Could Mary have redeemed us?

[PRmerger]

Some words are confusing to me. Kerygma literally means Proclamation,

Right. But in a religious (Christian) context it means the deposit of faith.

Just like bible literally means a library of books. But we all know what we mean when we talk about the bible.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the formation of the NT… please enlighten me.

What is your understanding of how it was decided what books belong on the NT?

 

[De_Montfort]

Mary is a creature, all that She has is from God.

Mary in no way could redeem us only Jesus Christ God and man redeemed us all including Mary (Mary was redeemed in a higher fashion at her Conception).

Mary is infinitely inferior to Her Son who is God.

Mary is a perfect way to Christ

Only Christ could redeem us.

 

[runningdude]

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.

In scripture, the Angel Gabriel describes Mary as the one “Filled with Grace”. Who is the source of all grace?

 

[zro_x]

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.

Is this Catholic dogma, Catholic teaching, or personal speculation?

The key here is to accept that you are only human, and can’t possibly comprehend the intentions of an infinite being.

True, but what’s the harm in considering possibilities? This?:

All the heresies were caused by men attempting to reason their way through the mysteries of the faith; and they have never succeeded.

That’s true, but most of our Catholic theology was brought about by people who were also trying to reason their way through the faith.

 

[virtuoustressa]

Please post scriptures indicating Mary was without sin. This has troubled me. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Please post scriptures indicating Mary was without sin. This has troubled me. Thank you.

Firstly, tressa, you’ll have to offer us Catholics the verse that states that everything we believe about our faith has to be found in the Bible.

Otherwise, what you are asking us to do is something that is not supported by the Bible.

 

[geekborj]

This was asked in another forum fairly recently, but I can’t seem to find it and the question seems philosophical enough to put here.

As Mary was free from sin, if she had died on the cross, would she have atoned for the sins of humanity?

An infinite sin, cannot be ever atoned by a finite life no matter how perfect (where does human perfection comes anyway but from the Perfect himself), but only Life himself. I think it logically follows that the true God would be that Love himself that will offer his Life as a sign of his infinite Justice and infinite Mercy at the same time!

Nevertheless, there is a missing link in the statement “as Mary was free from sin, if she had died on the cross…”. Notice that it is our catholic Faith that tells us that Mary was actually saved from the stains of the Original Sin and from having personal sins in view of the DEATH of the SON OF GOD. Thus, how can she be free from sin in lieu of her dying on a cross?

The catholic Faith is clear: Only through the Cross of Christ that we can be saved. His Body and Blood is the only Way, Truth, and Life.

 

[zro_x]

Nevertheless, there is a missing link in the statement “as Mary was free from sin, if she had died on the cross…”. Notice that it is our catholic Faith that tells us that Mary was actually saved from the stains of the Original Sin and from having personal sins in view of the DEATH of the SON OF GOD. Thus, how can she be free from sin in lieu of her dying on a cross?

If Mary were able to make the redeeming sacrifice (and the posts on this thread have convinced me that she was not), God would be able to effect the consequences of this sacrifice in a time before the sacrifice was actually done, so he would be able to make Mary sinless because of the sacrifice she had made, which could be made because she was sinless…:whacky:

I know it sounds circular, but it is already what we believe about how Jesus was able to die on the cross, only one step removed. Mary was without original sin because Jesus died on the cross for her. Jesus could die on the cross because he had no original sin. Jesus had no original sin because he didn’t inherit it from his mother.

I doubt that Jesus’s human nature was without original sin because God just whisked it away from him, as some posters have claimed. If God could do that, then a death on the cross would not be necessary, and I’m pretty sure that the church teaches somewhere that Jesus’s death was necessary for human salvation. I know that various theologians hold that position. In any case, it would be pretty horrible if Jesus died unnecessarily to somehow give us a sign of his love.

note that I do not intend, in any way, to limit God’s omnipotence beyond the limits already attributed to him. That is to say, it must be logically impossible, for whatever reason, for there to be any better way to salvation then the one provided. I hope that clears things up for everyone.

 

[runningdude]

If Mary were able to make the redeeming sacrifice (and the posts on this thread have convinced me that she was not), God would be able to effect the consequences of this sacrifice in a time before the sacrifice was actually done, so he would be able to make Mary sinless because of the sacrifice she had made, which could be made because she was sinless…:whacky:

I know it sounds circular, but it is already what we believe about how Jesus was able to die on the cross, only one step removed. Mary was without original sin because Jesus died on the cross for her.** Jesus could die on the cross because he had no original sin. Jesus had no original sin because he didn’t inherit it from his mother.
**

Incorrect, Jesus had no original sin because he was God, and thus inherently sinless.

