Did Mary need a savior?

[CarlaOLS]

Well triple m - God love ya if you can wade through our myriad, indepth and lengthy responses, but one thing you should be able to discern, I hope is that Catholics have and can easily give “reason for the light with in us.”

Our love for Mary and the honor we give her as Jesus’ Mother is both personal and theologically sound.
But it is our personal relationship with our Mother that makes us so willing to bring others to love her.

Thank you Jesus for truly being our brother in sharing Your Mom with us!

 

[MarysGirls]

It looks like y’all have pretty much wrapped this thread up already, so I hope you don’t mind if I add one thought. Someone might have already said something like this, but I didn’t read all of the posts.
In answer to the question in the title:
Yes. Mary did need a savior, but this doesn’t mean she ever sinned. The Savior was the one who stopped her from sinning. I heard a preacher put it like this once: There’s a huge pothole in the middle of the road, but no one sees it. You’re walking along when suddenly you drop into this pothole. Luckily, Jesus was there to pull you up. Then Mary comes walking along, and she doesn’t see the pothole of sin either. But before she falls in, Jesus calls to her, warning her. She listens, and thus avoids sin, with the help of her Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[whm]

On the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity consider this.

Luke chapter one “the angel Gabriel was sent…to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph”

• Mary was engaged to Joseph

“Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son…But Mary said to the angel how can this be, since I know not (have no relations with) man”

• If she is about to be married why would she say this if she does not expect to remain a virgin??? It makes no sense for an engaged girl who hasn’t taken a vow a virginity to say such a thing.

 

[MarysGirls]

On the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity consider this.

Luke chapter one “the angel Gabriel was sent…to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph”

• Mary was engaged to Joseph

“Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son…But Mary said to the angel how can this be, since I know not (have no relations with) man”

• If she is about to be married why would she say this if she does not expect to remain a virgin??? It makes no sense for an engaged girl who hasn’t taken a vow a virginity to say such a thing.

:yup:

 

[mmmcounts]

On the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity consider this.
Luke chapter one “the angel Gabriel was sent…to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph”

• Mary was engaged to Joseph

“Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son…But Mary said to the angel how can this be, since I know not (have no relations with) man”

• If she is about to be married why would she say this if she does not expect to remain a virgin??? It makes no sense for an engaged girl who hasn’t taken a vow a virginity to say such a thing.

This does imply that she was not planning on having sex in the near future; it does not necessarily imply that she intended to abstain from sex forever. The angel’s message was one that carried a sort of immediacy, so Mary- knowing that sex is a necessary though insufficient thing for pregnancy- wondered how God would cause this to be. I suppose one acceptable answer would have been “Actually, not yet- wait a few weeks, consummate the marriage, and THEN you’ll get pregnant. I just wanted to give you plenty of warning.” Given the situation, though, another possibility would have been a more immediate pregnancy that did not involve sex- but Mary didn’t know how that would work.

And now I have one more question for you guys. Take a look at Luke 2, verses 22 to 24. Here’s what they say.

"And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

It doesn’t look like anything at first. But wait, let’s grab the cross reference. Away we go to Leviticus 12.

"And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."

Did you know Mary made a sin offering according to the Law of Moses? That would be a sin offering for her. In order that she could be forgiven of her sins. She went ahead and did it.

Now, I know the basic argument against the obvious conclusion: She did it so she wouldn’t freak people out. She did it to fit in. Essentially, she allowed a priest the privilege of making a sin offering for “the queen of heaven” in spite of her sinlessness rather than because of her sin.

It’s a bit like going to confession in spite of perfection rather than because of sin. The thing is, what do you say once you walk in the booth? As you imagine how this scenario plays out, you should begin to realize the truth: A sinless person does not have any good reason to be at confession, nor does a sinless Jewess have any business making sacrifices for sin as if she were a regular Jewish girl.

May I remind all of you of something? While this is the only time Mary is specifically recorded in the Bible doing a sin offering, it was almost certainly not the only time she did a sin offering. If she did it in order to “not freak people out” at this expected time following childbirth, I’m certain that she would have participated in the expected sin offering each month as required for Jewish women. She did the sin offering in Luke 2, so I am hard pressed to find a reason for why she would be inconsistent when faced with a remarkably similar situation every month.

While you’re thinking about how to respond to that, here’s the other little bit of this Catch-22: If, as you say, Mary was sinless…but, as we know from Luke’s Gospel she brought a sin offering for herself…is this not just a little bit deceptive? This becomes a much more serious problem for you if your reason (on her behalf) is insufficient to separate this event from all of the monthly demands for sin offerings, which put her in a very similar position. Can you really call Mary “sinless” if she spends her entire life allowing the priests to believe a lie?

So what’s the push-back from your end? Assuming that Mary was sinless (which has never been anything more than an assumption for anyone at any time), can you articulate a simple reason for why a sinless person would assent to an unnecessary sin offering? Can you do it without forcing Mary into deception, but still make it believable? And lastly, what do you do with all the sin offerings demanded of Mary once every month?

