Did Mary need a savior?

[mmmcounts]

I’m quite curious then. What is YOUR response to the Muslim who asks why can’t God just forgive us all of everything?

I refer to a verse in Proverbs that says this: “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” This takes us back to those “rules even God has to play by”- God can’t do something that’s an abomination. That’s why God can’t just straight up forgive people. Jesus had to come and die for us in order for that to happen. If a Muslim depends on God to do something that’s an abomination to Him, that Muslim waits in vain. That is why Jesus says “No one comes to the Father except by me” and “If you do not know me, you do not know the Father. He who has seen me has seen the Father” (those last two are paraphrases). You get the point, though: You must rely on Jesus to be forgiven, and God can only forgive you if you do it that way. The other “possibility” is not a viable option.

I’d respond this: He DOES forgive everything so long as we repent, those who are unforgiven are so because they CHOOSE to be unrepentant. That is the unforgivable sin, ultimate impenitence.

So…the Muslim repents 5 times a day. He doesn’t believe in a Trinitarian God, but Allah would probably correspond best to the Father. You’re saying he’s forgiven by the Father even without the Son? What about the stuff Jesus said concerning this?

You bring up the point of why Jesus needed to be crucified. If He didn’t die for us, would we really be able to grasp the incredible love that God has for us? For giving us His only Son, and dying for us?

I’m working my way through a book called “50 reasons why Jesus came to die.” There are many reasons why Jesus came to die, but I think the one I mentioned earlier is the only one that applies directly to Christian-Muslim dialogue. Incidentally, the Muslim concept of “love” in the you-God relationship looks like this: Your love for God equals obedience (and not really anything more) while God’s love for you equals “mercy” (aka “not smiting you”). If you’re going to bring that into the hypothetical conversation, you have to take some extra steps down the path labeled “What Is Love” (baby don’t hurt me).

We did nothing to earn or deserve such a perfect sacrifice and yet He did it because He loves us that much.

I agree.

God didn’t HAVE to create us

But he very much desired it. I think that’s why He did it.

didn’t HAVE to die for us to give us eternal life

Um, wait a minute. He didn’t have to die for us, but that decision would have resulted in the “eternal life” thing going right off the table for us. So Jesus actually did have to die for us “in order that” we could have eternal life. That was the only way. And once again, it was because of His deep desire for us- incidentally, the desire was that NONE should perish, but that’s where we run into “rules even God must play by” and “lack of viable options.”

God CHOSE to do all this just like He CHOSE to do that one special and unique grace for His mother! Again, it’s all about choice which is an incredible gift He gives us.

And this is where we bump into it again. God desires a perfect relationship with every human being in His creation. If this were a viable option, He would have done that for every single person because this is something that God desires very much. But it’s not a viable option, so it doesn’t happen. That’s it and that’s all.

If you’re going to question why God can choose to do one thing and not do it for all at once then you have to begin with “why we weren’t made unable to sin in the first place”?

Probably something to do with free will. Granted, God created angels (though a third of them exercised free will wrongly at one point…and then I guess angels and demons alike all lost their free will. Curious, really). But when God created humans, his desire was was to created something in the image of God (unlike angels, if I’m not mistaken) who would have the freedom to choose between life with God and death apart from Him. This may be something that’s fundamental to the Imago Dei. I’m not sure. It’s a possibility. Granted, sin itself is not fundamental to the Imago Dei- that’s exactly how you know its state is one of brokenness (at some level). But the choice thing…that may very well be fundamental.

I should then clarify my statement with:
"God can do all things that are possible(Matt. 19:26) This does not mean that God is not omnipotent; it means only that his power does not negate itself."

I agree with that statement. As you can tell, I’ve already added that God’s decision making process is guided both by what He desires and by what is possible. We agree that a sinless life in perfect communion with God is quite nice, and God certainly desires it. We don’t agree on whether or not it’s possible.

Quite honestly, though, I don’t really know how you can say “God very much desires it” and also say “God didn’t desire it that much for anyone else- only for Mary.” So is this something God desires? If it’s really up to a divine coin flip in all other cases, does God really prefer an assuredly sinful life to an assuredly sinless life in perfect (and I mean perfect) devotion to Him? According to your story logic, God had both options on the table for everyone else and chose the “assuredly sinful” option in every case except Mary’s. Why would God desire that option more than the “sinless and perfect” one? If I were you, that wouldn’t sit too well.

God certainly has power over His creations, because otherwise you’d have to ask HOW is He going to give us glorified bodies and make us unable to sin… if He can’t do it at all?

I would say the inheritance is promised and preserved in heaven by God through faith before works are done, you would say through faith after works are done. Either way, it’s faith in the saving (and finished) work of Jesus on the cross. In order to go to the place prepared for you, though, you have to go there (a=a kind of logic). You can’t go there unless you die. You can’t have two bodies at once, so you need to get rid of one before going on to the next one (“can’t be in two places at once” sort of logic).

Logic actually does make sense to God, you know. He may operate supernaturally, but He also operates logically.

If you say that this is possible, then why is it impossible for Him to do it NOW?

Asked an answered. A=A, can’t be in two places at once…there’s other ways of stating the obvious, but those are the first that come to mind.

To be continued.

 

[mmmcounts]

Continued.

God is outside of the bounds of time so it’s not like there’s a “timer” limiting His abilities. Why will it be possible but not now?

God may be outside the bounds of time- though our understanding of that may differ slightly- but we are not. That’s about it.

Your point of contention is if it was done to Mary then why aren’t we all born like this. Simply because it’s God’s will and all a part of His salvific plan.

God did what He did because that’s what He did, and that’s what He planned on doing. Is that really the extent of your explanation?

God wanted to have the most worthy mother for Jesus, which is why He gave her that gift which she didn’t earn

Ah, good. A reason for why God did it for Mary. He wanted her to be “the most worthy mother.” Why then would God look at those same options for everyone else and decide the “perfect and sinless” one was no good and He wanted the “assuredly sinful, possibly damned” option instead? Did He do that so Mary would look better by comparison?

You’ve chosen to answer the relatively easy question: Why would God do a very nice thing for Mary? It’s really quite simple: He’s a very nice God. But there’s a more difficult question on your plate: Why would a really nice God decide not to do that really nice thing for everyone (actually, anyone) else?

Of course, the question for me is this: Why would a very nice God decide not to do a very nice thing at all? I think you know the answer: That very nice thing was not a viable option. It was not possible. And my answer has a certain sense of consistency that yours necessarily lacks.

This is where you answer the question on why we’re not born sinless.

God’s desire for humanity was that we have free will. This is a great gift that He gave us. It is possible that this is somehow fundamental to being God’s image-bearer. I rather like the possibility.

I’ve already stated that He can do anything possible. The question is then: why bend/break the rules for Mary?

I wouldn’t ask that question. I would ask “Did God bend/break the rules for Mary?” and quickly say “No.” Then I wouldn’t have any reason to ask the question you’re asking right now.

But if you’re going to consider “breaking”, what do you make of Jesus

As we discussed earlier, the Curse was credited to Adam and passed through him- Eve only gets the “assist,” just like Mary only gets the “assist.” Jesus was not under the Curse for obvious reasons. Joseph was not his father.

That shows us that God CAN make exceptions without really breaking His promise (or is there some loophole for Jesus I’m unaware of?)

If you want to call “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” a loophole, be my guest.

We’re all born with the stain, and only Mary was given the gift of being born stainless just like Jesus BECAUSE of Jesus.

Not just like Jesus. She was not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Let’s suppose though that it’s still not enough for you to accept that Mary could have been given a sinless state without her saying yes. What happens to babies killed who are yet unable to really will anything?

They haven’t had the opportunity to “say yes,” it’s true. But they also haven’t had the opportunity to sin. Assuming a fetus has an eternal soul (which you don’t necessarily have to do), I don’t think it’s done anything to deserve eternal separation from God. If you’re curious, I’m not entirely certain that a fetus does have an eternal soul, and my uncertainty has nothing to do with distress over what happens assuming they do. I do believe it’s human life that should be protected, but I’m not entirely sure exactly when that human life has an eternal future to worry about. I’m relatively certain you’re going to say “at conception,” but then what do you do with all the zygotes that are conceived but fail to implant? That’s what happens two thirds of the time, you know. About one third of sexual activity resulting in conception leads to implantation. Two thirds of the time, a woman conceives, the zygote fails to implant, and the zygote gets flushed out of her system just like an egg does every month. She can’t even tell the difference. (Both are basically microscopic). If a human life possesses a soul right at conception, that’s a whole lot of little microscopic souls- and a ton of unmourned microscopic deaths. I don’t know if I buy that.

We don’t know for sure but we can speculate that perhaps God grants the child the ability to make his choice.

Who speculates that? I haven’t heard that before.

We’ve said Mary was saved before the fall instead of after so then perhaps God asked Mary right at the very beginning of her existence if she’d say yes.

God asked Mary if all this was cool with her when she was a zygote? Or is it more likely that He waited until she was a blastocyst? Surely it was sometime in the first trimester. And I suppose God miraculously gave her largely unformed brain the ability to comprehend something of this magnitude, got the answer, and then removed that ability from her posthaste.

