Did Mary need a savior?

[Liraco]

I argue that receiving grace, being endowed with grace, and continuing in grace is not unique to Mary alone.

I hope you do have time to read through the rest eventually because we’ve covered a lot of ground on both sides. Glad to have you join in though.

You’re right in a way. The graces Mary received aren’t unique to her now but we hold that she was first. Catholics hold that she was given these graces early, made immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. She was the New Eve and the prototypical Christian, and what she received we will all receive.

someone is actually paying hommage to Mary for being the bearing of Jesus. Jesus overturns this statement by taking attention off Mary and unto to those who do the will of God.

Which is why I think Mary lived such a hidden life and isn’t mentioned as much in the Bible (which a lot of people claim “if she’s so important, why is there so little mention of her?”).

I don’t really see it as provocative though, but you’re free to think so. He did indeed take the focus off her, because the focus was to be on Jesus (just as the Holy Spirit also seemed “hidden” to keep focus on the Son).

Again, in similar fashion, people are trying to place the importance on Jesus’ family members to which Jesus responds by placing the importance on those who do the Father’s will. Such people are more important to Jesus than his blood relations … it seems.

Precisely, it’s meant to be more than mere blood relation which was so important to the Jews (which is why the Messiah had to be of the line of David).

The point was about how we are adopted as children of God if we follow Him. The part about those who do God’s will would certainly apply to His mother (biggest of all being saying “yes” to the Lord and accepting to bear Jesus), but the point being made was much bigger as you yourself put it.

 

[mmmcounts]

Ok, Revelation 12. Finally. Thanks for waiting around for me to explore it a little- specifically, for the reasons against seeing Mary in the apparition. I know you’d prefer the Jimmy A. plan of fourfold symbolism, but I hope to present some reasons for why certain symbolic interpretations should not be included.

First, not every Catholic sees it this way. This is a selection from the book What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, which carries the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the CC.

The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with
the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this
description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else
could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah?
However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will
stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to
our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her
without thought.

It goes on to say “Who then is she?” and says it’s Israel. It gives some reasons for saying that. Then it closes the argument with a line that should be very familiar to Catholics everywhere:

All the early Fathers of the Church interpreted these verses as about
the Israel of God.

Well, there it is. The ECF’s have spoken. If you’re a Catholic who’s ever talked to Protestants, I’m sure you’ve used this line at least once. And then I’m fairly certain that your Protestant friend gave some sort of reason for why they’d say something different from the ECF’s, and you probably weren’t convinced. Why should we make an exception here?

Oh, I should make sure that’s correct: Has there ever been a situation where you felt that all the ECF’s were on your side, your friend/colleague argued for a different conclusion, and you were actually convinced by what they said? I’m guessing no.

Bonus fact: The first person to write something to the effect of “female portent=Mary” was a guy named Ticonius late in the 4th century. And as I look at some of the history behind the doctrine (more recently a dogma- sorry for my earlier misapplication of terms) of the Assumption of Mary, I’m noticing that the first writings to that effect were from the 4th century, too. I smell some eisegesis, and I think this was done because there’s no other way to manufacture any kind of Biblical support for the Assumption of Mary. Not that you really need any Biblical support in order to believe it, of course- I think it’s mostly for my benefit. Just saying, though- the impetus for making the “Mary” interpretation is not (and never was) one of drawing meaning out of the text. The force behind it was an extra-Biblical myth about Mary’s assumption, and that appears to have caused this kind of interpretation to exist.

Second, some argue that regarding Mary as an image of Israel is problematic because Israel is presented as the wife or bride of God (Jer. 3, especially verse 14). Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not in any way the wife of God. The same thing could be said of the claim that Mary=The Church. Yes, I know you have things in your “pro” section that favor these “Mary=” scenarios. This is one for the “con” column.

There is also a description of “the woman” in Rev. 12 that’s problematic for some Catholics who think it’s Mary: She cries out in pain when giving birth. Jimmy A. has a way of dealing with it, though. He says this isn’t a picture of Mary having pain in childbirth. It’s figurative pain, not literal pain, and it may refer to another kind of pain she experienced much later in life. I think his argument’s weak- in reality, this isn’t compatible with the Mary that you worship. In a very particular sense of the word, of course. I know you refer to it as “hyperdulia,” but I’m not sure how that would look as a verb.

Here’s a selection from Isaiah 66 that, along with the aforementioned arguments, shows why the apparition should be interpreted as Israel and not as Mary:

"Before she was in labor she gave birth;
before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.
Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?
Shall a land be born in one day?
Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment?
For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children.
Shall I bring to the point of birth and not cause to bring forth?"
says the LORD;
"shall I, who cause to bring forth, shut the womb?"
says your God.

That sounds familiar. Zion in labor, giving birth. That sounds a lot like Revelation 12. But should we view Zion (or Israel) as somehow equivalent to Mary? I should warn you right now: It’s not a good idea to do that for this passage. If you do, it leads to some of that malestar.

"Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her;
rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her;
that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast;
that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance."

Like I said. Don’t equate Israel with Mary. Especially not while reading Isaiah 66.

Reason three for saying “the woman” is Israel and not Mary: The apparition goes to the desert for a time, times, and half a time, God takes care of her, and He keeps her from being attacked. A lot of Catholics would prefer to interpret this as Mary during the flight from Egypt- something that’s already happened. All Protestants (and some Catholics) would prefer to interpret this as something eschatalogical that has to do with Israel- some say it’s already happened, some say it’s still to come. So with this particular part of the vision, it seems that it really is “either” Mary (just one Jewish family) “or” Israel (all the Jews in Israel). Neither side presents an explanation for this sequence of events that symbolizes both of them.