The only halfway decent response I can come up with at this point is one that emphasizes her uncleanness at the expense of the sin offering. That would probably be enough for you to continue believing Mary is sinless, but your best case scenario is one of “disaster averted.” The more you think about it, the harder it is to imagine how Mary could be sinless, participate fully in Judaism, and keep her sinlessness a secret from the priests. And the writers of the Gospels, of course. All without being deceptive. It’s a good thing those guys in southern Europe found out about it two generations after she died.

 

[Liraco]

This does imply that she was not planning on having sex in the near future; it does not necessarily imply that she intended to abstain from sex forever.

It also is no indication of her planning to do so (assuming you don’t believe her consecration to virginity as you do). So many non-Catholics seem eager to claim that she at one point was eager to build a large family. One would think that the Son of God would be more than enough family (not to mention enough to keep one’s hands full).

Did you know Mary made a sin offering according to the Law of Moses? That would be a sin offering for her. In order that she could be forgiven of her sins. She went ahead and did it.

Now, I know the basic argument against the obvious conclusion: She did it so she wouldn’t freak people out. She did it to fit in. Essentially, she allowed a priest the privilege of making a sin offering for “the queen of heaven” in spite of her sinlessness rather than because of her sin.

There’s this little word called humility. Just because we recognize Mary to be sinless, doesn’t mean she acted like she had nothing to worry about. That would be prideful and therefore sinful. Her every action was doing the will of God (being sinless necessarily implies this as sin is acting contrary to His will), this ALSO meant following “the law of the Lord”.

By what you’re saying then, we must also chastise Jesus because He went to baptism from John. Was He not also free from sin? Was He being a hypocrite as you accuse Mary of being? I’m not saying Mary is equal to Jesus BUT as the new Adam and Eve it only makes sense that BOTH are immaculate just as the original parents (if the original Adam and Eve were made immaculate, so too must the new ones unless you claim the New Testament figures to be inferior to the old).

Can you really call Mary “sinless” if she spends her entire life allowing the priests to believe a lie?

Oh no, these Jedi mind tricks will reveal the sham of my false faith! Unless we use logic:
Mary followed the law of the Lord because she is “the Lord’s servant” (Luke 1:38). As stated before even Jesus did such things unless you call Him a liar too. Jesus had not yet come to establish the new covenant and so Mary was doing what was just by following the current law.

can you articulate a simple reason for why a sinless person would assent to an unnecessary sin offering? Can you do it without forcing Mary into deception, but still make it believable? And lastly, what do you do with all the sin offerings demanded of Mary once every month?

I’ve answered this before but I’ll let Matthew 3:15 answer it:
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

Also please enlighten me, where does it say that the sacrifice is monthly? Here it only speaks of a period of purification which goes before the child’s circumcision.

The more you think about it, the harder it is to imagine how Mary could be sinless, participate fully in Judaism, and keep her sinlessness a secret from the priests.

The more mud I see people fling at Mary, the more I see that what the Church teaches is right. I think the best context for understanding this is if you can understand the “new Adam and Eve”. I just don’t see how one can claim God’s new creation to be inferior to the original when everything else about the New Testament teaches us that everything foreshadowed in the OT has a better counterpart in the new (the sacrifice of the lamb, baptism, etc.) Why make the exception for this one?

At least I hope you can agree the original question of this thread has been answered a million times over (hyperbole, which you also see a lot in scripture). I see no acknowledgment of the fact but anyone reading this cannot deny the fact: Mary DID need a savior.

Is it as hard to grasp for non-Catholics that Mary was **given **all these graces by God just as the Jews in those days couldn’t fathom the thought of the Messiah being God?

 

[Marian_Devotee]

Is it as hard to grasp for non-Catholics that Mary was **given **all these graces by God just as the Jews in those days couldn’t fathom the thought of the Messiah being God?

Excellent point, Liraco. It’s offensive and untruthful; however, I look at the converts (and reverts) to Catholicism who once had that thought process and now are deeply devoted to Mary.

 

[MarysGirls]

It also is no indication of her planning to do so (assuming you don’t believe her consecration to virginity as you do). So many non-Catholics seem eager to claim that she at one point was eager to build a large family. One would think that the Son of God would be more than enough family (not to mention enough to keep one’s hands full).

There’s this little word called humility. Just because we recognize Mary to be sinless, doesn’t mean she acted like she had nothing to worry about. That would be prideful and therefore sinful. Her every action was doing the will of God (being sinless necessarily implies this as sin is acting contrary to His will), this ALSO meant following “the law of the Lord”.

By what you’re saying then, we must also chastise Jesus because He went to baptism from John. Was He not also free from sin? Was He being a hypocrite as you accuse Mary of being? I’m not saying Mary is equal to Jesus BUT as the new Adam and Eve it only makes sense that BOTH are immaculate just as the original parents (if the original Adam and Eve were made immaculate, so too must the new ones unless you claim the New Testament figures to be inferior to the old).

Oh no, these Jedi mind tricks will reveal the sham of my false faith! Unless we use logic:
Mary followed the law of the Lord because she is “the Lord’s servant” (Luke 1:38). As stated before even Jesus did such things unless you call Him a liar too. Jesus had not yet come to establish the new covenant and so Mary was doing what was just by following the current law.

I’ve answered this before but I’ll let Matthew 3:15 answer it:
Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."

Also please enlighten me, where does it say that the sacrifice is monthly? Here it only speaks of a period of purification which goes before the child’s circumcision.