If you can’t tell yet, I think that’s ridiculous. He exists outside of time, remember? He didn’t have to ask. He knew.

Here though, we introduce again the possibility for her saying “no” again (an incomplete gift) and that’s a problem because God has no “plan B”, He makes no mistakes, and yet it all works in conjunction with His respect of our free wills.

God didn’t have to use Mary. He could have used someone else. But He was able to choose Mary (and know she’d be obedient) because He has foreknowledge. In that respect, God does indeed “operate outside of time.”

It’s a bit like when God asked Noah to build an ark. God could have used anyone, but He knew that Noah would be obedient (which obviously did not require him to be immaculate). So he chose Noah and his family. If they’d said no, we won’t build an ark, would the human race have been lost? Would God have been without a “plan B?” It’s a question that doesn’t really need to be asked, because God doesn’t need any plan B’s. He knows what’s going to happen, and He can get it right the first time if that’s what He needs to do.

It’s kind of funny how I compare Mary to Noah whereas you compare her to the Ark. I suppose you would have to compare her to inanimate objects, though- any (mere) human you’d compare her to would necessarily be sinlful. Maybe that’s why a lot of people throughout history have refused to do that- they feel that Mary is without comparison among women and among all people. In that sense, I suppose you do have a higher regard for Mary than I do. I’m all right with it, though, because I feel that this sort of regard is inappropriate.

Oh, well. So it goes.

 

[mmmcounts]

Perhaps not a scholar but I just heard Karl Keating (this site’s founder) give an answer on this same subject (concerning only the initial sacrifice but still the same question).

That’s very helpful. Thank you very much.

Here’s the answer to deception (specifically on the sacrifice of the two doves, one which was a sin offering).
-She lived in a community so people knew her obviously. Fulfilling the law is not a sin and even if you considered it “deception” it’s nowhere near the sin that would have been caused by SCANDAL (which you see condemned quite heavily in scripture). Scandal is why Jesus also paid taxes despite being beyond the law and fulfilled everything proper.

I think this answer makes more sense if Mary only does it once; it doesn’t make as much sense if Mary “avoids scandal” once each month for her entire life. You know how it is with “little” venial sins- if enough of them pile up, it becomes a mortal sin. You never know exactly where, but that’s what happens if you’re not careful. Thus, even if Mary’s deception was only a “light sin,” she’d be in some sort of serious trouble if she kept it up for her entire life. But if that’s the case…ironically enough, I guess it’s a good thing she did those sacrifices for sin on a monthly basis.

I must also disagree with calling SCANDAL sin, because Jesus caused quite a bit of scandal without sinning. Sure, there are plenty of sinful things that cause scandals, but there’s also quite a few other things that cause scandal without being sinful- for example, telling the truth at a time or place where it’s uncomfortable for the recipients. And you know what they say about this, uh…how do you say, “la discomfort.” If you seek to avoid it at all costs during this life, odds are good you’ll have plenty of it in the next. I guess you could describe it as a correlation that is both inverse and negative.

-Mary similarly would have done what any other mother of a new born would have done at the time, not because she was under pain of sin but it made sense to fulfill the strictures of the law even though some of them would not have been applicable. Just like the sin offering doesn’t imply Jesus was a sinner (or that He needed original sin efaced from His soul), it doesn’t imply Mary was one either. If she didn’t have sin, she was not deceiving because she was following the law of Moses…the only alternative is scandal.

I’m ok with scandal. Here’s the thing, though: We don’t know everything about Mary, but there sure isn’t any evidence of such a scandal. Perhaps the really scary thing about this “scandal” alternative is the fact that Mary doesn’t appear to have done it? Oh, one more thing: I’m not entirely sure on this, but I’m relatively certain that the sin offering was always for the benefit of the woman. It wasn’t like an infant baptism. I’ll have to check on that, but I think that’s right.

-Everyone would have expected her to go to the temple to perform the ceremony. Had she not, what’s she gonna tell them? “I was immaculately conceived, I don’t need to do this”? Nobody would have understood (and who knows just what horrible things they would have done, calling her a liar, blasphemer, etc.)

I should probably respond to that question: What’s she gonna tell them? I will suggest “the truth.” Assuming she was sinless, she had no other choice.

You know, the decision of “Whatcha gonna tell 'em?” carries on today. What should a Catholic tell the rest of the world about this? Just go ahead and say “Mary was immaculately conceived, she never sinned?” Those non-Catholics and non-Christians aren’t going to understand. They’ll say you’re a liar, maybe a blasphemer, possibly accuse you of worshiping Mary or some crazy nonsense like that. Does God really want you to go through all that? Maybe you should just follow Mary’s example and drop the whole doctrine. It’s more trouble than it’s worth. God doesn’t want you to cause scandals. It says so…somewhere. I’m sure it’s there implicitly.

I kind of wish there was a “tongue in cheek” smiley. This would be the time to use it. Instead, I’ll give you an example of a time when scandal is a good thing. cqod.com/index-10-24-07.html

You make it sound like the Jews would have gone easy on Mary, but scripture shows us just how bad most of them were in those times (like the woman they were going to stone to death).

Was that directed at me or at someone else? I suggested that they probably wouldn’t have asked the Romans to crucify her, but it would not have been a pleasant situation. Maybe she would have been forced to hang out with the mentally unstable people. Or the lepers. Or even worse…the Samaritans. Ewwwhhhwww. If she did those kinds of things, she would have been forced to live a bit like Mother Teresa. How awful.

I doubt they would have stoned her, though. They found that chica in bed with another dude- they actually say they “caught her in the act.” (Isn’t it a sin to be a peeping Tom? Throwing it out there). I can’t fully grasp the concept of what determines the “stoneability” of a sin, but I think Mary’s scandal scores a bit lower than that.

-If you want to think of it this way (I’d rather not as I hold she didn’t sin), then deception is far less worse than scandal in the grand scheme of things.

I think a scandal would have been more unpleasant for Mary, but deception would have been infinitely more sinful. Perhaps not infinitely…scandal (provided that its sole cause is telling the truth) has a sin value of zero, so I guess the sin value of deception divided by zero could also be called undefined. Back to the point, though: Since when did Jesus ask people to be obedient and stop sinning but only as long as it wasn’t too painful, difficult, or scandalous?

Anyway, I hope Karl’s perspective helps. I’m not expecting you to believe but I do hope you can understand my views on this so far as I try to see yours (it seems like it so far, even if we disagree).

It does help. I’m sure I won’t conclude that Mary is sinless, but I think I really need to seek disconfirming evidence in order to avoid intellectual dishonesty. Bit by bit, this is what I do.

I would think that if the new Adam was perfectly obedient, and Mary is also obedient as you state, then wasn’t she sinless? If one is fully obedient to God they cannot sin quite simply because that’s the opposite of sin.

Lots of people were obedient to the point where it “got the job done,” yet they were certainly not immaculate. Noah, for example, was obedient in saving the human race (who else has done that?) We know he was quite sinful, though- he proved this within hours of landing the Ark. He, like Jesus, saved the human race by being obedient to God. Does that mean Noah had to be sinless? You know the answer is no.

 

[mmmcounts]

-----continued-----

I don’t fault you for having such a low view of Mary, but you’re saying that for the new Eve to surpass the old, practically no real effort was required because of how badly the Eve screwed up. Hardly “superior”, more like “not bad” by your own admission.

Relative to your view of Mary, I’m sure mine is low. I don’t want to put her below anyone else, though- just a bit lower than the alternative view of her. I’m not saying it was easy. I’m also not denying that she was blessed. I’m just saying she’s not above all others. She’s in the mix with all the other people who were faithful and obedient, but she’s not “far and away better” than all of them. She has peers. I don’t think of her as “Peerless Mary,” and I think you do.

I think that God gave them every chance to succeed but knew that they would fail. Again, this goes with my “no plan B” idea that God doesn’t make mistakes and that it’s all ultimately for something greater than what we can ever conceive.

Agreed, but I do think God makes decisions that make sense. We can’t always make sense out of them, but sometimes we can- and it’s worth it to try. In this case, I believe it makes sense on these grounds: As good as the Garden of Eden must have been, heaven is better.

Indeed we see God give them the warning and give them so much and yet they choose against Him (same goes for the devil and who knows why he rebelled).

Pride. I’m still not sure why the devil and the other angels had the ability to rebel, though. It seems that they’ve lost this ability. I’m pretty sure it’s not happening anymore, at any rate.

True, but you almost seem to be saying that they were “rock bottom” so Mary could have been a horrible sinner and still be “superior” because it doesn’t beat what they did (of course assuming she converted and repented of those sinful ways like Paul, for example).

