he had a second nature which was divine. It doesn’t seem like either of us can back our claims with Catholic teaching, however, so until one of us provides some sources, I think we’re to the point where we’re just going to have to agree to disagree in this area.

On the contrary, I have only been defending the logical necessity of Christ’s absolutely sinless nature. You had not asked for explicit references.

To quote from the Catechism (Chapter 2, Article 3)

470 “…The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin…”

"479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word."

"The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.“132”

Paragraph 482 in particular, states that the two wills are united perfectly. Original sin disorders the human will towards God. By necessity, there could be no original sin.

Paragraph 479 states that Christ did not loose his divine nature. How could sin enter his person through his human nature?

Paragraph 470 state explicitly that he became truly man in all ways except sin. It does not state he had to be protected from sin, with Mary in paragraph 490.

That answer doesn’t really apply in this case. I was asking you whether **you **thought that the purpose of Jesus’s life on Earth was to die on the cross, or whether you thought that Jesus’s death was something God allowed to happen, and used it later as a sign of a new covenant.

It is both.

 

[zro_x]

On the contrary, I have only been defending the logical necessity of Christ’s absolutely sinless nature. You had not asked for explicit references.

To quote from the Catechism (Chapter 2, Article 3)

470 “…The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin…”

"479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word."

"The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.“132”

Paragraph 482 in particular, states that the two wills are united perfectly. Original sin disorders the human will towards God. By necessity, there could be no original sin.

Paragraph 479 states that Christ did not loose his divine nature. How could sin enter his person through his human nature?

Paragraph 470 state explicitly that he became truly man in all ways except sin. It does not state he had to be protected from sin, with Mary in paragraph 490.

Almost all of these point to the fact that Jesus was free from all sin, original sin in particular. I agree, but that isn’t the issue I’m primarily concerned with. I’m concerned with how Jesus is free from sin. Only one item from the above list addresses that issue:

Paragraph 470 state explicitly that he became truly man in all ways except sin. It does not state he had to be protected from sin, with Mary in paragraph 490.

In the first place, paragraph 490 doesn’t even explicitly state that Mary was protected from sin. More importantly, though, an absence of a particular Catholic dogma doesn’t mean we should immediately believe in its opposite. You can’t build an argument from what the catechism* doesn’t* say; you have to build your argument from what it does.

It is both.

It can’t be both. Either Jesus became incarnate in order to die on the cross, or else he became incarnate for some other reason, and allowed himself to be killed as one way among many to redeem our sins. The difference it makes is that if you choose the former, than there is something about Jesus’s death on the cross which atones for our sins in a way that nothing else can. If you choose the latter, then the cross is nothing more than a symbol of a covenant. Jesus’s death on the cross is only redemptive because God said so.

BTW, I have my own evidence from the chatechism that it is the former:

607 The desire to embrace his Father’s plan of redeeming love inspired Jesus’ whole life, for** his redemptive passion was the very reason for his Incarnation.** And so he asked, “And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.” And again, “Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” From the cross, just before “It is finished”, he said, “I thirst.”

 

[Ion]

…because God said so.
…

There you start to get it. Everything that there is came into being by his Word.

 

[runningdude]

There you start to get it. Everything that there is came into being by his Word.

I concur. Indeed, the whole world exists only because God said so.

 

[runningdude]

It can’t be both. Either Jesus became incarnate in order to die on the cross, or else he became incarnate for some other reason, and allowed himself to be killed as one way among many to redeem our sins. The difference it makes is that if you choose the former, than there is something about Jesus’s death on the cross which atones for our sins in a way that nothing else can. If you choose the latter, then the cross is nothing more than a symbol of a covenant. Jesus’s death on the cross is only redemptive because God said so.

BTW, I have my own evidence from the chatechism that it is the former:

Jesus Christ became incarnate to save the world. He anticipated his death, and embraced it. However, the fault for his death is not his own. Jesus Christ was blameless.

Almost all of these point to the fact that Jesus was free from all sin, original sin in particular. I agree, but that isn’t the issue I’m primarily concerned with. I’m concerned with how Jesus is free from sin. Only one item from the above list addresses that issue:

470 is the relevant quote. The rest is just context. It is illogical that Christ could be the perfect sacrifice if he had to redeem himself to be the perfect sacrifice. Instead, we are taught that he became like us in all ways except sin. He was, by nature, sinless.