The more mud I see people fling at Mary, the more I see that what the Church teaches is right. I think the best context for understanding this is if you can understand the “new Adam and Eve”. I just don’t see how one can claim God’s new creation to be inferior to the original when everything else about the New Testament teaches us that everything foreshadowed in the OT has a better counterpart in the new (the sacrifice of the lamb, baptism, etc.) Why make the exception for this one?

At least I hope you can agree the original question of this thread has been answered a million times over (hyperbole, which you also see a lot in scripture). I see no acknowledgment of the fact but anyone reading this cannot deny the fact: Mary DID need a savior.

Is it as hard to grasp for non-Catholics that Mary was **given **all these graces by God just as the Jews in those days couldn’t fathom the thought of the Messiah being God?

 

[mmmcounts]

By what you’re saying then, we must also chastise Jesus because He went to baptism from John. Was He not also free from sin? Was He being a hypocrite as you accuse Mary of being? I’m not saying Mary is equal to Jesus BUT as the new Adam and Eve it only makes sense that BOTH are immaculate just as the original parents (if the original Adam and Eve were made immaculate, so too must the new ones unless you claim the New Testament figures to be inferior to the old).

I saw this one coming. First, let me clarify what I said and what I did not say. I have never called Mary a hypocrite or, under any circumstances, suggested that she would be a hypocrite given certain presuppositions. You are as familiar with the word’s meaning as I am, and you should know better. It does not belong in this discussion.

Second, I am not saying Mary would be a liar under these circumstances. “Deception” was the word of choice, and while a lie is deception, deception does not always entail the telling of a lie. This is what I did say: If Mary, though sinless, brought sin offerings to a priest on a regular basis and withheld information about herself that led him to believe she was sinful like everyone else, that would be deceptive. This is the difference between Mary being deceptive and Mary being a liar: That first example was deception without lying. This is an example of deception done by lying: Mary, though sinless, says to a priest “I am a sinner.” See the difference?

As for hypocrisy, I don’t know why you would bring that up. You obviously feel that Mary is under attack, so perhaps you’re imagining that I hate her and believe all kinds of nasty things about her. I think you brought up “hypocrisy” because you believe some false things about me.

Going back to Jesus, though- I saw this coming a long way off. John initially refused to baptize Jesus on similar grounds to what a priest would say if he knew he was supposed to make a sacrifice for sin on behalf of a sinless person: It doesn’t make any sense and he has no business doing such a thing. Jesus gave John an explanation, though, and John consented to baptizing him for reasons entirely different from anyone else he ever baptized. Because of this, Jesus was not deceptive. He provided an explanation, and John baptized him as he did with so many others- but for an entirely unique purpose. If Mary were truly sinless, this sort of explanation to a priest would have been her moral obligation. What sort of explanation do you suppose she gave in these situations? I don’t know of any evidence that she ever did such a thing, but if she did, I would imagine it was not well received. So how did she pull it off?

I realize these details of Mary’s life are the kinds of things that most Catholics would rather not examine closely. I think it’s because a careful investigation into the life of the “historical Mary” gets in the way of your veneration of the “mythical Mary,” though I’m sure most of you have very different opinions on the matter. Whatever the reason, if you would prefer not to examine such things, by all means abstain. If you do examine them, though, please try to do so in a rational manner.

Oh no, these Jedi mind tricks will reveal the sham of my false faith!

Here’s a good first step: Avoid this sort of sarcastic nonsense, you will.

Also please enlighten me, where does it say that the sacrifice is monthly? Here it only speaks of a period of purification which goes before the child’s circumcision.

The sacrificial requirements of the Law are mostly in Leviticus, as far as I know. Each time a woman has a baby, she becomes “unclean.” At a certain time after the birth, she is instructed to bring a sheep and a dove for two offerings, or, for poor people, two doves. (Mary brought two doves). One sacrifice is to make her ceremonially clean once again, and the other is a sacrifice for sin.

There are many other sacrifices, though, and this is not the only time a woman is required to do a sacrifice for sin. Every Jewish woman “became unclean” once each month (can you read between the lines here?) After their flow was over (does that spell it out for you?) the same sort of sacrifice was required: One dove to become ceremonially clean and the other, a sacrifice for sin. For women, the once-a-month “situation” was the reason for and occasion of the majority of sacrifices for sin throughout any given year.

That is why I asked what you suppose Mary did for the once-a-month sacrifice for sin. I have no doubt that she did these as well, but how did Mary avoid deception and also stay out of trouble with the priests and teachers of the law? It’s a tough little situation. The easiest solution to the problem is to simply say “Mary was a sinner. The problem goes away.” The easiest answer is not always the right one, but in this situation, I feel that Occam’s Razor does apply.

At least I hope you can agree the original question of this thread has been answered a million times over (hyperbole, which you also see a lot in scripture). I see no acknowledgment of the fact but anyone reading this cannot deny the fact: Mary DID need a savior.

Of course that question’s been answered. I’m the kind of person who explores a little further, though. My first follow-up was “How?” Then I asked for the details that allow the story to have internal consistency. Then I asked for details pertaining to external validity. Now I’m asking for more details concerning one of the primary results of the “Divine Grace” story: If the result was a sinless individual, how did this sinless individual navigate the sacrificial requirements of the Law without being deceptive?