Heaven is absolutely saturated with horrible sinners. Isn’t it great? I know it would feel kind of funny to venerate Mary in the context of her being a sinner like everyone else, but you manage to venerate much worse sinners than her. Do you venerate Augustine? Dude, he was awful. Sure gave Paul a run for his money for the “chief of sinners” title. You even look at some of the more contemporary examples: Remember the personal stuff from Mother Teresa that came out after her death? She was a troubled lady. I can’t bring myself to venerate someone, but I know you can- and I’m pretty sure you can be aware of a person’s faults, feel for them in remembering their struggles, and know that they’ve set an example of “what not to do” on a number of occasions…but still have a great deal of respect for them and show them the honor they deserve.

Sinlessness is something that despite being broken WILL be restored though.

When and how? I’m not sure I follow exactly what you’re saying.

I’m certainly no expert in ancient greek, and just focusing on this could forma separate thread but I found: *The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”).*You don’t always have to be an expert in ancient Greek because the translating’s already been done for you. Check the current version of the NAB. It says “highly favored one.” Look near the front and it will tell you it was translated using the oldest available Greek texts. Check out the New Jerusalem Translation. It says something about a favored person. The one that says “highly favored daughter” is from the 1970 translation of the NAB. I have a physical copy of that one, courtesy of my grandpa. It was sitting in an old box somewhere for the last 14 years or so…he had every different kind of bible. He probably bought that before I was born. I found it about a week ago.

Anyway…that’s just a couple of examples, but you’ll find that any translation from Greek to English says “something favored something.” The only way you get “full of grace” is if you start with “grátia pléna.” You do not get there when you start with “κεχαριτωμένη.”

As for the word “χαριτόω,” the only other place this participle is used is in Ephesians 1:6- “to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the beloved.” So I guess you’re full of grace, too. You going to draw the same conclusions from this verse, or just admit that it’s a bit of a stretch made all the more ingrained by a Latin hymn?

I grant you that she didn’t HAVE to be immaculate, but again, if she was immaculate it was because of the dignity of her son

.In what way would Jesus’ dignity be affected by Mary’s sinfulness or lack thereof?

The Burning Bush is also seen as a symbol of Mary who carried God within her womb. Like the bush not burned by the flame, Mary who had God present within her was not consumed. The consuming fire would have destroyed anything impure and yet Mary was intact.

The burning bush was not pure, sinless, and immaculate. Of course, it’s an inanimate object, so I suppose it never did sin. One more inanimate object we can compare Mary to, I guess. God protected it from being burned, just like He protected sinful men from other things somewhat similar to this- most notably priests with temple stuff.

You say the ark is a holy object itself, but was it holy because of the material it was made out of? Was that gold holy before being used? Or is it because of what it came to contain and its purpose?

Yea, there’s this one place where you dig gold out of the ground and it kills you. It’s dangerous prospecting in those parts. Always have to wear gloves.

So too Mary is not holy on her own or just because of herself but because of God

(who made her immaculate to be more worthy of carrying the Son of God).I think you just talked yourself right out of the Immaculate Conception. According to this line of thought, wouldn’t it make more sense for Mary to be made holy and consecrated at or just before the time of the Holy Spirit causing her to conceive? In this example, Mary’s immaculate conception is roughly analogous to the deadly golden nuggets. Scald her mother from the inside out, it would. (I’m not entirely serious, of course. I like to play around sometimes).

 

[mmmcounts]

Des bring up a good point which I think is interesting in regards to God “breaking His promise”. It’s true that the Church holds that it was by Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross applied to Mary before her conception that she was saved (God is outside of time so this certainly falls into the realm of possible.)

Again to be clear, you state “it’s not a viable option” and yet I submit to you the idea that while I agree with you about “limits” (see previous posts), God CAN do anything that’s possible.

In heaven we will immaculate and unable to sin, therefore it’s possible for God, therefore God can do this, therefore God could have done this for Mary.

You seem to imply the limitation until “after death”, yet Jesus had not yet died and was born sinless (remember, though divine He is also fully human which we cannot separate from Him).

Said it once before, I guess I’ll say it again. I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord.

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary who was not conceived by the Holy Spirit but instead by a man who was her father. You know the rest.

 

[Liraco]

So…the Muslim repents 5 times a day. He doesn’t believe in a Trinitarian God, but Allah would probably correspond best to the Father. You’re saying he’s forgiven by the Father even without the Son?

Just like the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn protestants to hell who hold false beliefs (like: “believing in Jesus is all you need no matter how bad you are”, to which your links make a reference against), we don’t condemn Muslims if they’re honestly following God to as best they can without knowing the gospel. HOWEVER, this also means that if they do come to know and reject the gospel then they’re making their choice against Him. In other words, he wouldn’t be condemned in the case of invincible ignorance, but all his repentance will avail nothing if he chose to reject the truth (almost always done in selfishness, as opposed to humbly accepting he was wrong in what he believed).

Jesus actually did have to die for us “in order that” we could have eternal life. it was because of His deep desire for us- incidentally, the desire was that NONE should perish

True, but my point is that God wasn’t forced into anything. He chose to do all these things which would of course imply having to die for us to fulfill that desire.

But it’s not a viable option, so it doesn’t happen. That’s it and that’s all.

If only it were so easy to answer something and just “shut the door” to any further questions or arguments. That would be very handy, but then we wouldn’t have gotten this far.

Probably something to do with free will.

I thought you agreed that we’ll be made unable to sin and still retain out free will in heaven. So the question would still stand, “why weren’t we made like that to begin with”?

We are given this life to make our choice, angels cannot die and so we don’t really know exactly how “long” they were given to make said choice but theirs became permanent just like our eternal destiny will be permanent. “Free will” implying freedom to sin in heaven isn’t freedom, and thinking this would imply we can switch between heaven or hell after our judgment.

I would say the inheritance is promised and preserved in heaven by God through faith before works are done, you would say through faith after works are done. Either way, it’s faith in the saving (and finished) work of Jesus on the cross. In order to go to the place prepared for you, though, you have to go there (a=a kind of logic). You can’t go there unless you die. You can’t have two bodies at once, so you need to get rid of one before going on to the next one (“can’t be in two places at once” sort of logic).

I hope you’re not making the “works salvation” claim on Catholics.

I see I may have implied Mary to have a glorified body during her life, which is incorrect. Being made sinless is not exclusive to a glorified body though. Adam & Eve were initially sinless and not glorified. Jesus was sinless and had to die to be in His glorified body, and so too Mary was glorified at the end of her life, not before.

Logic actually does make sense to God, you know. He may operate supernaturally, but He also operates logically.

I’d be almost offended at what’s implied (your tone seems to have changed overall), but I agree. Yet it seems then, we can’t agree on what we think is “logical”.

To be continued in a separate post

 

[Liraco]

God did what He did because that’s what He did, and that’s what He planned on doing. Is that really the extent of your explanation?

More like: if you question why this was done, why are you questioning God’s plan? I’m sure you can at least agree there’s a lot we don’t understand the full consequences of.

God’s desire for humanity was that we have free will. This is a great gift that He gave us. It is possible that this is somehow fundamental to being God’s image-bearer. I rather like the possibility.

Precisely what I’m asking you on the matter of “free will”. We will one day have free will and be unable to sin, so why not from the beginning?

I think you’ve got a point on making us all like that as “not a viable option”, I just contend that it was possible for a very specific reason which you don’t seem to want to wrap your head around (the possibility that God could grant this but didn’t because it serves a greater purpose this way).

Truth is though, I don’t know all the answers, neither do you. We’re not God. This is not a “cop-out” but rather something that I feel bears stating. I am trying to answer what I can to the best of my ability but I’m no genius, no theologian, and barely what you could consider an apologist. So I’m sorry if some of my answers seem insufficient. I hold these things in faith to be true, even if they can’t all be explained properly. True understanding is the Holy Spirit’s job, not mine. Whatever small answer I give I pray to the Holy Spirit to give wisdom to the reader, in spite of any errors I may have.

I would ask “Did God bend/break the rules for Mary?” and quickly say “No.”

I agree He didn’t break the promise or the “rules”. It’s just that you seem to have a notion to know them all. When Abraham would sacrifice Isaac, he didn’t question but was obedient. I too am doing my best to be obedient despite not knowing the full extent of what His actions are (which to me includes making Mary immaculate in this life as opposed to the next, and no one else but Jesus).

Jesus was not under the Curse for obvious reasons. Joseph was not his father.

Correct. As St. Augustine said: But Christ didn’t wish to have a human being as a father, to avoid coming to mankind by means of carnal concupiscence; he wished, however, to have a human being as a mother.
Joseph was not the biological father, but Mary was the biological mother. If she was a sinner however, would it still not imply her having the stain of original sin? Then…

If you want to call “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” a loophole, be my guest.

Not a loophole but definitely shows that God CAN conceive someone without the stain (especially if you think of Mary as a sinner). Jesus is, after all, fully human too and yet did not inherit the curse.

Not just like Jesus. She was not conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

True, but then you seem to imply God is out of the process of generating new life. I’m not equating Mary’s birth to Jesus, but that God certainly shows the ability to create an immaculate human.

Assuming a fetus has an eternal soul (which you don’t necessarily have to do)

I have to, because I’m not going to dehumanize a human life to make abortion “ok”. All life is precious, even a teeny tiny one.

then what do you do with all the zygotes that are conceived but fail to implant? That’s what happens two thirds of the time, you know.