There’s a pretty large number of other passages that refer to the three and a half times in other ways. Every time it comes up, it refers to Israel. Four or five of these references tell us how we’ll know it’s coming: The Temple sacrifices will be abolished and you will see the Abomination that causes Desolation in the Temple. Jesus is actually the one who probably gives us the clearest picture of this. He says to pray it doesn’t come in winter, because it would be even rougher on the Jews fleeing to the mountains. In short, there’s a large number of references to Israel with respect to this particular time period. They can be found in Daniel, the Gospels, Revelation, and a couple of other places. The Bible makes no connection between Mary and this period of time (which may or may not be symbolic- either way, it doesn’t really matter).

This is it so far- some of the reasons to say “the woman” is not Mary. Someone’s got to do it, right? I’ll continue looking to see what I can find.

 

[mmmcounts]

Here’s the new thread I just started.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=371743

Mostly for the benefit of Liraco, but I’m putting it out publicly so anyone else can take a look if so inclined.

 

[mmmcounts]

Seems my knowledge and explanation were quite insufficient, so I apologize. I still have a long way to go but I’ll give it another go.

Don’t be hard on yourself. You’re doing fine.

It seems that you assume we see the Holy Spirit just dropping these gifts on us and they’re the ones that do everything and the Holy Spirit is just like a messenger.

Not so much “dropping off.” I seem to have heard the term “infuse with,” though. Other than that, pretty much, though. The Holy Spirit brings gifts, infuses them into you, and His presence or absence is kind of an afterthought as it is the infused gifts (or graces) that cause you to be a different sort of person. Of course, I’m not working from what I’ve seen in CC teaching. I’m going off of what I hear from Catholics talking about it.

Not at all the case and certainly not what was intended in any of what I wrote or quoted.

And I could be misunderstanding quite a bit of this. It’s a bit unfamiliar.

More specifically on the role of the Holy Spirit: "to the Holy Ghost we attribute the operations of grace and the sanctification of souls, and in particular spiritual gifts and fruits, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son as Their mutual love and is called in Holy Writ the goodness and the charity of God."

Thanks for hunting down quotes from reliable sources.

As to the inner nature of these gifts, theologians consider them to be supernatural and permanent qualities, which make us attentive to the voice of God, which render us susceptible to the workings of actual grace, which make us love the things of God, and, consequently, render us more obedient and docile to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost

This is a bit more compatible with my beliefs than I thought. There may be some slight differences, but…here’s how I present it.

Instead of the Holy Spirit, picture a chunk of gadolinium. It’s inside you. The property (or accident or quality) of strong magnetism is that of the gadolinium. It’s inside you, but the magnetism isn’t yours. If people notice that you stick to metal stuff, it’d be good to point out how the magnetism comes from the gadolinium inside you. (Well, it’s actually paramagnetic, but still…for the sake of the analogy, let’s pretend its property is ferromagnetism).

The thing is, though, humans aren’t built to have chunks of gadolinium inside them. It doesn’t really belong there. It’s the kind of thing that’s foreign to us. So in our scenario- remembering that the gadolinium is really the Holy Spirit- the person needs to have some stuff changed in order to make their body compatible to the presence of this foreign object. And the one who makes you more compatible is not you- it is the Holy Spirit.

See what I’m trying to say? I kind of like the analogy…I don’t know if I’m presenting it as well as I could, though. What you said just now in the previous paragraph is fully compatible with what I’m talking about, where the qualities of the Holy Spirit are more readily housed within us. The distinction I’m attempting to make is with precisely where these nice qualities lie. I’m saying they’re qualities that always belong to the Holy Spirit, and it’s not like He makes duplicates and gives them to us. The Holy Spirit indwells us and changes us in ways that make His presence more readily visible in our lives, but it’s not like He takes His qualities, parts with them, and infuses them into us. The Holy Spirit infuses Himself into us, and He has those qualities. We then have the Holy Spirit, and He shows off those qualities from within us. It’s a bit like being infused with a chunk of highly magnetic rare earth metal. Your skin, bones, and guts don’t become magnetic, but metal stuff sticks to you because of it.

Which is why good works must arise FROM grace. Mere good works without God is merely philanthropy, and not done out of love for Him. So we can certainly agree that works don’t create grace, they spring from grace. That doesn’t make it incompatible with works though, as we learn

Well…good works arise from the Holy Spirit. “Grace” isn’t an actual thing. It’s not a substance. It could be described as a quality of the Holy Spirit, and good works come from the Holy Spirit when the Christian cooperates with Him. And like I said, the “graces” (a word I don’t usually use- it’s a bit too “Greek mythology” for me)- they belong to the Holy Spirit, and Christians are lucky enough to have Him indwelling them.

Take a quick second to look at Philippians 2:12. You’ve seen it before. Then read on to verse 13, which is usually omitted. It completes the thought. I’d like to emphasize that verse. That’s what I’m saying. You’re saying something very similar, but I still think we’re saying it a little differently. As you look at the verse, I say God and you say Grace. I think that’s the main difference.

Jesus is the way to salvation, but can you be certain that He is not with them at all?

Pretty certain, yeah. I do know everyone needs Jesus. And a lot of people don’t know Him.

Just as I’ve come to realize so many things of my faith, and many others who at one point come to see “how did I ever miss THAT?”, I think that those protestants, geniuses or otherwise are still a “work in progress” (as we all are). The Holy Spirit will work in them and eventually lead them to the truth if they accept, so I don’t presume they won’t be saved. They’re simply just not there yet.