 

[Ignatius33]

If Mary were truly sinless, this sort of explanation to a priest would have been her moral obligation. What sort of explanation do you suppose she gave in these situations? I don’t know of any evidence that she ever did such a thing, but if she did, I would imagine it was not well received. So how did she pull it off?

I might be off here, but I think there may be a fundamental problem to your line of reasoning here. You assume that Mary knew that she was sinless. I don’t think that is part of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (I could be wrong here – I can’t say I’ve ever read anywhere whether she was fully conscious of her sinlessness). The official teaching is that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin during her life. Was she aware of this special grace during her earthly life (or, at the least, at the time she gave the sin offering soon after Jesus’ birth)? I dunno, but I sort of doubt it. In fact, I think it would sort of be an arrogant presumption for any human to think that they were sinless (Jesus excepted, of course). Rather, I think it is pretty safe to conclude that Mary, in all humility, docility and obedience, made her sin offering, as would any humble, holy person. Her offering demonstrates her humility.

 

[Grace_Angel]

This does imply that she was not planning on having sex in the near future; it does not necessarily imply that she intended to abstain from sex forever. The angel’s message was one that carried a sort of immediacy, so Mary- knowing that sex is a necessary though insufficient thing for pregnancy- wondered how God would cause this to be. I suppose one acceptable answer would have been “Actually, not yet- wait a few weeks, consummate the marriage, and THEN you’ll get pregnant. I just wanted to give you plenty of warning.” Given the situation, though, another possibility would have been a more immediate pregnancy that did not involve sex- but Mary didn’t know how that would work.

And now I have one more question for you guys. Take a look at Luke 2, verses 22 to 24. Here’s what they say.

"And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

It doesn’t look like anything at first. But wait, let’s grab the cross reference. Away we go to Leviticus 12.

"And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."

Did you know Mary made a sin offering according to the Law of Moses? That would be a sin offering for her. In order that she could be forgiven of her sins. She went ahead and did it.

Now, I know the basic argument against the obvious conclusion: She did it so she wouldn’t freak people out. She did it to fit in. Essentially, she allowed a priest the privilege of making a sin offering for “the queen of heaven” in spite of her sinlessness rather than because of her sin.

It’s a bit like going to confession in spite of perfection rather than because of sin. The thing is, what do you say once you walk in the booth? As you imagine how this scenario plays out, you should begin to realize the truth: A sinless person does not have any good reason to be at confession, nor does a sinless Jewess have any business making sacrifices for sin as if she were a regular Jewish girl.

May I remind all of you of something? While this is the only time Mary is specifically recorded in the Bible doing a sin offering, it was almost certainly not the only time she did a sin offering. If she did it in order to “not freak people out” at this expected time following childbirth, I’m certain that she would have participated in the expected sin offering each month as required for Jewish women. She did the sin offering in Luke 2, so I am hard pressed to find a reason for why she would be inconsistent when faced with a remarkably similar situation every month.

While you’re thinking about how to respond to that, here’s the other little bit of this Catch-22: If, as you say, Mary was sinless…but, as we know from Luke’s Gospel she brought a sin offering for herself…is this not just a little bit deceptive? This becomes a much more serious problem for you if your reason (on her behalf) is insufficient to separate this event from all of the monthly demands for sin offerings, which put her in a very similar position. Can you really call Mary “sinless” if she spends her entire life allowing the priests to believe a lie?

So what’s the push-back from your end? Assuming that Mary was sinless (which has never been anything more than an assumption for anyone at any time), can you articulate a simple reason for why a sinless person would assent to an unnecessary sin offering? Can you do it without forcing Mary into deception, but still make it believable? And lastly, what do you do with all the sin offerings demanded of Mary once every month?

The only halfway decent response I can come up with at this point is one that emphasizes her uncleanness at the expense of the sin offering. That would probably be enough for you to continue believing Mary is sinless, but your best case scenario is one of “disaster averted.” The more you think about it, the harder it is to imagine how Mary could be sinless, participate fully in Judaism, and keep her sinlessness a secret from the priests. And the writers of the Gospels, of course. All without being deceptive. It’s a good thing those guys in southern Europe found out about it two generations after she died.

Hello mmmcounts, you have tried to make a hatchet job of our belief in the perpetual virignity of Mary, the Mother of the God.
Now following your logic, ( "can you articulate a simple reason for why a sinless person would assent to an unnecessary sin offering?) can I ask you why did Jesus need to be baptised? according to your reasoning and logic He must have been sinful and in need of cleansing too. If I understand baptism it is for the washing away of the Original Sin, and beginning of the sacramental/covenantal life of the people of God. So Jesus going towards baptism and allowing Himself to be baptised by another must mean (according to you) that He was unclean and needed cleansing waters of baptism.
I am glad its your logic and not mine.
GraceAngel.

 

[Candelora]

This is in response to mmmcounts, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity #105:

Your intellect is obviously alive but your heart is closed to God’s grace. You must open your heart not your mind. For listening to God through the heart is to hear is true voice, and the true voice of God tells us that Mary is the Immaculate and Forever Virgin Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The heresy you speak, was condemned by the church in the early centuries. St. Ambrose in particular stood in opposition to Jovinian and Bonosus in the late 300’s. The church has held Mary’s perpetual virginity as an article of faith since the council of Ephesus in 431.