I’m sure that’s only “inconvenient” to some. (Read the next part).

If a human life possesses a soul right at conception, that’s a whole lot of little microscopic souls- and a ton of unmourned microscopic deaths. I don’t know if I buy that.

Well I “buy it” because we need to pray for all. Just like it’s wrong to do an “auto-canonization” at a funeral saying someone’s in heaven and forgetting to pray for them (what for, right?)

Just because that’s a whole lot of souls, does that make it wrong? Then what about those that are naturally aborted at a much later stage? They’re more visible losses, and certainly more painful. Perhaps it’s precisely to spare many from the pain of so many babies lost (God grants us children and in this case is saying it’s not the time for a new child in the world). Imagine if we were aware of every single loss, how parents would be devastated.

The “easy way out” would be to think they’re just not human at all and we shouldn’t worry about them. On the “chance” that they are indeed humans with souls, ignoring them seems awfully cold. God is the author of life, so I don’t think one can see this as cruel.

The fact is that at the moment of conception we have an entirely new being, with its own DNA (“its” only to avoid “his/her”), with all of its characteristics already decided, and we assume that the soul is what animates this life (“anima” is soul after all). Life can be lost at any point, even at a seemingly “insignificant” one.

-----continued-----

 

[Liraco]

Who speculates that? I haven’t heard that before.

1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

I’m sure you haven’t heard it much because it’s just that “speculation”, and not really important as we simply trust in God to save those children with the stain of original sin who did not commit personal sin. This was just brought up to illustrate another possibility.

God asked Mary if all this was cool with her when she was a zygote? Or is it more likely that He waited until she was a blastocyst? Surely it was sometime in the first trimester. And I suppose God miraculously gave her largely unformed brain the ability to comprehend something of this magnitude, got the answer, and then removed that ability from her posthaste.

You called me on my attitude, now I call you on yours. Intellect has nothing to do with brain size, angels have none and theirs is greater than ours. I did not expect mockery from you, but again, your overall tone seems to have changed now.

He didn’t have to ask. He knew.

Glad we agree on the fact that there’s no “plan B”, but Mary was not forced, she accepted by her own free will.

It’s a bit like when God asked Noah to build an ark. God could have used anyone, but He knew that Noah would be obedient (which obviously did not require him to be immaculate).

True, and I’m not saying that was the reason she was immaculate at all if that’s what you imply. Again, it’s not because of anything she did or would do but what God wanted for His mother.

they feel that Mary is without comparison among women and among all people

Well my comparisons to “inanimate objects” ring true even if you don’t want to see it. But let’s go with a human being then despite their being sinful, since you asked. It’s a tad long to summarize but it’s in regards to Mary’s queenship being biblical. The person is Bathsheba.

Briefly:
-It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request. [like we turn to Mary, who asks but is not the one who grants things]
-Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).
-Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.
-Elizabeth greets Mary with the title “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title “Mother of my Lord” was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as “my Lord”; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.
-Revelation 12: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. Individuals often symbolically represent collective groups. The woman in Revelation 12 should be understood as both an individual (Mary) and a symbol for the people of God.

. In that sense, I suppose you do have a higher regard for Mary than I do. I’m all right with it, though, because I feel that this sort of regard is inappropriate.

I can understand the idea of not wanting to elevate Mary to something she’s not (which we don’t do), but your regard for her seems disturbingly low for a figure who “all generations will call blessed”. You make it clear that you think anyone could have taken Mary’s role, but in going with the “no plan B” idea, it’s clear that it was Mary who was meant for the role of mother of the Messiah.

 

[Liraco]

I think this answer makes more sense if Mary only does it once; it doesn’t make as much sense if Mary “avoids scandal” once each month for her entire life.

Indeed, and though you speculate on her actions, we only see it done once.

even if Mary’s deception was only a “light sin,” she’d be in some sort of serious trouble if she kept it up for her entire life.

Well on sticking with “she cannot sin”, I don’t think she deceived at all. We don’t know for sure to what extent she realized her sinlessness (at least knowing she didn’t sin), but the fact that one is unable to sin means that any action is not a sin because it’s in obedience to God. Again, if she did anything that you judge as deceiving, she was doing in obedience to the law and not a selfish reason.

I must also disagree with calling SCANDAL sin, because Jesus caused quite a bit of scandal without sinning.

Thing is, scandal isn’t a sin in itself, and you misunderstand the word.
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

Mary’s scandal may have led others to sin: “she says she’s sinless and I spend more time at the temple, I do more good works, I follow every letter of the law… so then I too am sinless and shouldn’t lie with offering sacrifice, because I am holier and so too sinless”. Sounds stupid but so is all sin.

Jesus’ “scandal” wouldn’t lead people to sin if they followed his examples. His baptism was perhaps scandalous to John but didn’t lead him to sin. Making people uncomfortable with the truth isn’t really scandal in the sense the Catechism or my implication of Mary’s is using.

It’s not the same to cause you “scandal” by saying Mary was born sinless, than it is to cause scandal by attending a gay wedding and giving the wrong impression to others that I’m saying it’s ok (and some would go further and think Catholicism says it’s ok).

We don’t know everything about Mary, but there sure isn’t any evidence of such a scandal. Perhaps the really scary thing about this “scandal” alternative is the fact that Mary doesn’t appear to have done it?

Only if you imply that being sinless and still following God’s law (obeying Him) can somehow lead to sin. There’s no sign of scandal, and I doubt Mary would have ever wanted to announce the fact. The focus was on Jesus, not her. Everything is slowly revealed. The Holy Spirit wasn’t even the focus until after Jesus proved He was the Messiah after the resurrection. Everything has its place.

I should probably respond to that question: What’s she gonna tell them? I will suggest “the truth.” Assuming she was sinless, she had no other choice.

You assume she was under some obligation to tell. She did what the law said to do and did it without question. I don’t see how obedience is a sin.

Does God really want you to go through all that? Maybe you should just follow Mary’s example and drop the whole doctrine. It’s more trouble than it’s worth. God doesn’t want you to cause scandals. It says so…somewhere. I’m sure it’s there implicitly.

Giving half-truths for the sake of convenience and peace? You said it yourself, Jesus was not an example of that, and we follow Him. Mary did what God asked and she obeyed, simple as that.

As I said, causing you “scandal” because of the truth is not a sin. Causing you to sin because of scandal (my actions implying something bad is ok, which could lead you to do the same) THAT is the problem. That is not what we’re doing here by talking about Mary. If someone were to go to an extreme to worship Mary, I would almost say that they’re ignorant except we have many great saints one would call “unintelligent” and were incredibly holy people. Then we’d have to drop the saints to avoid “worship”, and holy water to avoid “superstition”. It’s ignorance that we’d have to fight in those cases, not deny the truth.

I’ll give you an example of a time when scandal is a good thing. cqod.com/index-10-24-07.html

This “scandal” would only lead me to truth if I followed it because the “scandal” is proclaiming the truth. A scandal that bears something false however, could lead others to sin (the fault being on the one who suggests it).

If she did those kinds of things, she would have been forced to live a bit like Mother Teresa. How awful.

At least have some respect.

I can’t fully grasp the concept of what determines the “stoneability” of a sin, but I think Mary’s scandal scores a bit lower than that.

I’m not claiming I know either but “heresy” to me would likely merit more than mere “shunning”.

Since when did Jesus ask people to be obedient and stop sinning but only as long as it wasn’t too painful, difficult, or scandalous?

I think I’ve talked about scandal enough. On to your claim, I’m not saying she was asked to live a “comfortable life”. She suffered a lot alongside her son during His passion and certainly focused on Him all the time. Not everyone’s cross is the same. I’m sure you’d never even be able to imagine what seeing your son die slowly would be like, let alone a Son above all others.

Lots of people were obedient to the point where it “got the job done,” yet they were certainly not immaculate. Noah, for example, was obedient in saving the human race (who else has done that?) We know he was quite sinful, though- he proved this within hours of landing the Ark. He, like Jesus, saved the human race by being obedient to God. Does that mean Noah had to be sinless? You know the answer is no.

Your point is only valid if you think of a partial obedience, which is what Noah had. Partial because if it were absolute, then he never would have sinned. The Church holds that Mary was born sinless and was faithful her entire life, obedient in ALL things ALL the time. Not one doubt (even though she didn’t always understand as we see when she “considered in her heart what kind of greeting this could be”.)

 

[Liraco]

I’m just saying she’s not above all others. I don’t think of her as “Peerless Mary,” and I think you do.

Peerless? Who else can say they are the mother of the Messiah? No one.

Pride. I’m still not sure why the devil and the other angels had the ability to rebel, though. It seems that they’ve lost this ability. I’m pretty sure it’s not happening anymore, at any rate.

Why? Free will. As I said before, their choice was made and their fate sealed like ours will be at death. You get one shot, they had theirs.

you manage to venerate much worse sinners than her. I’m pretty sure you can be aware of a person’s faults, feel for them in remembering their struggles, and know that they’ve set an example of “what not to do” on a number of occasions…but still have a great deal of respect for them and show them the honor they deserve.