Personhood is separate from one’s nature. Humans are persons with a nature that is flesh and spirit. Angels are persons with a nature that is spirit. God the father has a nature that is divine, as does the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is unique, in that from the moment of the Annunciation, he became a person who nature is divine, flesh and spirit (481).

Original sin is only a weaken human nature. Christ, being divine, has no weakness. He simply added flesh and spirit, sans sin! His flesh and soul, his human nature, were granted at his conception. Conception is the moment he became man. We are taught that he had no sin as a man, and thus had no sin from the moment of his conception.

Compared to to the description of Mary’s immaculate conception, this is significant.

In the first place, paragraph 490 doesn’t even explicitly state that Mary was protected from sin. More importantly, though, an absence of a particular Catholic dogma doesn’t mean we should immediately believe in its opposite. You can’t build an argument from what the catechism doesn’t say; you have to build your argument from what it does.

I was rushed that morning, and did not provide an adequate summary quote regarding Mary. Paragraph 491 is more explicit.

" …491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135… "
source

The catechism clearly teaches that Mary was without sin, original or actual, from the moment of her conception, because she was redeemed through the combined efforts of the Father and Son. The fact that the Son was without sin is presented absolutely. There is no teaching that he redeemed his own human nature.

Because of divine protection, Mary is a unique exception (492), explicitly stated to be contrary to the general rule that human persons inherit original sin. Her son is a divine person, and thus not subject to the general rule. (He is a unique case, even among divine persons!)

Admitted, this is deduction from explicit teaching regarding the subject, rather than a presentation explicit teaching of the subject.

 

[zro_x]

The catechism clearly teaches that Mary was without sin, original or actual, from the moment of her conception, because she was redeemed through the combined efforts of the Father and Son. The fact that the Son was without sin is presented absolutely. There is no teaching that he redeemed his own human nature.

Because of divine protection, Mary is a unique exception (492), explicitly stated to be contrary to the general rule that human persons inherit original sin. Her son is a divine person, and thus not subject to the general rule. (He is a unique case, even among divine persons!)

Admitted, this is deduction from explicit teaching regarding the subject, rather than a presentation explicit teaching of the subject.

It has occured to me that you may be right that Jesus did not have to die on the cross to redeem his own human nature, though not for the reasons you provided.

Since we inherit original sin from our parents, Jesus’s human nature had no original sin anyway. In fact, it would seem that anyone, whether devine or not, would have been free from original sin had they been born of Mary and would not have needed direct redemption unless they had comitted their own personal sins.

I’m kind of surprised that I didn’t make this connection earlier.

 

[zro_x]

For His holiness would destroy the body of a sinner, as the Ark of the Covenant’s holiness was too much for humans to handle in ancient Israel.

Mortal sinners occasionally partake of the eucharist, but they don’t burst into flames or desintegrate.

 

[runningdude]

It has occured to me that you may be right that Jesus did not have to die on the cross to redeem his own human nature, though not for the reasons you provided.

Since we inherit original sin from our parents, Jesus’s human nature had no original sin anyway. In fact, it would seem that anyone, whether devine or not, would have been free from original sin had they been born of Mary and would not have needed direct redemption unless they had comitted their own personal sins.

I’m kind of surprised that I didn’t make this connection earlier.

I was aware of that connection, but I chose not to present it because there is a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg problem. If Jesus were only free of original sin because his mother were free of sin, then he would still be responsible for his sinlessness because he saved his mother. If his mother were saved by the cross, then Jesus’ death on the cross saved his own humanity. But then his humanity was a perfect sacrifice on the cross only because he was sinless!

I think Mary’s sinlessness is symbolic, to remove any doubt of Jesus’ perfected human nature, but not a necessary condition. It is her gift for the suffering she bore, watching her innocent son suffer and die unjustly.

 

[PoorKnight]

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, but in a discussion on this topic with a fundamentalist friend, while the idea that the perfect sacrifice had to be God, the kicker that really caused him to pause was not that. It was something much more simple. I know this won’t have much play here but it’s something else to be considered:

The Lamb had to be male: Exodus 12:5.

God Bless