The apology’s of the early church father’s came long before the Protestant “reformation” which instead of resulting in the needed reform, spawned instead a 30K arena of confusion, called denominationalism which in turn spawned pluralism, indifferentism and the ever growing secularism.

Accepting Mary for who she truly is to accept Christ for who He truly is; Our Lord and Savior. Everyone would agree that Jesus Christ is perfect and that includes His flesh. Jesus true God and true man became “flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14) and he took on His flesh from the flesh of Mary. Now, could the uncreated perfect God take on flesh from a woman stained with sin? This would mean that sin could exist in the body of God, therefore he would no longer be perfect, and that is an impossibility.

To accept Mary’s perpetual virginity is to love Mary as Jesus loved Mary and we are all called to live and love in the imitation of Jesus Christ.

May God bless you and send you His grace…

I will pray for you.

 

[Liraco]

@mmmcounts (is there some shorter name I can use to refer to you, brother?) First of all, my apologies for coming off as harsh and implying things you did not say. I also apologize for my sarcasm in trying to make a joke, it’s a bad habit I’m working on kicking.

If the result was a sinless individual, how did this sinless individual navigate the sacrificial requirements of the Law without being deceptive?

I believe she would have done the sacrifices prescribed by the law because she was obedient to God and all He commanded. The simplest course of action would be to continue doing these things like everyone was commanded to by the law (Occam’s Razor).

If, as Bishop Fulton Sheen once said “a nun’s confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn”, imagine what Mary must have been like because she had no sins. I don’t think she gave much thought about being sinless but rather, in her humility, she thought about being obedient to the end by following God’s will (which means taking part in all the rituals like every other good Jewish woman).

The key words: **obedience **and humility. I don’t think she deceived anyone by following the law, doing what God commanded first (Jesus was also an example of following the law until He fulfilled the old law). She didn’t deceive because she put God first. Deception here would seem to imply a sin, but if one *truly *follows His will then her actions cannot be a sin because sin is choosing to act AGAINST His will.

She was sinless but still had a free will which means that she continually chose to follow God’s will (she wasn’t a robot). Unlike the original Eve, this new Eve would overcome the previous figure of the OT with her obedience.

Speaking of Occam’s Razor, I find the simpler answer to be that Mary (the new Eve) was immaculate because the original Eve was immaculate. The reasons for that already explained in the previous post. The “simple answer” of Mary being a sinner becomes a lot more complicated if you think of Jesus as the new Adam (because then who is the new Eve and if the answer is Mary, why is she *inferior *to the OT figure?) If you want me to explain further though, let me know.

 

[mmmcounts]

I might be off here, but I think there may be a fundamental problem to your line of reasoning here. You assume that Mary knew that she was sinless. I don’t think that is part of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (I could be wrong here – I can’t say I’ve ever read anywhere whether she was fully conscious of her sinlessness). The official teaching is that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin during her life. Was she aware of this special grace during her earthly life (or, at the least, at the time she gave the sin offering soon after Jesus’ birth)? I dunno, but I sort of doubt it. In fact, I think it would sort of be an arrogant presumption for any human to think that they were sinless (Jesus excepted, of course). Rather, I think it is pretty safe to conclude that Mary, in all humility, docility and obedience, made her sin offering, as would any humble, holy person. Her offering demonstrates her humility.

It’s interesting that you bring that up. I’ve toyed with the idea of asking whether or not Mary knew she was sinless, but once I considered it I decided it would come across as a little too snarky. You know…snide, sarcastic, done only to irritate. I figured it was something that went without saying, and if I made any suggestions to the contrary, it wouldn’t be especially profitable (or defensible on my part). So it’s interesting that you suggest this. I did not really see that coming.

You have a point, though- there’s nothing official that says she knew (as far as you or I know, anyway). So yea, I did make a bit of an assumption. But it was an assumption based on what I figured was most consistent with Marian dogma in general. I probably should have asked first (something like “Did Mary know she was sinless?”), but I was relatively certain that the answer would have been “Probably yes; you should have known that.”

This exact question was covered on a different thread, btw. Here’s the link. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256682&highlight=did+mary+know+she+was+sinless

I think the person who made post number 7 brings up an excellent point: Mary calls God her savior. And this brings us right back to the OP on this thread: Yes, Mary did need a savior. She had a savior. She calls God her savior. But what does she mean by this? According to Catholic mariology, it means God saved her before she was born by giving her divine grace, preserving her from any lack of sanctifying grace throughout her entire life. If she was entirely unaware of that, her claim that “God is my savior” would not be substantially different from yours or mine.

That would certainly put you in a slightly (but only slightly) more awkward position when explaining this verse. You would have to say something like this: Mary meant to say God saved her from her sins like everyone else, due to the fact that she didn’t know any better. But the actual truth was that God saved her in a totally different way. She didn’t know it, but we do.

Somehow, I don’t think you really want to get in the habit of explaining it that way. There are at least a couple of other routes I could take to support my aforementioned assumption; this is just one of them. I hope it’s good enough.