The saints are examples of people who were able to turn to God and ultimately succeed DESPITE their sins. Our veneration is indeed respect for their example of how they persevered in following God.

“What not to do” is missing the point, it’s “what TO do”. If anything, St. Augustine is a sign to those who feel like they’re horrible sinners and show them that even they should have hope. Many people feel that following God’s will is near impossible. The saints are proof that all is possible with God.

When and how? I’m not sure I follow exactly what you’re saying.

You say Adam and Eve permanently “broke” something, but it’ll be restored or made even better. Mary rendered sinless is to be an icon to how all Christians will one day be.

You going to draw the same conclusions from this verse, or just admit that it’s a bit of a stretch made all the more ingrained by a Latin hymn?

You’re right though:
Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means “one who has been graced” or “woman who has been graced” (since the gender is female). It doesn’t literally mean “full of grace,” though that is defensible as a free translation.
Better than the protestant “highly favored”.

A protestant apologetics site claims the Church derives its entire doctrine on Mary from “full of grace”. I’d recommend you read this very interesting piece by Jimmy Akin.

*The Immaculate Conception is also like the Trinity in that it took a while for the concepts and vocabulary needed to express the doctrine to develop. You can’t talk about the Trinity if the word “Trinity” hasn’t been coined yet, and you can’t talk about the Immaculate Conception–Mary’s freedom from all stain of original sin–if the term “original sin” has not yet been coined.

The the clearest echo of the doctrine [in scripture itself] being in the Annunciation in Luke 1, where the Angel Gabriel refers to Mary with the Greek word “kecharitomene,” which is commonly translated “full of grace,” but more literally would be “one who has been graced.” This word draws on aspects of Greek grammar that indicate that Mary has, in the past, received God’s grace and that this has continuing effects at the present time.

It seems to me that another basis for the Immaculate Conception can be seen in the fact that Mary is the Prototypical Christian. She is the first to say yes to Jesus, which she agrees to become his mother, and this makes her a model of all Christians. In keeping with this, God chose to make her an image of Christian destiny by giving her the gifts that one day all faithful Christians will receive.*

In what way would Jesus’ dignity be affected by Mary’s sinfulness or lack thereof?

Indeed, Jesus’ dignity would not be affected as you imply. That is precisely my point, it’s because of that dignity that He chose to grant his mother with great dignity too. God’s actions are not without significance, so why would his mother be someone who has nothing that stands out?

Quote Mr. Akin again: It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.

God protected it from being burned, just like He protected sinful men from other things somewhat similar to this- most notably priests with temple stuff.

Yet you stated yourself that an improperly prepared man would be struck dead by the Arc. Heck, the Jewish high priest that would one a year go behind to the holiest of holys would have a rope tied to him in case he was struck dead so as to pull him out (otherwise anyone attempting to get him out would be struck dead too!)

You’re right that the bush was protected from being consumed, so too was Mary (by being sinless).

I think you just talked yourself right out of the Immaculate Conception. According to this line of thought, wouldn’t it make more sense for Mary to be made holy and consecrated at or just before the time of the Holy Spirit causing her to conceive? In this example, Mary’s immaculate conception is roughly analogous to the deadly golden nuggets. Scald her mother from the inside out, it would. (I’m not entirely serious, of course. I like to play around sometimes).

Well my point is that you almost seem to think we put Mary as a goddess or 4th member of the trinity. Mary being immaculate is a gift from God, that’s all.

Mary was consecrated a virgin, and you can’t really “consecrate” yourself as an immaculate person. To follow your point, if she was made “holy” and sinless at the point of the annunciation why wait till then? Why allow her to sin before and then just erase all of it at that point? That just seems so incomplete and not well-thought out. God doesn’t do things “half-way” (another reason why I find it likely His mother would either be very holy or very sinful to make a point, and not someone “mediocre” in between).

As for “scalding” her mother, I hope you realize that someone free from sin is not the same as someone glorified. She wasn’t conceived glorified, she was conceived immaculate. Not harmful by any means.

God bless you, Mike.

 

[Ignatius33]

Seems like church authority is a popular thread topic around here, and if a conversation goes on long enough it’s bound to come up eventually. Is there some kind of law for that? You know, kind of like Godwin’s Law: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Just replace “Usenet” with “CAF” and “Nazis/Hitler” with “Church Authority.”

Ohhhh, this is too good to pass up. The Hitler comparison is commonly referred to as the fallacy of “reductio ad Hitlerum.” Would you mind too much if I referred to this as “reductio ad Magisterium?” Just this once. Wait, no, I can’t promise that. I’ll try to use it with discretion.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I can’t say I appreciate someone making an analogy, however tenuous, between Nazism and Catholicism.

 

[Ignatius33]

The “visible structure” of the Roman Catholic Church is derived directly from the “visible structure” of the secular rulers of Rome (post-Triumvirate, anyway). But what else could they do? That’s where the Catholic Church wound up being centered…after Rome emerged as the most powerful Church group among perhaps five viable candidates. Rome became the center of Christianity (after it was legalized there…well after the death of Peter, of course…) because Rome was the most powerful empire in the world. Because Rome was the empire that had the greatest influence on the Church during the formative years of its hierarchy, the Roman hierarchy of power had a great deal of influence on the Roman Catholic hierarchy of power. However, just because it happened that way doesn’t mean that was the best way it could have happened- or that it should have happened that way. Or that it should stay exactly that way.

I want to avoid tangents as much as possible, but I can’t let this statement pass. It is sometimes admitted that the Fathers recognized a kind of Roman primacy, but it is claimed that this primacy was based, not on Peter’s authority transmitted to the papacy, but rather on the civil greatness of Rome, the capital of the empire. I assume this is what you are getting at with your remark. Under this line of reasoning, it is argued, Rome’s primacy is not a permanent mark of the true church. Let me address this in a little detail.

Usually the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) is invoked to support this view. The 28th canon of Chalcedon reads as follows:

“Following in every way the decrees of the holy Fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome—we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.”

At Chalcedon, then, there was a clear recognition of papal primacy, but the bishops thought that this primacy was based on the fact that Rome was the “imperial city.” Consequently, now that the capital of Rome had been moved to Constantinople, that see should enjoy some of the “privileges” of Old Rome.

I reject this theory. The hypothesis presented is that the pope owed his ecclesiastical authority to the fact that his see was in the capital of the empire. Now, while certainly Rome’s prestige as the imperial city contributed to the honor given to it in the patristic era, this hypothesis is far from explaining everything. First of all, while the bishops of Chalcedon do base Rome’s authority in part on its civil greatness, we must not forget that the council Fathers said that Peter continued to speak through the pope. Thus, even these bishops attributed Rome’s authority, at least in part, to Peter’s primacy.

Second, none of the earliest testimonies to Roman primacy grounds that primacy in political realities. Quite the contrary, in fact Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Pope Stephen, Optatus, and Pope Julius state that Rome’s privileges derive either from her preeminence in faith or from her apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul. These are supernatural grounds, not natural ones. It is the Chalcedonian claim, then, which is more likely to be the innovation.

Third, Rome vigorously rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon as an innovation. Now this
rejection cannot easily be dismissed, for the Eastern bishops and emperors had a motive to elevate their own central see at Constantinople. Actually, the emperors since Constantine had worked to hinder the activities of the papacy in the East. This observation alone casts a shadow of doubt on the Eastern attempt to minimize Rome’s authority, for it emerged from biased men with a motive to increase their own power in direct violation of the ancient canons of the church.

Finally, Constantinople withdrew canon 28 in response to Rome’s urging. The historian Pierre Batiffol explained the process with eloquence:

“Can we forget that Pope Leo protested with such energy against the Canon; that the Emperor Marcian, in order to reconcile Pope Leo and Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, the originator of this contentious Canon, promised the Pope that the Bishop would give him all satisfaction; that Leo pressed the matter with the Emperor, saying specifically what Anatolius had to do to make satisfaction for his offense against the very laws of the Church; that the Emperor persuaded Anatolius to submit, and that in the end Anatolius wrote to Pope Leo that he had played no part in the drawing-up of the twenty-eighth Canon, that no one was responsible excepting the clerics who had proposed it, and the Bishops who had passed it, and that, besides, the confirmation of all the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon was reserved to the Pope, ‘since all the force and confirmation of its Acts have been reserved for the authority of your Holiness.’ The Bishop of Constantinople gave up the twenty-eighth Canon, …] and the last word was left to Pope Leo. Is this what we are to call [merely] ‘an honorary presidency?’” (“Catholicism and Papacy” 40-41).

It is clear, then, that the evidence sides with the more traditional view of Roman authority. Chalcedon retracted its canon and, in doing so, admitted that the pope alone had the authority to ratify and confirm the decrees of the ecumenical council.

 

[Ignatius33]

Scripture says barely anything about Mary. It doesn’t say anything “amply” about her at all.