That’s pretty diplomatic of you. I should add that I didn’t pick those Protestants because they’re geniuses, though. Some of them are, most of them aren’t. I picked them because they know more about Catholicism than any Catholic you know. It’s interesting how you take the focus off of properly understanding Catholicism, though. (After all, there’s almost no one who really understands Catholicism and dislikes it…there’s plenty of people who don’t properly understand it and therefore don’t want to be a part of it. I think I heard that somewhere). Instead, it’s a matter of the Holy Spirit directing them to the truth. Or is it Truth with a big t? Either way, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit want a Protestant to be right where they are? Are you saying Protestants don’t have the Truth and need to be led out of where they are?

 

[mmmcounts]

So then you ARE doing something, same as me. It almost seems like the hangup lies on the term “work” and what it means. What I’m basically saying actually reflects some of what you hold on lordship salvation: "It must be renewed every day in many acts of trust and obedience." (your own link).

What are you concluding from that?

I’m not sure I understand it from your perspective. The site you link to seems to have a contradiction between the elect being saved in the end no matter what and still having free will.

Yeah, some people can’t handle compatibilism. Such a person would be an incompatibilist.

Quick question though: do you believe that people are predestined to damnation?

I won’t rule it out. It kind of hinges on exactly what you mean by predestination and foreknowledge. I almost feel like I have to say “yes” in order to avoid open theism. I should add that (assuming an answer of yes) when a person is predestined to damnation, the same principle of compatibilism holds.

I didn’t know about TULIP before. Interesting read. Didn’t know about all the different accepted Catholic teachings one can hold that are mentioned in there.

Yeah, I’ve seen that. It’s not as useful for me- it basically tells you what parts of TULIP you can agree with as a Catholic…and is probably most useful for telling you which parts of TULIP to not argue against. I use Theopedia quite a bit; it has pretty good summaries of all the different doctrines and plenty of links to other places. It tells you where the controversies are when appropriate, too.

So do you hold that: “No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure.”

That’s the general idea of perseverance- guaranteed and enacted by God, not by humans trying really hard.

and that “if one habitually commits [mortal] sins, he was never a true Christian, no matter how sincere he appeared”? Just curious to know to better understand what you hold on predestination.

Where’d you get that one from? I don’t believe in the existence of the “mortal/venial” dichotomy. I do believe there’s a gradient of sins where some are more serious than others, but I don’t believe in the existence of such a dichotomy. I think you can get a better representation of what you’re looking for without having to scroll down after looking at the Lordship Salvation link.

As mentioned in the article, Catholic theology has defined “predestined” to mean “predestined to final salvation.”

I have final salvation. Eternally. Starting at a point in my past, not a point in my future. I haven’t been glorified yet, but I do have what you call “final salvation.” I just call it salvation, though- it’s not like there’s more than one kind of salvation. Just the same salvation existing at different points in time. Keeping that in mind, I can say I have been saved, am being saved, and will be saved, but I obviously mean something quite different from you when you say that. For me, it’s all eternal salvation at different points in time. For you…it’s almost like you’re talking about three different kinds of salvation, considering how you emphasize that “final salvation” is something you don’t have yet but still have to merit. Surely that’s another kind of salvation that’s distinct from the one you have right now. Right? I would say “wrong,” but would you say “right?” Or is it more of a situation where you have to merit the right to keep your salvation?

There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). (meaning salvation can be lost, this under the section of “perseverance” linked above).

Mere belief does not necessarily mean either lordship or salvation has happened, nor does it necessarily mean a person has been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If all of that has happened, that means God has saved you and he will keep you.

The Catholic Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance, so I’d like to understand your take on it as there’s many similarities.

I’d be glad to.

Hmmm. In some ways, it’s like we’re both trying to say we’re espousing true compatibilism and the other is not. I suppose another similarity is that some Catholics have the ability to persevere till the end, but God only makes it a possibility. He doesn’t actually make it happen.

The other thing I noticed was that we differ on sola gratia from beginning to end, all the way through. I guess I didn’t notice that before.

I’m not old enough to know the transition, and as I’ve stated before, I’m even “younger” in my knowledge. I do see why those titles can be cause for trouble.

Yeah, I wish I could find the thread- I saw it yesterday. One Catholic was telling another Catholic about…I think it was venerating Mary. She (I think it was a she) said something like “Venerating Mary is just a doctrine, it’s not a dogma. That means it’s entirely optional.” I think the person who started the thread was a new Catholic who wasn’t entirely comfortable with venerating Mary.

I’m pretty sure the reply made that person feel more comfortable. My question is…does it make you feel more or less comfortable?

Mary as Mediatrix IS a doctrine. Perhaps you’re confused between dogma and doctrine:
Doctrine is Church teaching in all of its forms.
A dogma is a doctrine that has been expressly taught by the magisterium––either by conciliar or papal definition––to have been divinely revealed and contained in the Word of God, therefore requiring the belief of all Catholics.

That’s exactly right, and I used the terms pretty sloppily a few days ago. Sorry about that.

I’d assume you believe we’re taking emphasis away from Christ and/or giving Mary something that is only His. Am I correct?

Kind of, yeah. Of course, I’m not inside your head. I don’t know what you’re thinking. And, as the argument goes, I should just trust you when you tell me you’re not giving Mary something that belongs to Christ. That’s why I made the new thread. I’m asking how you do that and seeing if we can figure out what you might actually be doing differently in those three different situations. Right now, I don’t see any difference except for the object of your worship. Worship in this sense, of course.

newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

 

[mmmcounts]

Interesting to see you said “venerate something”. If it really were to the object alone, that’d be idolatry. Perhaps you’re thinking of when people are before an image of a saint, but even then we don’t honor those statues. All those amount to are “visual aids”. Just like it’s easier to remember a loved one by seeing their picture, the representation makes it easier to recall their lives.