I doubt that Jesus’s human nature was without original sin because God just whisked it away from him, as some posters have claimed. If God could do that, then a death on the cross would not be necessary, and I’m pretty sure that the church teaches somewhere that Jesus’s death was necessary for human salvation. I know that various theologians hold that position. In any case, it would be pretty horrible if Jesus died unnecessarily to somehow give us a sign of his love.

note that I do not intend, in any way, to limit God’s omnipotence beyond the limits already attributed to him. That is to say, it must be logically impossible, for whatever reason, for there to be any better way to salvation then the one provided. I hope that clears things up for everyone.

Jesus did not have to die on the cross. God could have chosen any method whatsoever to save humanity. God could have also chosen NOT to save humanity at all. However, the Father chose to sacrifice his Son on the cross as an eternal symbol of the covenant with humanity. He did this to symbolize his infinite love for his creation - No Greater Love is This, to Lay Down One’s Life for His Friends.

 

[PRmerger]

I know it sounds circular, but it is already what we believe about how Jesus was able to die on the cross, only one step removed.

Yes. Only one step removed. But it’s one INFINITE step removed. As has been pointed out, the difference between Mary and the rest of humanity is finite. The difference between Mary and the Godhead is infinite.

 

[zro_x]

Incorrect, Jesus had no original sin because he was God, and thus inherently sinless.

That means that God simply created Jesus’s human nature without original sin, without the necessity of a death on the cross. And that means that Jesus’s death wasn’t really necessary.

Jesus did not have to die on the cross. God could have chosen any method whatsoever to save humanity. God could have also chosen NOT to save humanity at all. However, the Father chose to sacrifice his Son on the cross as an eternal symbol of the covenant with humanity. He did this to symbolize his infinite love for his creation - No Greater Love is This, to Lay Down One’s Life for His Friends.

I would argue that there is a greater love: to lay down one’s life for his enemies. but I digress. Obviously Jesus’s death on the cross was somehow the best possible method to save humanity. If there were a better method, God would have chosen that. And to lay down one’s life for one’s friends unnecessarily isn’t loving, it’s horrific. If laying down your life somehow helps people, then it is good. As I said before, it makes no sense for a man to say to his wife “I love you” and kill himself to show that love. Love isn’t the lowering of oneself, but the raising of others. An example of love would be if the man stepped in front of a bullet for his wife.

 

[PRmerger]

That means that God simply created Jesus’s human nature without original sin, without the necessity of a death on the cross. And that means that Jesus’s death wasn’t really necessary.

Right. If God existed without humanity, an atoning death isn’t required.

But when sin entered the picture, some sort of payment was required. Justice demands that.

 

[PRmerger]

I would argue that there is a greater love: to lay down one’s life for his enemies. but I digress.

You need to understand the universe of discourse–that is, to whom Jesus was addressing.

When he spoke of giving one’s life for one’s friends, he was speaking to…well,…his *friends.
*
That’s why he didn’t include enemies in that comment…

Obviously Jesus’s death on the cross was somehow the best possible method to save humanity. If there were a better method, God would have chosen that. And to lay down one’s life for one’s friends unnecessarily isn’t loving, it’s horrific. If laying down your life somehow helps people, then it is good. As I said before, it makes no sense for a man to say to his wife “I love you” and kill himself to show that love. Love isn’t the lowering of oneself, but the raising of others. An example of love would be if the man stepped in front of a bullet for his wife.

You are correct. It was utterly, indubitably, sickeningly and wondrously necessary.

 

[epan]

…

I would argue that there is a greater love: to lay down one’s life for his enemies.

…

What do you mean by this? Do you have a hypothetical or real example of what you are talking about?

 

[zro_x]

What do you mean by this? Do you have a hypothetical or real example of what you are talking about?

I mean that it is much harder to lay down one’s own life for the people that persecute you. But that is exactly what Jesus calls us to do. In fact, it’s what Jesus did.

 

[runningdude]

That means that God simply created Jesus’s human nature without original sin, without the necessity of a death on the cross. And that means that Jesus’s death wasn’t really necessary.

As I said.

I would argue that there is a greater love: to lay down one’s life for his enemies. but I digress. Obviously Jesus’s death on the cross was somehow the best possible method to save humanity. If there were a better method, God would have chosen that. And to lay down one’s life for one’s friends unnecessarily isn’t loving, it’s horrific. If laying down your life somehow helps people, then it is good. As I said before, it makes no sense for a man to say to his wife “I love you” and kill himself to show that love. Love isn’t the lowering of oneself, but the raising of others. An example of love would be if the man stepped in front of a bullet for his wife.

Jesus did not ‘kill himself’; he was unjustly executed for blasphemy. He was accused of claiming to be God, and execution would have been a just sentence - except his claim was true. The people of ancient Palestine killed him on behalf of all humanity. He died, asking God to “Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing” - he did in fact die for his enemies!

Jesus’ death on the cross is not supposed to make you feel good. It is supposed to disgust and repulse you. Our Lord and God came down to Earth to save us, and we nailed him to a cross and left him to die.