Actually, as I already discussed in posts 95-98, I think Mary’s sinlessness is amply supported by Scripture and Tradition. As for Scripture, I agree, the Bible doesn’t say a ton about her. But what it does say is significant. Here are some relevant passages:

The Archangel Gabriel hails Mary as “full of grace” or as “you who have been and remain filled with the divine favor” (Luke 1:28). Even if you don’t accept these translations (I know you don’t), any translation still contains the Archangel hailing Mary as one highly favored.

Mary prophesies that from then on, “all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). Do Protestants fulfill this prophecy? I think not. They are more likely to honor and preach about Mary, the sister of Martha (that was my own experience, anyway). Catholics, however, call her the “Blessed Virgin.”

Most significantly, we have the New Eve parallel drawn by John in his Gospel and in Revelation chapter 12. On two separate occasions in John, Jesus calls his mother “woman” (John 2:5-11; 19:26-27). This was not a common form of address in ancient Palestine. And, while many Protestants interpret it narrowly as a critique of Mary, quite probably it is a deliberate allusion to the ancient prophecy in Genesis 3:16. There we read of a future hostility between the “seed” – that is, the Messiah – and the “woman,” the mother of the seed. If John was indeed alluding to the Genesis prophecy, then it is certain that he regarded Mary as the antitype of Eve, just as St. Paul regarded Jesus as the antitype of Adam.

That John attached eschatological significance to the title “woman” is suggested by two things. Even the words of Jesus to Mary, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4) link Mary’s mediatory role with the “hour” of Christ. In John’s Gospel, this “hour” has eschatological overtones. But we see a stronger emphasis on this theme at crucifixion, where Jesus gives Mary to John. Again calling his mother “woman,” the text states “from that hour the disciple [John] took her to his own.” Immediately, the text adds that after this, Jesus knew “that all was now finished.” (John 19:26-28). For John, Jesus’ handing the “woman” to John was therefore laden with theological and eschatological significance. This fact is explained on the hypothesis that John regarded Mary to be the eschatological counterpart of Eve.

Moreover, it seems certain that the mysterious “woman” in the 12th chapter of Revelation is also an antitype of Eve. If she is, in some sense at least, to be identified with Mary, then a direct link is forged between the Second-Eve tradition and the Apostle John. Here are the parallels between Revelation 12 and the prophecy of the “woman” in Genesis 3:

1. …your pain in childbearing… (Genesis 3:16) … she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth… (Revelation 12:2);
2. …God said to the serpent… (Genesis 3:14) … that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan… (Revelation 12:9);
3. …enmity between you and the woman…(Genesis 3:15) … the dragon …] pursued the woman who had borne the male child… (Revelation 12:13);
4. … her seed…(Genesis 3:15) … she brought forth a male child… (Revelation 12:5).

It is hard not to see here a deliberate allusion to the 3rd chapter of Genesis. In both accounts the serpent is opposing the woman; the woman in question gives birth to the Messiah; and both texts mention anguish or pain while giving birth. In John’s view, then, we can conclude that the “woman” he wrote about is the “woman” of Genesis 3:15, the one who would give birth to the Messiah; she is therefore the eschatological counterpart of Eve. Of course this only proves that Mary is the Second Eve if one is prepared to see Mary in the 12th chapter of Revelation. But it does seem natural to see a reference to Mary there, on a straightforward reading of the passage. Wouldn’t the early readers of Revelation have immediately thought of Mary when they read of a woman giving birth of Jesus? The strongest objection to this view is that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is really an image of the Christian Church, and so she cannot be Mary. Suffice to say here that this objection introduces a false dichotomy by forcing one to choose between Mary and the Church – as if the woman cannot be an image of both. I say that this is a false dichotomy because Christians at the end of the 2nd century were already calling Mary an image of the Church. Consequently, we should remain open to the possibility that John wants us to see both Mary and the Church in his writing. And if Mary is intended by the author, then we have strong evidence for the apostolic origin of the Second-Eve typology.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

John Henry Newman summed up the case for seeing Mary in Revelation 12 like this:

“But again: not only Mother and Child, but a serpent is introduced into the vision. Such a meeting of man, woman, and serpent has not been found in Scripture, since the beginning of Scripture, and now it is found in its end. Moreover, in the passage in the Apocalypse, as if to supply, before Scripture came to an end, what was wanting in its beginning, we are told, and for the first time, that the serpent in Paradise was the evil spirit. If the dragon of St. John is the same as the serpent of Moses, and the man-child is ‘the seed of the woman,’ why is not the woman herself she, whose seed the man-child is? And, if the first woman is not an allegory, why is the second? if the first woman is Eve, why is not the second Mary?” (Difficulties of Anglicans, vol. 2, pp. 58-59).

Other than the argument that the woman = the Church and so cannot be Mary, some Protestants also argue that the lateness of the woman = Mary tradition (4th century) speaks against it. However, once one acknowledges the possibility of formally implicit revelation, this difficulty is really not insuperable. Actually, it is quite reasonable
that the book of Revelation would take centuries to understand, given its mysterious and apocalyptic language. And so it is not surprising that the woman = Mary interpretation did not gain in popularity until the late 4th century.

I understand that you don’t see as much significance in the Eve-Mary typological connection as do Catholics but, as explained earlier by many posters here, I think Mary’s role as the New Eve is adequate evidence of her sinlessness. And Mary as “New Eve” is not derived from myth – it is drawn from both Scripture and the earliest Tradition (e.g., Justin Martyr around 150 AD and Irenaeus around 180 AD).

 

[Ignatius33]

Seems like church authority is a popular thread topic around here, and if a conversation goes on long enough it’s bound to come up eventually. Is there some kind of law for that? You know, kind of like Godwin’s Law: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Just replace “Usenet” with “CAF” and “Nazis/Hitler” with “Church Authority.”

Ohhhh, this is too good to pass up. The Hitler comparison is commonly referred to as the fallacy of “reductio ad Hitlerum.” Would you mind too much if I referred to this as “reductio ad Magisterium?” Just this once. Wait, no, I can’t promise that. I’ll try to use it with discretion.

I should add that I had never heard of “Godwin’s Law.” I looked it up on Wikipedia, so I understand the point you are trying to make, even if I don’t appreciate your analogy. But I don’t think that rule applies here. I mean, should the fact that Church authority is a popular thread topic be surprising given that this is, after all, a Catholic website? The single most significant thing that divides Protestants from Catholics is “authority.” When Protestants and Catholics dialogue about Christianity, it would be surprising if authority didn’t come up. If I went to a Baptist website and debated with them for any period of time, I’m sure sola Scriptura would come up pretty often too.

 

[mmmcounts]

Just like the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn protestants to hell who hold false beliefs (like: “believing in Jesus is all you need no matter how bad you are”, to which your links make a reference against), we don’t condemn Muslims if they’re honestly following God to as best they can without knowing the gospel.

You may not, but if they deserve to be condemned, God has to do it unless they can be forgiven. How can a Muslim be forgiven without Jesus being part of the picture? Remember Proverbs 17:15.

I thought you agreed that we’ll be made unable to sin and still retain out free will in heaven. So the question would still stand, “why weren’t we made like that to begin with”?

Are you asking about Adam and Eve? Because that’s where it all kind of flew off the rails- right at the beginning of human history. Their sin affected the rest of humanity, and then God decided not to create any more humans. Just Adam and Eve. I guess He actually did get it right the first time.

It mostly comes down to free will. Adam and Eve chose to exercise their free will in such a way that it had eternal consequences for all their descendants. But God offers a gift through His son whereby we can make a choice in the opposite direction that also has eternal consequences.

But why this instead of just Adam and Eve (and perhaps a few descendants) in the Garden of Eden for eternity? I suppose it’s because Heaven is far better than the Garden of Eden. Eden’s nice, but Heaven’s better- and that’s what God wanted for us all along. Eden was not the full fruition of God’s perfect will. That comes later.

So in the long run, God was allowing for a choice between heaven and hell on an individual level for each human- but in the grand scheme, He was also allowing for an alternative to Eden. He was causing Heaven to be a future possibility, which is much better than Eden.

I hope you’re not making the “works salvation” claim on Catholics.

Nope, just the Merit system. It comes right after “Faith” and “Grace” in the CCC.

I’d be almost offended at what’s implied (your tone seems to have changed overall), but I agree. Yet it seems then, we can’t agree on what we think is “logical”.

Sorry about the change in tone. At that time, I happened to be running on no sleep for too many hours, but that’s no excuse for being rude. Sorry about that.

More like: if you question why this was done, why are you questioning God’s plan?

We don’t agree on what God’s plan is. I’m arguing that God’s plan for Mary is different that what you say it is. If you think about it from my perspective for a moment, I’m not questioning God’s plan- I’m questioning your plan, which is different from God’s plan. Of course, it’s quite necessary for me to somehow establish that your plan must be different from God’s plan, and I hope that’s been coming through at some level.

My intention is not to argue with what God did, but with what you say He did.

Precisely what I’m asking you on the matter of “free will”. We will one day have free will and be unable to sin, so why not from the beginning?