I know you’re not dumb enough to actually worship a statue as if it was a deity. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone is actually dumb enough to do that. When non-Christians do what we both call “idol worship,” they offer very similar explanations and would encourage you to trust them to accurately tell you what’s going on inside their heads and just try to understand their practices with more of an open mind.

Again, I understand the reasoning for “this kind of extent”, but in the proper context I haven’t seen the issue of Mary in revelation get taken too far.

So you haven’t seen anyone make the claim that this means Mary has ruling authority in heaven? Or is that not included in the “taking it too far” category?

Sometimes though, it seems that some protestants are just afraid to acknowledge Mary at all (only doing so in Christmas cuz they kind of have to for the incarnation and that’s the extent of their “calling her blessed”.)

The Bible says barely anything about Mary. What it says is quite important, but it doesn’t say very much. That does not mean the writers of the Gospels were afraid to talk about her.

Sundays are very nice indeed. Is that when you go study? Hopefully you now know more but I’m sure you’ll still be needing a lot more time (but don’t we all?).

That’s when I have a chance to talk to my pastor. He wasn’t around today, though- he’s dropping one of his kids off at college for his freshman year.

As I said in my first reply today, Mary would have actually been committing sin by not doing the ritual.

Perhaps indirectly- I could see that.

Nice to know, except that in our case we also have Sacred Tradition to help out. I don’t know (I’m certainly no expert) but I’m pretty sure all defined dogmas have some foundation in scripture (or at least can use it to show there’s nothing to oppose it and prove it as “unbiblical”).

I think some of the dogmas have absolutely no foundation in Scripture and their foundation is built entirely on “Sacred Tradition” (and sometimes European myth). I think the Assumption of Mary is one of them. I would include her Immaculate Conception, but you believe there’s certain verses that cause it to be a logical necessity. Agree to disagree.

Again, it IS a doctrine but not yet a dogma.

Are you discounting the possibility that it never will be a dogma? Or is it just common knowledge that it eventually will?

It’s not because there’s nothing “logical” about it or that scripture is against it

I think there was something I didn’t communicate well enough…when something is “found logically within Scripture,” it means it’s an explanation of something that is a logical necessity, although that explanation is not found directly within Scripture. For example, the word “Trinity” is not found directly within Scripture, but the doctrine of the Trinity is logically necessitated by plenty of what Scripture says about the nature of God.

the problem right now seems to come down to it not yet being clear enough to be definable as a dogma. A title like mediatrix or co-redemptrix is very open to being misinterpreted (as we can see in these forums and elsewhere), so it’ll certainly require further clarification. These things can’t be rushed but I’m sure they’ll work on defining this further as it’s now become a more common objection and source of confusion.

Thanks for taking the time to put together thorough and thoughtful explanations like this.

 

[Liraco]

This is a selection from the book What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, which carries the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the CC.

Well first off let’s be clear that imprimatur and nihil obstat merely means that the one who reviewed it saw nothing that contradicts the faith. You’re not contradicting anything by being narrow-minded in the meaning of scripture as presented in these quotes, but you are missing out on the deeper meaning.

I don’t have access to the book to really comment on it, what I’ve found online is just 3 chapters including that one. As it stands, I see that he rightly states that seeing the woman as just Mary, would be incorrect.

It goes on to say “Who then is she?” and says it’s Israel.

Correct. Though you seem to imply (like the excerpt) it’s the ONLY meaning.

Here’s the thing, the early Church fathers saw her as Israel and there’s nothing wrong with that, but the Church is not static, things develop, so the understanding of what is in scripture grows as she grows in her knowledge of God. To limit the reading to Israel alone just because that’s what the ECF’s saw would leave the Church unable to grow.

On why there’s more to it than a mere symbol:
*Some people have interpreted this woman in Revelation 12 as merely a symbol either for the Old Testament people of Israel or for the New Testament Church and therefore have concluded that the woman cannot be an individual (i.e., Mary). However, this “either-or” proposition is foreign to the biblical worldview, in which individuals often symbolically represent collective groups. For instance, Adam represented all humanity (Rom. 5:19), and Jacob stood for all of Israel (Ps. 44:4). Given this biblical notion called “corporate personality,” the woman in Revelation 12 should be understood as both an individual (Mary) and a symbol for the people of God.
*

I smell some eisegesis, and I think this was done because there’s no other way to manufacture any kind of Biblical support for the Assumption of Mary.

There’s biblical support for people being assumed bodily. Just like countless books could be written on what Jesus did and weren’t, it stands to reason that Mary’s life wouldn’t have been documented in detail either. You said the Bible doesn’t have to explicitly state everything and the foundation of it is in there.

Perhaps it’s because of apocryphal sources mentioning it which causes the objection but they have no bearing on the dogma. Doctrine and dogmas take time to develop, your implying that they weren’t mentioned earlier as proof of “invention” doesn’t hold up. Just like the current “mediatrix” doctrine, it needs development but that won’t mean that if it became a dogma that it was an invention of that period.

Also, her being *assumed *isn’t the same as Jesus *ascending *by His own power.

Second, some argue that regarding Mary as an image of Israel is problematic because Israel is presented as the wife or bride of God (Jer. 3, especially verse 14). Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not in any way the wife of God.

I wonder if it’s “problematic” because it brings ideas of incest to narrow-minded people. What would men think about the fact that they’ll be the bride?

The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is God. All its members will be the brid, so why exclude Mary? I wonder if this is similar to the objection of “Mother of God” (she is the mother of Jesus but certainly not the mother of God the Father). I would apply the same logic to your statement.

She cries out in pain when giving birth. Jimmy A. has a way of dealing with it, though. He says this isn’t a picture of Mary having pain in childbirth. It’s figurative pain, not literal pain

He says “portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent”. For these things to apply, the referents don’t need to have everything apply 100% literally to each (Revelation is not literal after all).