Cheers.

 

[mmmcounts]

@mmmcounts (is there some shorter name I can use to refer to you, brother?) First of all, my apologies for coming off as harsh and implying things you did not say. I also apologize for my sarcasm in trying to make a joke, it’s a bad habit I’m working on kicking.

You could call me Mike if you want. I’ve responded to mmm, 3m, and “triple m” in the past, too. Thanks for being nice. And I want to thank you for the apology, though not in a way that implies that I was obviously deserving of it. It was nice of you to do so, but I wouldn’t have asked for it. It rarely comes across well when you actually demand an apology, but in this case it didn’t even cross my mind.

I believe she would have done the sacrifices prescribed by the law because she was obedient to God and all He commanded. The simplest course of action would be to continue doing these things like everyone was commanded to by the law (Occam’s Razor).

I agree. I didn’t really think about it until I noticed Biblical evidence of her actions in some cases, but now I’m thinking she probably did so in all cases.

If, as Bishop Fulton Sheen once said “a nun’s confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn”, imagine what Mary must have been like because she had no sins. I don’t think she gave much thought about being sinless but rather, in her humility, she thought about being obedient to the end by following God’s will

You know, I have imagined what Mary’s confession would have been like if she…somehow…reincarnated and was a Roman Catholic. (It’s quite silly, but just for the sake of comparative imagination). Now, I’ve never done a Catholic confession, nor am I super familiar with how that would go down. From what I do know, though (or what I think I know, at any rate), the traditional beginning to a confession sounds like this: “Bless me father, for I have sinned.” (That’s got to be right. Is that right? I hope so). Anyway, if it was Mary- assuming a sinless Mary, of course- she could not say that. It would not be true. So what would she say?

I don’t know if I can trust myself to come up with a serious answer. Everything I’m thinking of is only slightly funny, and it always seems to be at Mary’s expense. Ie.- “Bless me, father. You want to talk?” And seriously, if you’re a priest…what do you do? What do you say? It’s a flustering kind of situation. I would probably ask her “What are you doing here?” followed shortly by “You want to make a confession or not?”, but beyond that, I wouldn’t know how to handle it.

The key words: **obedience **and humility. I don’t think she deceived anyone by following the law, doing what God commanded first (Jesus was also an example of following the law until He fulfilled the old law). She didn’t deceive because she put God first. Deception here would seem to imply a sin, but if one *truly *follows His will then her actions cannot be a sin because sin is choosing to act AGAINST His will.

I think I’m going to have to find out more details about sacrifices for sin before I make too many more comments. I really don’t know exactly how it all works. There’s probably some traditional back-and-forth kind of stuff, but I don’t know what it is. My guess is that there was more to it than just wordlessly standing by while a priest kills an animal. I’ll try to find out in the next couple of days. If Mary could avoid making an overtly false statement during this process (something that compares well with "Bless me father for I have sinned), I don’t think I’ll have too much more to ask for here. I suppose I am a little curious to know what you think on the matter of “Did Mary know?” You said you don’t think she thought about it too much. Submit your opinion if it interests you; I’d welcome an evaluation of my opinion/assumption if you want, too.

She was sinless but still had a free will which means that she continually chose to follow God’s will (she wasn’t a robot). Unlike the original Eve, this new Eve would overcome the previous figure of the OT with her obedience.

So her situation was one of posse non peccare rather than non posse peccare. Interesting. This is opening up new lines of questioning. I guess the top two are these: One- In that kind of situation, how do you not think about it? And two- What was at stake if she had sinned?

Speaking of Occam’s Razor, I find the simpler answer to be that Mary (the new Eve) was immaculate because the original Eve was immaculate. The reasons for that already explained in the previous post. The “simple answer” of Mary being a sinner becomes a lot more complicated if you think of Jesus as the new Adam (because then who is the new Eve and if the answer is Mary, why is she *inferior *to the OT figure?) If you want me to explain further though, let me know.

Well done, sir. I can come up with a good answer that will take at least 3,000 characters and another hour or so of looking around the Internet. I can only give you the short version at this time. Briefly, the Protestant emphasis on this aspect of Mariology is on the fact that Eve was the first to sin, yet it is through Adam’s sin that the curse of sin entered the world. Eve ate first and gave the fruit to him, and yet it is through Adam “and his seed” that the curse of sin comes and stays. In the New Eve typology, “the New Eve” is responsible for bringing “the second Adam” into the world, and once again “Adam” gets all the credit for breaking the curse. The sin of the first Eve was not the sin that brought the curse; likewise, the sin of the second Eve does not change things either way…nor does her sinlessness, assuming that is the case.

I realize this is brief and incomplete. It does not answer all your questions. I will be back, though. See you in a bit.

 

[Ignatius33]

I realize these details of Mary’s life are the kinds of things that most Catholics would rather not examine closely. I think it’s because a careful investigation into the life of the “historical Mary” gets in the way of your veneration of the “mythical Mary,” though I’m sure most of you have very different opinions on the matter. Whatever the reason, if you would prefer not to examine such things, by all means abstain. If you do examine them, though, please try to do so in a rational manner.

Here’s a good first step: Avoid this sort of sarcastic nonsense, you will.

I feel that Occam’s Razor does apply.