Perhaps there is a logical difficulty with being like that “from the beginning” because it results in humanity being “stuck in Eden” and never experiencing Heaven. Granted, Eden is quite nice. But it’s not the best possible thing God has for us.

I just contend that it was possible for a very specific reason which you don’t seem to want to wrap your head around

I’m on a Catholic site precisely so I can wrap my head around it. And the reason I come here instead of asking ex-Catholics or nominal Catholics (my only consistent options in real life) is because I know the answers will be better here.

I would probably do the same thing with Orthodox Christians on here, but I actually know a couple of guys in real life who are freaking legit and quite willing to talk about it. One of those guys…the first time he explained to me (at my request) exactly why he became Orthodox, it took him 2 and a half hours. He was absolutely shocked because it always takes him about 4. I had to be his witness to his roommates that he could actually do it in that short an amount of time.

Joseph was not the biological father, but Mary was the biological mother. If she was a sinner however, would it still not imply her having the stain of original sin?

No it would not.

Jesus is, after all, fully human too and yet did not inherit the curse.

The Curse has different elements, some of which are unique to Adam (man) or Eve (woman). The transmission of the curse is unique to Man. Women do not transmit the curse, any more than it was Woman (Eve) who brought sin into the world. She only got the assist.

In Mary’s situation, though, she had two parents who were sinners. That’s a lot trickier. In your situation, I’d probably go with “God can do anything” as my first option, too. If it could be demonstrated that this actually wasn’t a viable option, though- even for God- I’d start thinking about alternative options. Such as “Maybe Mary actually was a sinner.”

It’s up to you, though. You want to rework the “God can do anything” argument or go in a new direction? I somehow doubt you’ll really go for the “cafeteria Catholic” meal plan.

break seems right here

 

[mmmcounts]

Truth is though, I don’t know all the answers, neither do you. We’re not God. This is not a “cop-out” but rather something that I feel bears stating. I am trying to answer what I can to the best of my ability but I’m no genius, no theologian, and barely what you could consider an apologist. So I’m sorry if some of my answers seem insufficient. I hold these things in faith to be true, even if they can’t all be explained properly. True understanding is the Holy Spirit’s job, not mine. Whatever small answer I give I pray to the Holy Spirit to give wisdom to the reader, in spite of any errors I may have.

I appreciate that, especially since I will have to make a similar admission in just a few minutes. I’ve had quite a bit of Bible education in the formal setting, but Revelation is a weak point for me. As luck would have it, though, the next several weeks at my “ecclesial community” will be spent in Revelation. I’ll run some questions by my pastor over the next couple of weeks and see how it goes.

Of course, I won’t be depending on the infallible teaching authority of my pastor, because no one has that. He is quite capable of being right about some things, though- just like the CC is capable of being right about some things in spite of its lack of infallibility. We’ll just have to take a look at Revelation 12 and see how it goes.

I agree He didn’t break the promise or the “rules”. It’s just that you seem to have a notion to know them all.

In this particular scenario, I know enough of them.

When Abraham would sacrifice Isaac, he didn’t question but was obedient. I too am doing my best to be obedient

God isn’t asking you to do anything regarding the Marian myths. If He wanted to do that, they wouldn’t be myths. They’d be something else.

I’m not going to dehumanize a human life to make abortion “ok”. All life is precious, even a teeny tiny one.

I’m not asking you to give an “ok” to abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not all zygotes are part of a pregnancy. Some are, but not all.

Well I “buy it” because we need to pray for all. Just like it’s wrong to do an “auto-canonization” at a funeral saying someone’s in heaven and forgetting to pray for them (what for, right?)

I’m not following you because some of this vocabulary is foreign to me. Funerals and dead people are probably a bit too far off topic, though.

Just as a cautionary measure- Yes, I know, their souls are alive in Christ; however, when a person “ceases to live” and “expires,” thus becoming “dead” as differentiated from people who are “alive,” most people refer to these “people who have died” as “dead people.”

Just because that’s a whole lot of souls, does that make it wrong?

No. All it means is that your beliefs don’t match up with how you feel about them- and I don’t think they ever will. Specifically, your specific set of beliefs demands that you treat a microscopic set of 46 chromosomes in the same way as a fetus, baby, or much older person. For example, you should- in theory- feel the same way about 100 million zygote “deaths” as you would about 100 million fetal miscarriages. But there’s some inconsistencies when it comes to the “death” of a zygote. At the very least, you’re forced to make some sort of zygote-specific adjustment in order to account for it. Granted, there’s a variety of adjustment options to choose from, but some are better than others.

Then what about those that are naturally aborted at a much later stage?

I’m relatively certain the zygotes don’t have any souls to speak of. I’m not so sure about fetuses. I can’t really draw a line. It’s a zone of uncertainty for me, but that’s nothing new for this “mind-body” conundrum.

They’re more visible losses, and certainly more painful. Perhaps it’s precisely to spare many from the pain of so many babies lost

Or- here’s another option- maybe they don’t feel the pain of loss in the same way because the loss is itself entirely different from that of losing a fetus, baby, or child.

Imagine if we were aware of every single loss, how parents would be devastated.

Again, perhaps some losses are wholly different from others. Maybe that’s why parents feel differently about them.

The “easy way out” would be to think they’re just not human at all and we shouldn’t worry about them.

Since you are a Catholic, I believe that would actually be the most difficult way out. Btw, I’m not denying that a zygote has 46 human chromosomes. I’m just arguing that it’s not something that has a human soul.

On the “chance” that they are indeed humans with souls, ignoring them seems awfully cold.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, though, it makes absolutely no difference. There’s nothing we can do either way. These are unavoidable losses. It happens all the time, and it’s going to keep happening. So you can feel ok about it, grieve those “poor lost ?souls?” as you would any other loss of life, or find some kind of middle ground where you think it’s technically a good idea to grieve them but you thank God you can’t feel the full impact.

The fact is that at the moment of conception we have an entirely new being

If by being you mean soul, I would disagree.

with its own DNA (“its” only to avoid “his/her”)

Understood, and I agree with that part.

with all of its characteristics already decided

Nope. Absolutely not.

we assume that the soul is what animates this life (“anima” is soul after all).

I’m not particularly satisfied with the dualistic way in which the mind-body connection is typically made. I think we can do better. Descartes was a brilliant guy, but we need to try to do better than that. (Look up Cartesian Dualism and the Mind-Body Problem- I think they’re fascinating topics).

You called me on my attitude, now I call you on yours. Intellect has nothing to do with brain size, angels have none and theirs is greater than ours. I did not expect mockery from you, but again, your overall tone seems to have changed now.

I’m sorry I mocked you. I could have expressed my viewpoint in much better ways, and I made a bad choice. I still question the story logic of a zygote that is capable of understanding and reasoning at any level, though. I’m not an expert, but I do know some things about developmental psychology and neurological development prior to birth. Intellect does have quite a bit to do with the brain, and the higher-order decision-making abilities are directly related to the development of the cerebrum (or telencephalon) which is still largely undeveloped through the first few years of life. Bottom line, fetuses don’t have brains that are capable of reasoning.

Back to Mary, though- in the next post.

 

[mmmcounts]

It’s a tad long to summarize but it’s in regards to Mary’s queenship being biblical.

The title “Queen of Heaven” actually is biblical. Here’s the thing, though. Mary wouldn’t have taken well to that title. The reason it’s in the Bible is because the “Queen of Heaven” referred to a Babylonian goddess. The children of Israel became quite familiar with her (and a few others) while under Babylonian captivity…some far too familiar.

From Mary’s perspective, “Queen of Heaven” means something to her that’s quite separate from our personal experience. For her, the title was tied directly to the Babylonian captivity- arguably the worst period of time in Jewish history. Jeremiah- the prophet during that captivity- is the one who makes about a half-dozen Biblical references to her. Most of them are in Jeremiah 44.

That’s why I don’t think you’re doing Mary any favors by calling her “Queen of Heaven.” As for Revelation 12, I will consider this perspective and see what else there is on the matter. For now, though, I’d be interested to see what it is you think Rev. 12 proves about Mary. I’ll run it by some people and see what comes up.

Indeed, and though you speculate on her actions, we only see it done once. Referring to the sacrifices for sin.

The Bible never talks about Mary’s menstrual cycle, either, but we can be reasonably certain that it was a once-monthly part of her life as it was for every other woman. Once you make this extremely safe assumption, it’s not too difficult to see how Jewish sacrificial law requires the same sacrifice of Mary post-menstruation as it does post-birth (it’s in Leviticus). Then you ask yourself if Mary made those sacrifices too, and the answer is probably yes. I say yes because Mary was a sinner, though, so I don’t need to explain anything else on the matter. You do.

Mary’s scandal may have led others to sin

I looked up your reference to the Catechism and, as usual, checked the footnotes to see which Bible verses were applicable. The one from 1 Corinthians 8 is. I guess that’s a viable argument- Mary did the sacrifices just so she wouldn’t cause others to stumble. That’s by far the best explanation I’ve gotten to this point. It doesn’t take care of all your problems, but it’s a big step. Well done, sir. Not bad at all.