He’s saying that Mary didn’t literally experience pain when giving birth but DID experience pain because of her son’s crucifixion. Read on and he mentions that the Church didn’t bring the Messiah but the other way around. However it’s through the Church that we continue to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

Don’t equate Israel with Mary.

I equated Israel, Mary, Eve, and the Church, to the woman of Revelation. You’re right that Mary isn’t Zion/Israel itself, rather “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is ‘the dwelling of God . . . with men’” (CCC 2676).

I haven’t heard anyone equating Mary to Israel. Just because the woman is a symbol of Mary and Israel doesn’t mean that Mary is therefore Israel. We’re talking about symbols after all, so no she’s definitely not the literal old Israel just like Mary isn’t the original Eve mentioned either. Jacob is literally Israel but he’s certainly not the woman.

All Protestants (and some Catholics) would prefer to interpret this as something eschatalogical that has to do with Israel- some say it’s already happened, some say it’s still to come.

the Church acknowledges that God does still have plans for the Jews as a unique people (Catechism of the Catholic Church 674)…[also] Catholics acknowledge that the Church is spiritual Israel or, in Catholic parlance, the “new Israel” (cf. CCC 877) -source

Just because something already happened doesn’t mean what is said no longer applies or is irrelevant though.

Someone’s got to do it, right? I’ll continue looking to see what I can find.

I see no problem with asking the hard questions, and I hope you’re open to finding the real answers yourself and not just what someone else says (so far you lead me to think so , which is why this thread has gone on as long as it has).

 

[mmmcounts]

Hi all,

I’ve been trying to slog through the pages of this thread, got about half way through. I just got to anxious to be a part of the discussion. Not sure if my points have already been dealt with and put to rest, if so I apologize.

Glad to have you; I’ll try not to answer what Liraco already covered.

1. Much debate on the translation of “κεχαριτωμενη” … what about the broader biblical use of this word and its semantic range? I argue that receiving grace, being endowed with grace, and continuing in grace is not unique to Mary alone.

The root of κεχαριτωμενη is χαριτόω. The word only appears one other time in Ephesians. There, it says ἐχαρίτωσεν. You can look at it here.
concordance.biblos.com/echarito_sen.htm

χαριτόω is not exactly the same thing as χάρις. A lot of people kind of figure they are. If they were, though, you’d expect Ephesians 1:6 to say something awkward like “to the praise of the glory of His grace (χάρις), which He has freely graced (ἐχαρίτωσεν, from χαριτόω) us in the beloved.” Instead, most translations refer to χάρις which God gave us, or favored us with, or bestowed upon us. You’re right, though- the same word is used one other time with reference to pretty much all Christians.

I am a bit interested to know what Eph. 1:6 says in Spanish, though. I’ve asked around, and it seems that in both Spanish and French, the word that means “graced” is far more synonymous with the word for “favored” and the two are used more interchangeably than they are in English. So does the Spanish version of Eph. 1:6 refer to “grace that He graced us with”?

Back to Steadfast, though: You give lots of examples of where χάρις is used, but you didn’t find any where χαριτόω is used. And there’s only one other place it’s ever used. These “χάρις” references could be quite useful, though- we have been talking about that quite a bit, too, but we’ve been mostly camping out in the Catechism and other CC documents. It probably would be good to look at how χάρις is referenced in the Bible.

 

[Liraco]

And I could be misunderstanding quite a bit of this. It’s a bit unfamiliar.

A lot of is unfamiliar to me too because I used to take so much for granted without really looking deeper.

This is a bit more compatible with my beliefs than I thought.

I’m surprised by the similarities as well. If I understood your analogy properly then we are indeed on common ground there.

You’re saying something very similar, but I still think we’re saying it a little differently. As you look at the verse, I say God and you say Grace. I think that’s the main difference.

Well since I’m not really an expert on the subject of grace I could very well be stating it wrong (as evident by my initial misrepresentation of the Holy Spirit). I do agree that it’s because of the Holy Spirit that these good works spring forth. Without Him, “doing good” isn’t all that valuable.

there’s almost no one who really understands Catholicism and dislikes it…there’s plenty of people who don’t properly understand it and therefore don’t want to be a part of it. I think I heard that somewhere.

You may have heard those wise words from Bishop Fulton Sheen:
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.

Instead, it’s a matter of the Holy Spirit directing them to the truth. Or is it Truth with a big t? Either way, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit want a Protestant to be right where they are? Are you saying Protestants don’t have the Truth and need to be led out of where they are?

Well as I also stated before (I think), most protestants are joined to Christ’s Church by baptism even if they’re not in full communion and could be saved BUT that is an extraordinary means and not the ordinary means. That’s why we seek their conversion, because it’s not that Protestants don’t have truth, but they don’t possess the fullness of it.

Why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit want to just leave them where they are? Let me try an analogy I heard today (hope I don’t botch it).
Imagine a large ship at sea and some people decided to take off on a small boat made from parts of the ship and set off on their own. The boat came from the larger ship and they’d be much safer on it too, so one would want them to come back. The people could make it to their destination but they run a huge risk. So instead of a big “gamble”, why not want them to be as safe as possible?

 

[Liraco]

What are you concluding from that?

Basically that our relationship with God must be renewed daily by those acts of trust and obedience. Otherwise you’re just doing whatever you want even if one says with their lips that they follow Him though their hearts say differently.

We have free wills so we can either choose to use it to follow or reject God, so renewing that daily means you’re choosing to follow (being obedient).

Where’d you get that one from? I think you can get a better representation of what you’re looking for without having to scroll down after looking at the Lordship Salvation link.

Well it seems to line up with “lack of obedience or transformation in a person’s life is warrant to doubt that they have been born again”. Just ignore the “venial/mortal” sin part and it basically seems to line up with this.