What is amazing is that Christ forgave us. He used his death to share his body and blood with us in the Eucharist. He used his death to triumphantly march with his human soul into the newly opened gates of heaven to retake his thrown, and allowed us to follow him into his kingdom.

Christ did “step in front of the bullet” for us. He experienced death, so that we might have life.

 

[zro_x]

As I said.
Jesus did not ‘kill himself’; he was unjustly executed for blasphemy.

yes, perhaps there is a better analogy. suppose a man is running for his life through a cave. there is an angry mob running after him. He knows that if he goes too much farther down the shaft, the mob behind him creating such a ruckus would cause a cave in at a weak point in the cave. He would get out safely, but the mob would all die. So, the man decides to stop running and let the mob catch up to him, sacrificing his own life to save theirs. It is a horrible death to be sure, but that makes the story all the more touching.
Now suppose that the man sees another shaft off of the main cave. If he runs down this more stable shaft, there will be no cave in. He would escape, and no harm would come to the mob. (this more stable shaft is the possibility of God simply wiping away original sin) However, the man decides that, since he loves the mob so much, He is just going to let them catch up to him and kill him, when he could save both his own life and theirs. The death that was before touching is now extremely repulsive.

If God were able to simply wipe away our original sin, then Jesus came down to earth to die had no positive effect whatsoever. it did not enable god to wipe away original sin, because he had that ability all along.

Therefore, one must conclude that the side shaft in the cave does not exist. For whatever reason, either it isn’t possible for God to wipe away original sin without a death on the cross, or the consequences of doing so are somehow even worse than that death.

Christ did “step in front of the bullet” for us. He experienced death, so that we might have life.

if Jesus’s death on the cross wasn’t the best option, then the man stepped in front of a bullet when he knew that his wife had a bullet-proof vest. touching the first way. ridiculous and terrible the second.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary needed a savior more than all of us for She truly believed in the Communion of God. Mary as a believer brought forth Communion with God, pretty sure the Cross put an end to Death. As She believed so it was, and this was Her Salvation. Communion with Jesus Christ.

 

[runningdude]

If God were able to simply wipe away our original sin, then Jesus came down to earth to die had no positive effect whatsoever. it did not enable god to wipe away original sin, because he had that ability all along.
…

if Jesus’s death on the cross wasn’t the best option, then the man stepped in front of a bullet when he knew that his wife had a bullet-proof vest. touching the first way. ridiculous and terrible the second.

Original sin is only part of the equation. Original sin is not necessarily enough to bar one from heaven. Unbaptized infants meet an uncertain fate, trusted to God to be saved by some unknown means. It is actual sin which condemns, and Mary was free from actual sin only because she was actively filled with Grace from God. Adam and Eve were free of original sin, but were condemned for actual sin. Jesus Christ, being God, was filled with his own Grace.

I also never said that dying on the cross was not the best option, just that is was not the only option. As I said, God had the option to not save us at all.

God alone is the arbitrator of life and death. Your mob in the cave analogy doesn’t take this into account. God can decide that it would be time for the lives of the members of the mob to end, and he would be perfectly justified. God the father can decide that his son in the form of man must die, and be perfectly justified in doing so.

God is the author of the human soul, and wants the human soul to remain in communion with himself. Perhaps he’d cause the cave to collapse on the mob, because it would be better for their souls to die than to kill the man they were chasing.

Jesus Christ told Pontius Pilate, that he could ask his father to send 10,000 angels to save him, and it would be granted. Jesus Christ prayed in the garden, sweating blood, praying to his father that a better way be found, but humbly submitted to his father will.

Jesus Christ was unjustly executed according to human law. Hundreds of agents of free will actively sought his execution, or passively watched it happen. God the father could have intervened and saved his son, but that would be an act of favoritism according to human law. Don’t we as common people complain when Senators or celebrities use their influence to protect their families from the law? By becoming human, Jesus submitted himself to human law.

God the father could have punished humanity, barring us from heaven for all time, and been perfectly justified in doing so. He barred Satan and the fallen angels for all time, and was perfectly justified. Instead, God the father used his son’s unjust death to save humanity.

Perhaps, if we didn’t nail the son of God to a tree, God the father would have granted us with salvation using a non-bloody method anyways. God the Father raised Elijah directly to heaven, proving salvation can occur without the cross. However, it doesn’t matter what could have been, but what has been done; in humanity’s darkest hour, God showed mercy.

 

[runningdude]

In less than 24 hours, we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior. Our God, being all knowing and all powerful, foresaw the unjust death of his son, but sent him to save us anyways. Advent is a penitential season leading up to Christmas, as we are called to reflect on the sins we committed, that led to our loving Lord’s conception and birth.

To maintain the solemnity and festivity, I will not be responding until after the holidays.

Merry Christmas!