You assume she was under some obligation to tell. She did what the law said to do and did it without question. I don’t see how obedience is a sin.

A lot of it depends on exactly what words were traditionally exchanged between Mary and the priest who would kill her doves. The general mechanics of the ceremony are known well enough, but the spoken words are not really available. In short, Mary would be under obligation to tell the truth if the traditional exchange of words called for it- which is probable.

This is all speculation, of course. It allows you ample wiggle room, and I’m sure you will suppose the Mary could have gotten in and out every month without any expectation of admitting she’s a sinner. If it helps, though, we do know this much: She had to wait in a long line, each person was taken off to a more enclosed space, and there was a certain level of privacy to the personal sacrifices. As it is with Confession, the people who had extremely serious sins to atone for (requiring a different sort of sacrifice) did not have to stand in front of everyone and do it publicly. For this general family of sacrifices, it was a private affair- just Mary and a priest.

I’d imagine Mary would at least have to say what the sacrifice was and why she was there, but I really don’t have any solid basis for saying she was certainly obligated to call herself a sinner. My personal inclination is that she probably was, but I’m sure you think otherwise. If I can track down any more specific information from a well-informed Jew, I’ll let you know.

Peerless? Who else can say they are the mother of the Messiah? No one.

That’s really more a function of there being only one Messiah who was born only once. You could say the same thing of Noah. Who else saved the human race from death by building a boat? No one. Come to think of it, no one else did what Abraham did. Who else made an eternal covenant with God that culminated in the Messiah coming from his line? No one. These kinds of people are all different in some way. Everyone has their part to play, assuming they’re acting in faith. Mary is unique and special…just like a couple dozen other people. God had a job for her, and she acted in faith. As far as that goes, she has plenty of peers. If you really want to get as specific as you just did in every case, you’ll find that you can make that same “peerless” argument for almost anyone else in the Hall of Faith.

Better than the protestant “highly favored”.

It’s not the “Protestant translation.” It’s the translation that everyone uses if they’re going from Greek to English. Catholics translate it that way, too- as long as they’re translating from Greek to English. Check for yourself. I’m sure you have an NAB somewhere. If you have the version from 1970, it’ll give you a sub-par translation- “highly favored daughter.” The New Jerusalem Translation also drops the “full of grace,” as do the current NAB and the other translations approved by the CC- excluding the d-r, of course.

Quote Mr. Akin again: It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother

Oh, let me guess: Is this where he sets up a false dichotomy where he chooses an archetype for Mary that’s most certainly not true, arbitrarily claims that his preferred archetype is the only other viable option, and then makes me choose from those two things?

an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.

YAHTZEE! Jimmy Akin is a very smart guy and generally has very insightful things to say, but this is not the best quote to pull from him. Most people understand what a false dichotomy is even if they don’t know the meaning of the words “logical fallacy.”

Well my point is that you almost seem to think we put Mary as a goddess or 4th member of the trinity.

You would be implying that kind of thing quite a bit more strongly if you had chosen to argue for the “optional Mary stuff” just as forcefully as you do for the “required stuff.” As it is, though, you’re not leading me to any conclusions of that nature. I realize a lot of Protestants immediately go there before you even get started, though, and that doesn’t speak well of them.

 

[Liraco]

You may not, but if they deserve to be condemned, God has to do it unless they can be forgiven. How can a Muslim be forgiven without Jesus being part of the picture? Remember Proverbs 17:15.

I suppose what I said on Muslims (and on free will with Adam & Eve) were not understood. I’m not sure I understood your point on the former. Are you saying then, Mike, that those who didn’t/don’t know the Truth of the gospel are condemned?

Nope, just the Merit system. It comes right after “Faith” and “Grace” in the CCC.

A specific number or section of the Catechism would help me to dispel those misconceptions.
I found the following though I don’t see any problem (as it clearly states that Merit, as well as everything else like I’ve said to you before, is God’s doing) Quickly searching there’s this:

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

I’m questioning your plan, which is different from God’s plan. Of course, it’s quite necessary for me to somehow establish that your plan must be different from God’s plan, and I hope that’s been coming through at some level.

I certainly do understand you think I’m wrong (along with the Church) and that what she holds on Mary is man-made or apart from God’s will. What I’m trying to show you though, is that it’s precisely because of God’s will that anything held on Mary by the Church is possible (though I understand you think that what she says God did to Mary is impossible). I certainly understand that Mary’s one of the biggest hurdles for protestants to really agree with Catholics.

I’m on a Catholic site precisely so I can wrap my head around it.

Which is why I still pray that God can grant you the grace to do just that. My words and knowledge are incredibly lacking (though I thank you for asking such hard questions to get me to think, strengthening my faith and knowledge though I’ve still got a looong way to go.) I hope you can spare the time to pray for me sometime as well.

I’d probably go with “God can do anything” as my first option, too. If it could be demonstrated that this actually wasn’t a viable option, though- even for God- I’d start thinking about alternative options. Such as “Maybe Mary actually was a sinner.”

I was not aware it was only man who transmits the curse and the woman has no part in that. Where exactly is that? (understand that I’m still going through the whole Bible for the very first time on my own, having read the New Testament twice already but am now going through the Old.)

On thinking of “what if”, I see there’s nothing to gain from asking what could have been but rather focus on what is or what was. In this case, I still hold Mary as being conceived free from sin as possible. God isn’t absent from the process of our creation after all (though I understand your objection of “why just her and not everyone?”)

I don’t see the point in reworking “God can do anything”. As I said, I just needed to add the clarification that God can do anything possible. We seem to still disagree on what “possible” entails though.

Cafeteria Catholic, is that the “pick and chose” kind? The term is still new to me.

 

[Liraco]

As luck would have it, though, the next several weeks at my “ecclesial community” will be spent in Revelation.

May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth. I find the book to be quite fascinating though it does seem to be quite hard to grasp a lot of it completely. Perhaps you’d like to discuss it on this or a separate thread once you’re done with your studies.

God isn’t asking you to do anything regarding the Marian myths. If He wanted to do that, they wouldn’t be myths. They’d be something else.

He does ask us to be obedient (which also requires humility though that part is certainly very hard). I’m obedient to the Church He founded and the authority He gave to the apostles and those who came after them. I don’t see any “myths” as you do, nor do I worship Mary or elevate her to a level that would displease God, quite the contrary.

At least when it comes to “worship” I certainly hope you do see that that’s not what we do to Mary or the saints (Matt 7:1 Stop judging, that you may not be judged, because I tell you that despite what it may seem on the outside, in our interior none of what we do when it comes to them is done as worship).

I’m not asking you to give an “ok” to abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not all zygotes are part of a pregnancy. Some are, but not all.

I’m just saying that all life is precious, and even if a lot of those lives don’t make it to a pregnancy. It’s not my place to say it’d be wrong if all those zygotes had souls and died because they didn’t make it further into the “process”. The Lord is the author of life, He gives and takes away so it’s not really “unfair”.

I’m not following you because some of this vocabulary is foreign to me. Funerals and dead people are probably a bit too far off topic, though.

What I meant by “auto-canonization” is that in a lot of funerals people are basically declared saints “oh don’t worry, he’s now in Heaven”, which makes a lot of people stop praying for their souls. I don’t want to go off on a huge tangent on the communion of saints, purgatory, etc.

Suffice it to say, the point is that we’re asked to pray for each other and not making exceptions. To Catholics that includes praying for: the Church Militant (those alive on earth), the Church Penitent (those undergoing purification in Purgatory in preparation for heaven), and the Church Triumphant (those already in heaven).

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, though, it makes absolutely no difference. There’s nothing we can do either way. These are unavoidable losses. It happens all the time, and it’s going to keep happening. So you can feel ok about it, grieve those “poor lost ?souls?” as you would any other loss of life, or find some kind of middle ground where you think it’s technically a good idea to grieve them but you thank God you can’t feel the full impact.

Feelings are not what’s important. You’re right, I can’t bring myself to truly grieve all those children (zygotes, fetus, call them what you will) that are lost, because it’s something distant to me. I still realize the fact that it’s tragic even if the “feelings” aren’t there. I also can’t truly grieve all the lives lost at 9/11, children lost in a daycare fire, all those japanese dead from nuclear weapons, and many more things. I do feel however, bad about admitting such things because of how that might make me appear.

Yet I know that feelings are nothing, they don’t define me or my relationship with God. Blessed mother Theresa, is a great example of this truth. She felt nothing for decades (the “black night of the soul” as some saints have experienced though not as long as her) and yet her faith didn’t waver, and showed nothing but love to all who met her. I may not feel truly bad for them, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.

You’re wrong though, because there IS something I can do and that’s prayer. It’s something that I know is powerful even if I don’t understand it fully yet. Even if you were right that they didn’t have souls, those prayers would not be wasted.

Bottom line, fetuses don’t have brains that are capable of reasoning.

You’re right, I merely went off on a big tangent to speculate on a mere possibility of what could happen to a child to be given the chance to exercise their free will. I’m not saying this is anything close to Church teaching.

Church teaching says the following (Gaudium et Spes 22)
For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.