One should be ultra cautious before using words like “mythical” – that is the language of skeptics and unbelievers. Unbelievers would say the same thing to you (and me) – a careful investigation of the “historical Jesus” gets in the way of our worship of the “mythical Jesus.” They would say that the Virgin Birth was also “mythical” and a fable.

When you begin using myth terminology, it sounds as if you don’t think God could have made Mary sinless – as if it is too ridiculous to have really occurred. Obviously, with God, anything is possible. And all of the Marian dogmas are rooted in God and his grace, not Mary herself. In fact, I don’t think that it is ridiculous or irrational to believe that Mary was sinless. After all, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both believed that she was sinless – and they are perhaps the two greatest Christian doctors to have lived after the apostolic era. If I’m wrong in my belief, I’m in pretty good company.

I’m trying not to nitpick; sorry if this comes across in that way. I respect that you believe that Mary was a sinner (presumably a common sinner just like anyone else – a belief held by no Church Father of which I am aware, by the way). And I’m not really trying to convince you otherwise (I’m just defending Catholic doctrine, which I believe to be true, in case others who are open to Catholicism or who are infirm in their Catholic faith happen to be reading this thread). The word “mythical” just turns me off because it sounds like a word that an atheist or agnostic would use, not a fellow Christian. That’s all.

 

[Liraco]

If she was entirely unaware of that, her claim that “God is my savior” would not be substantially different from yours or mine.

Well, Mike I too came to this conclusion of her knowing she’s sinless but I’m open to a different opinion from others. It makes sense though, at least with what I understand so far. As for her “not giving it too much thought”, this is just my opinion based on thinking that Mary is truly humble. To me, being sinless means you’re more attuned to following God because sin isn’t distracting you. She certainly gave thanks for the fact but don’t think she worried about her own status so much. She had more important matters like caring for the Son of God after all.

If you had asked before, I wouldn’t presume your question to be snarky as you obviously just want to delve further as questions crop up (as opposed to others who ignore arguments and continue pushing their own).

This is also why I find this back and forth interesting because they help me delve deeper into my own faith to find the answers to things I normally wouldn’t have thought of (and strengthening my faith in the process). So thank you for that.

the traditional beginning to a confession sounds like this: “Bless me father, for I have sinned.” (That’s got to be right. Is that right? I hope so). Anyway, if it was Mary- assuming a sinless Mary, of course- she could not say that. It would not be true. So what would she say?

It seems I implied her going to confession if she were here with us today, which was not my intention but is an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

First off, in English those words are what’s generally said but they’re not obligatory. Here in Mexico sometimes the priest just asks for our sins right away or starts off with: “Ave María purísima” to which we reply “sin pecado concebida”. Meaning: “Hail, Mary most pure”, “conceived without sin”.

Going to confession implies that you’ve sinned and are repentant (if you’re not repentant then you can’t really be forgiven). This, in my mind, would immediately keep Mary from going to the sacrament. If you want to follow this a bit further though:

Two possible scenarios:
1- She wouldn’t go to confession because she knows she’s done no wrong (remaining humble but also aware that she would be lying by going because she’s got nothing to confess).
2- Because of her humility, she goes to confession and asks forgiveness for things which aren’t even sins but in her mind she’s not happy about having done.
Scenario 2 might bring up a problem in my mind because that “repentance” would imply that she acknowledges she’s done wrong which is incompatible with sinlessness (you feel sorry when you know you did wrong). BUT… since she’s pure of heart and truly without sin, how are we to really get into that mindset of someone humble and sinless?

I would assume she wouldn’t go to confession in the first place. What would one consider “wrong” that doesn’t imply a sin? Perhaps thinking like a child with something along the lines of “I was clumsy and caused a vase to fall and break so I went to replace it immediately”. You’re not sinning, it was a mere accident but one can feel wrong about having done it. Again, this is only assuming one is so humble to the fact of thinking that they actually did wrong because of this.

As for the traditions and offerings Mary may or may not have done, I’ve found nothing on the matter myself. Seems like quite the uncommon question or I just need to look harder.

The sin of the first Eve was not the sin that brought the curse; likewise, the sin of the second Eve does not change things either way…nor does her sinlessness, assuming that is the case.

I’ll await your complete response on the matter. I still maintain though that it’s “simpler” to have both the new Adam and Eve be sinless like the original were (because if the OT is a shadow of the new, why would the shadow be greater in this one case?)

 

[Liraco]

----- continued -----

So her situation was one of posse non peccare rather than non posse peccare. Interesting. This is opening up new lines of questioning. I guess the top two are these: One- In that kind of situation, how do you not think about it? And two- What was at stake if she had sinned?

Personally I’m not sure if Mary’s situation was the one you suggest (able not to sin) as opposed to (unable to sin). We can discuss it later on if you want but I feel this will only take us away from the non-hypothetical questions like Mary as the new Eve for the time being.

This short Q&A answer might help us to consider sin and our will:

Augustine speaks of four conditions of the human will: posse peccare (able to sin),posse non peccare (able not to sin), non posse peccare (not able to sin), and non posse non peccare (not able not to sin).

In our redeemed but not yet glorified state we are still posse peccare (able to sin), but in our glorified state we will become non posse peccare (not able to sin). We will still, however, be able to choose freely to do all kinds of good things.