For you…it’s almost like you’re talking about three different kinds of salvation, considering how you emphasize that “final salvation” is something you don’t have yet but still have to merit. Surely that’s another kind of salvation that’s distinct from the one you have right now. Right? I would say “wrong,” but would you say “right?” Or is it more of a situation where you have to merit the right to keep your salvation?

Where’d you get three kinds from though? I see two at most. I think the article itself said it best when it comes to what “final salvation” means (the other “salvation” is obviously not really salvation because in the end they’re not saved).

I don’t consider myself bold enough to claim that I already have a place in Heaven as you do, but Catholics do have assurance of salvation . I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

It’s not infallible though:*
“The New Testament teaches us that genuine assurance is possible and desirable, but it also warns us that we can be deceived through a false assurance. Jesus declared: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 7:21).”*

Mere belief does not necessarily mean either lordship or salvation has happened, nor does it necessarily mean a person has been indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Sounds about right. What was meant is that they are drawn to God but eventually choose to reject Him. Thus, they didn’t persevere. Even one baptized who has the Holy Spirit come upon him can break that connection through sin (they leave Him, but not the other way around).

she said something like “Venerating Mary is just a doctrine, it’s not a dogma. That means it’s entirely optional.” I think the person who started the thread was a new Catholic who wasn’t entirely comfortable with venerating Mary.

Devotion and emotional attachment are certainly not required, giving assent of the will to Marian doctrines is.

Do you mean if it makes me uncomfortable to venerate Mary? Not at all. I’m not worshiping her so I don’t see the problem.

Right now, I don’t see any difference except for the object of your worship. Worship in this sense, of course.
newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Well I’ll do my best to help explain that on the other thread. It’ll have to wait though, I need sleep. Glad you do concede at the very least to trust when I say I don’t worship Mary or the saints. I’ll read that article in detail, but it’s certainly very different when it comes to God and when it comes to His creatures (because anything they do is through Him).

 

[Liraco]

I don’t think anyone is actually dumb enough to do that. When non-Christians do what we both call “idol worship,” they offer very similar explanations and would encourage you to trust them to accurately tell you what’s going on inside their heads and just try to understand their practices with more of an open mind.

I never did understand the worshiping of inanimate objects in the sense of idolatry simply because of how dumb it sounds. Perhaps I’m missing something.

So you haven’t seen anyone make the claim that this means Mary has ruling authority in heaven? Or is that not included in the “taking it too far” category?

Well as the prototypical Christian, what’s wrong with ruling? Aren’t all going to rule with Christ?

I guess you’d be strongly against Pope Pius XII who taught that “Jesus Christ alone, God and man, is King in the full, proper, and absolute sense of the term. Mary also, in a restricted and only analogous way, shares in his royal dignity as the Mother of Christ who is God, as his associate in the work of Redemption, in his conflict with the enemy, and in his complete victory. From this association with Christ the King, she obtains a height of splendor unequaled in all creation.” Her queenship, like her Son’s kingdom (John 18:36), is not of this world. Her role is to draw people to acknowledge and follow Jesus as their Lord and King

As I heard though, man is so prone to error that there surely are those who do take the subject of Mary to an extreme that takes away from Jesus and gives too much to Mary. What I quoted though does no such thing, as her queenship continues to further the glory of God.

That does not mean the writers of the Gospels were afraid to talk about her.

I said protestants, not the Gospel writers. I think more wasn’t written because the point of the Gospel was to spread the good Word, I’m sure Mary has no objections to what little was written of her.

Are you discounting the possibility that it never will be a dogma? Or is it just common knowledge that it eventually will?

I see no problem if it stays a doctrine, I did explain why it’s won’t be a dogma in its current state though.

For example, the word “Trinity” is not found directly within Scripture, but the doctrine of the Trinity is logically necessitated by plenty of what Scripture says about the nature of God.

I can see Marian dogmas as not being logically necessitated by you. You do bring up the good point about the Trinity not being explicit but that it could be inferred and sheds light on a lot. That’s what I believe the Church continues to do, learn and study and shed light on even more things that were once hidden.

 

[Liraco]

I am a bit interested to know what Eph. 1:6 says in Spanish, though. I’ve asked around, and it seems that in both Spanish and French, the word that means “graced” is far more synonymous with the word for “favored” and the two are used more interchangeably than they are in English. So does the Spanish version of Eph. 1:6 refer to “grace that He graced us with”?

Hadn’t really noticed that about how it’s written:
6 "para alabanza de la gloria de su gracia con la que nos agració en el Amado.*

Indeed it uses grace and graced. Not sure about favor and graced used interchangeably (didn’t really pay attention to that) but definitely interesting.

The footnote roughly says the following: The term Karis (wrong “spelling”?) designates the free divine favor; though it includes the notion of “grace” as a sanctifying and intrinsic gift to man, its reach is much broader… everything proceeds from Him and to Him must return.

You might already know that in the current Spanish language, “gracias” means “thank you” but it also means “graces” (grace/“gracia” in plural). I wonder if that has any relation to the fact that grace is a gift (which one would certainly be thankful for). Also, “favor” is in the Spanish word for “please”, as “por favor” (literally “by favor” or more correctly “as a favor”).

 

[steadfast7]

Hey guys,

I finally managed to skim through most of the thread. Again, apologies for not doing justice to fully digesting every argument posed. The dialogue has been excellent and enlightening, and I hope we can continue to work through issues “full of grace.”

I’m trying to look at things from a more panoramic perspective, so here are my questions and thoughts that I think hit critical issues. Perhaps they can serve as a summary for other new comers as well.