Consider an analogy: As creatures with legs, we can choose to walk many different places, but we cannot choose to fly. We do not have wings.

Suppose we were modified so that we also had wings. We could then choose either to walk or fly where we wanted. Now suppose we were modified again so that we no longer had legs. We could then choose to fly where we wanted, but we could no longer choose to walk there.

Something analogous happens with the functioning of our wills. When we were born and before God’s grace came into our souls at baptism, in theory we could choose to do all kinds of things. We could do them with one of three kinds of motives: naturally good motives, naturally evil motives, and supernaturally evil motives. We could not do things from a supernaturally good motive (e.g., out of unselfish love for God).

After God’s grace came into our souls, we became able to do things from a supernaturally good motive; yet we can still do things for the other three reasons as well.

At the end of this life, those saved will change again: We will possess free will to do what we want, but we will no more be able to choose to do evil than a legless creature could choose to walk or a wingless creature could choose to fly.

Perhaps Mary was unable to sin without needing to be glorified (because we’re already saying she’s quite the exception to the rules). Again though, we can discuss these hypotheticals later but don’t feel they’ll really get us anywhere because they’ll only be assumptions and little else. I’m more interested on staying on-topic with Mary as the new Eve and your thoughts.

 

[Liraco]

So her situation was one of posse non peccare rather than non posse peccare. Interesting. This is opening up new lines of questioning. I guess the top two are these: One- In that kind of situation, how do you not think about it? And two- What was at stake if she had sinned?

Mike, I just wanted to add (and correct my previous thoughts), in light of the Q&A post I put above and letting it settle in my mind for a bit, that I conclude that Mary was in fact unable to sin (non posse peccare).

Jesus was also unable to sin and yet was fully human, unless one wants to go down the slippery slope of implying that sin is a part of our human nature as opposed to a consequence of the fall (because then Jesus was not fully man due to his inability to sin). I’m sure that’s not what you think but I still felt it worth mentioning for others to see the consequence of such thoughts.

I mentioned free will and, if you read the quote in my post above, you can see that even if we cannot choose sin in heaven we’ll still maintain our free wills, but we’ll be unable to sin anymore (the animal analogy I think sums it up nicely). I would also think it rather incomplete for God to grant Mary the incredible Grace of having her born without the stain of original sin but still allow the possibility for her to choose sin because then He hadn’t truly saved her yet (Catholics hold she was saved from the moment of her conception).

It just makes sense that Mary would and could only choose to do good to follow God’s will and to be a proper “vessel” for Jesus (the new arc of the covenant, which again must be superior and not inferior to the OT shadow).

I’m sure some people feel that being able to only choose to do good is a limitation and not true free will but that to me stems out only from selfish thought and improper understanding. Choosing to sin is not at all “freeing” but rather enslaving, an interesting contradiction which many ignore or avoid because they’re already slaves. As we see in scripture, it’s only when we submit our wills to God that we’re truly freed from the shackles of sin, so being able to only choose good is actually true freedom.

 

[mmmcounts]

I probably don’t get on here often enough…I’ve left myself several things to respond to at once. I’m sorry that it all comes at once like this. It’s my fault for not staying on top of it.

One should be ultra cautious before using words like “mythical” – that is the language of skeptics and unbelievers. Unbelievers would say the same thing to you (and me) – a careful investigation of the “historical Jesus” gets in the way of our worship of the “mythical Jesus.” They would say that the Virgin Birth was also “mythical” and a fable.

Myth is different from history- not because myths are necessarily untrue, but because they are stories that do not come from sources who were witnesses to the subject matter of the stories. This is a more precise definition of “myth”:

“a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.”

The stories about Jesus’ life cannot rightly be called “myths” because they are not “traditional stories” in that sense. They are eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus- “history” would be an appropriate term. Things like the Virgin Birth actually occupy an entirely different category; this is a matter of divine revelation. The only part of the Bible (that I can think of) that can rightly be called “myth” is the creation myth. Again, calling it a “myth” does not necessarily mean it is “made up” or “untrue.” However, it is a traditional story passed on via oral tradition for thousands of years until it was written down in the Torah. That is precisely why Genesis 1-3 is poetic in nature. That is how the story survived via oral tradition. I realize it’s a little disconcerting to refer to something from the Bible as “myth,” but you know as well as I do that it wasn’t an historical account. Nor was it something given to Moses in a vision via divine revelation. It’s the Hebrew creation myth, and I don’t think we do ourselves any favors when we refer to it as anything else.

Back to Mary, though: With regard to sources such as the Protoevangelium of James, many of the ECF’s very likely regarded it as an historical account. They probably believed- for a time- that James actually wrote it. James did not write it, though, and what it amounts to is a collection of traditional stories about Jesus and Mary that tell us something about how people in southern Europe regarded them (especially Mary). They did not come via historical eyewitness accounts, nor did they come by way of divine revelation. They are traditional stories accepted by many as history. These are Marian myths, as told in Europe. That does not necessarily mean they are lies, nor does it mean none of it is true. However, they are rightly regarded as “myth,” and it’s certainly not appropriate to pin the totality of your faith on an entirely unexamined myth.