1. The significance of the meaning of “κεχαριτωμενη” in Lk 1:28. If it means the fullness of what Catholics believe, does it necessarily establish Mary’s sinlessness?
2. Mary’s obedient practice of performing Jewish sacrifices for sin and the like. What are her reasons for doing so? Does she need to perform them? is it a scandal?
3. The anticipatory atonement of Christ’s sacrifice on Mary’s behalf prior to her conception. is this valid? Even if this was possible, how do we know that it was actually done either than by our speculation?
4. the allegorical readings of Mary as New Eve and the allusion to Rev 12. How clear and obvious are these passages in their use in establishing the doctrine? As an aside, I’m not sure if this was mentioned yet, but does anyone else see a little awkwardness in interpreting Mary as Second Eve and her Son as Second Adam? The picture of Mary as Eve, the Church, and subsequently the beloved Bride of Jesus her son … Please don’t take this as sacrilege, but I genuinely would like to know how this awkwardness is solved.

best wishes

 

[steadfast7]

some thoughts on Mary’s sinless state.

In Reformed circles, there is a discussion of the noetic effects of sin. If original sin is devastating to the image of God in man and touches every part of human life, then it also attacks the rational faculties as well. Mary, if she were sinless, would have none of these effects on her thinking.

Indeed, it seems to me, that someone who is sinless would think and reason extremely clearly. consider Luke 2:48-50

"When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”
50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Mary here displays a hastiness in rebuking Jesus for spending time in the temple; ignorance in Jesus need to do so; and a lack of understanding surrounding the entire event.

What is clear is that Jesus has no noetic effects of sin. He is very clear and transcends rational thought. We never see Jesus failing to understand something, but this is not so with Mary, as would be expected

any thoughts?

 

[Liraco]

1. The significance of the meaning of “κεχαριτωμενη” in Lk 1:28. If it means the fullness of what Catholics believe, does it necessarily establish Mary’s sinlessness?

As I told Mike before, it definitely helps but the dogma on Mary’s sinlessness does NOT hinge on just one bit of scripture like this. We did cover the meanings on “highly favored” as Mike pointed out or also on page 10 of this thread:
*Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.
*

1. Mary’s obedient practice of performing Jewish sacrifices for sin and the like. What are her reasons for doing so? Does she need to perform them? is it a scandal?

We covered that in pages 12 and 13 I believe. To summarize it, Mary was basically obligated to perform them as refusing to do so was committing sin (not to mention that there was no conceived exception as being sinless was unthought of). Just as Jesus left a good example, so too did Mary do what she had to to give a good example and not cause scandal.

1. The anticipatory atonement of Christ’s sacrifice on Mary’s behalf prior to her conception. is this valid? Even if this was possible, how do we know that it was actually done either than by our speculation?

Well it’s something that developed over time as is the case with most doctrines as understanding grows.

Would it be valid? If God could do it, why not? As for how we can know:
in Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ. This is not strange, for to the eye of God, all time is present.

You can read more on that and Mary’s immaculate conception here: ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

1. the allegorical readings of Mary as New Eve and the allusion to Rev 12. How clear and obvious are these passages in their use in establishing the doctrine? As an aside, I’m not sure if this was mentioned yet, but does anyone else see a little awkwardness in interpreting Mary as Second Eve and her Son as Second Adam? The picture of Mary as Eve, the Church, and subsequently the beloved Bride of Jesus her son … Please don’t take this as sacrilege, but I genuinely would like to know how this awkwardness is solved.

As I stated before, the interpretation of Revelation doesn’t make or break Mary as the new Eve.

From the link above, Genesis 3:15
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary.

Also short excerpt on Mary as the new eve:
as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin’s disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin’s obedience…"

Funny you mention the awkwardness I had just talked about in response to Mike. Certainly not “sacrilege”, though I appreciate showing that you mean to ask a good question even if you think some could take it the wrong way. Worry not.

Remember Jesus’ response about marriage in the afterlife to the hypothetical 7 brothers who married the same woman? Earthly marriage is nowhere near the same as what awaits us. Which is the reason of priestly celibacy for most Catholic religious, it’s a sign of the greater love we’re meant for with God, that transcends the physical.

On Mary as Eve, we have a few “obvious” points:
-If Jesus is the new Adam, why would Eve be missing?
-Eve came from Adam, now Adam came from Eve just as the first Eve’s disobedience is undone by the new Eve’s obedience. The role of Eve in a sense is reversed and corrected.

So then we come to what amounts to an image of apparent “incest”. But I would like to point out how we are all to be wedded to Christ. It’s obvious that this marriage goes way beyond anything related to “sex” (otherwise what of all the men as “brides” of Christ?) So then why would Mary, a creature like the rest of us, be excluded from being wedded to the groom as the rest of us?

I hope that gives you something to think about.

 

[Liraco]

some thoughts on Mary’s sinless state.

In Reformed circles, there is a discussion of the noetic effects of sin. If original sin is devastating to the image of God in man and touches every part of human life, then it also attacks the rational faculties as well. Mary, if she were sinless, would have none of these effects on her thinking.

I’m going crazy cuz I’m sure I wrote about that at some point in this thread but I can’t seem to find it again.

I would imagine it’s tied to Mary not being completely restored to the original state during her conception. For example, she didn’t possess impassibility (the ability not to suffer) as we see her suffer throughout our Lord’s passion.

I also read that it’s possible Mary had infused knowledge about God’s providence. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit WE can receive is Knowledge “Through infused knowledge the faithful can see God’s providence in whatever enters their lives and put creatures to the right use.”.

I’m curious, just how deep does infused knowledge have to be for you? Even Jesus said there were some things He didn’t know like the end time. “however perfect the human soul of Christ is, it always remains finite and limited; hence its knowledge cannot be unlimited and infinite.”

If Jesus’ human nature had limitations in infused knowledge, how much more so would Mary’s be? Besides, she could have been given knowledge of things that would be pertinent to her. Not knowing where her son was and worrying like any good mother would isn’t really a big deal. Perhaps these were meant as trials for her, so knowledge of that wasn’t granted to her.

What about when Mary asked Jesus to give the people wine? Did she already know Jesus could perform miracles?

Any further insight into infused knowledge would be appreciated. The word “noetic” is also new to me, so pardon my lack of experience in this regard.

 

[Ignatius33]

It’s been fun and intellectually stimulating (and sometimes mindnumbing) posting on this thread, but I think I am done for now – I can’t keep up anymore! Liraco and mmmcounts, you guys certainly know your stuff, it’s been a pleasure. Take care.

 

[steadfast7]

I would imagine it’s tied to Mary not being completely restored to the original state during her conception. For example, she didn’t possess impassibility (the ability not to suffer) as we see her suffer throughout our Lord’s passion.

This implies that being sinless results in possessing the other incommunicable attributes of God, but that claim isn’t made. Indeed only God is impassible

I also read that it’s possible Mary had infused knowledge about God’s providence. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit WE can receive is Knowledge “Through infused knowledge the faithful can see God’s providence in whatever enters their lives and put creatures to the right use.”.

Yes, within Protestant (namely Pentecostal/Charismatic) circles, there is the receiving of “words of knowledge” given by the Spirit for a particular situation. This is different from being free from the noetic effects of sin, however. This is considered a gift sovereignly administered, but with Mary, I am suggesting that her cognitive and reasoning faculties would not have been distorted if she were sinless. I would expect that she would not have made an erroneous thought or failed to understand something. In other words, perfect wisdom, not perfect knowledge.

Even Jesus said there were some things He didn’t know like the end time. “however perfect the human soul of Christ is, it always remains finite and limited; hence its knowledge cannot be unlimited and infinite.”

Remember that the deity and humanity of Christ, though distinct in nature, exist in one indivisible person (according to Chalcedon). I would want to be careful when saying that Jesus’ knowledge “cannot be unlimited and infinite.” We must not allow Jesus to lose any of the attributes that makes God God. Perhaps within the Trinity there is some way that certain knowledge could be kept from Christ, but this is different from the charge that he was ignorant or deficient in cognition due to sin.

 

[Liraco]

I find it mind-numbing at times too Ignatius, glad to have had you along “for the ride”.

This implies that being sinless results in possessing the other incommunicable attributes of God, but that claim isn’t made. Indeed only God is impassible

I didn’t say being sinless is going to give you things attributed only to God. I wouldn’t think only God is impassable (unable to suffer). Does that mean you think those in Heaven can suffer? Heaven is supposed to be free of it.

Perhaps it’s a confusion with being immutable (unable to change). That certainly belong only to Him. Perhaps this is just a mixup on my part though, there’s a lot I still don’t know so bear with me. I’d like to know what you see as God’s attributes to help me understand.

Yes, within Protestant (namely Pentecostal/Charismatic) circles, there is the receiving of “words of knowledge” given by the Spirit for a particular situation. This is different from being free from the noetic effects of sin, however. This is considered a gift sovereignly administered, but with Mary, I am suggesting that her cognitive and reasoning faculties would not have been distorted if she were sinless. I would expect that she would not have made an erroneous thought or failed to understand something. In other words, perfect wisdom, not perfect knowledge.

Well as I said, I don’t know if Mary did indeed have to have infused knowledge and to what extent if she did. “Perfect wisdom” doesn’t seem so “perfect” when you see how big Adam & Eve screwed up. It certainly was anything but wise.

As I said before though, it’s possible Mary did have great wisdom but it would pertain to what she needed to know. By the way, how is it unwise to worry about losing your child? Especially the one child that matters above ALL?

On how her grace did help her understand:
the angel said He would be conceived when the Holy Spirit would “overshadow” her. That word, she would know, was the one use to describe the Divine Presence filling the ancient Tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 40:35). Her Son was to be called Son of God “for this reason”. So that He was the Son of God in a unique sense. From this alone she likely knew of His divinity, especially when she would add the words of Isaiah 9:5-6 that the Messiah would be “God the Mighty”. Even though the Jews found that text hard, she, full of grace, would readily grasp it.

Remember that the deity and humanity of Christ, though distinct in nature, exist in one indivisible person (according to Chalcedon). I would want to be careful when saying that Jesus’ knowledge “cannot be unlimited and infinite.” We must not allow Jesus to lose any of the attributes that makes God God. Perhaps within the Trinity there is some way that certain knowledge could be kept from Christ, but this is different from the charge that he was ignorant or deficient in cognition due to sin.

We should definitely be careful here, but must also be mindful of how Jesus is both fully God and fully human. A finite limit to His knowledge is only pertaining to the human part, His divine nature is certainly not lacking in any way. I certainly did not anywhere make the claim or allusion to this lack of knowledge being due to sin, rather just due to the limitations of the flesh.

Perhaps this will help, a small quote from Athanasius from “Was Jesus a know-it-all?”:
for, inasmuch as he was made man, he is not ashamed, because of the ignorant flesh, to say, ‘I do not know,’ so that he may demonstrate that, although as God he knows, according to the flesh he is ignorant.

Jesus was not born in a glorified body, so it certainly had its limits just like ours did even if His divinity was in no way limited.

 

[djeter]

This poem, The Blessed Virgin Compared To The Air We Breathe by Gerard Manley Hopkins taught me all I needed to know about Mary. See if you don’t agree, you’ll find it at the end of an essay on Hopkins:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/24/gerard-manley-hopkins/

In Christ,

dj