Immaculate Conception and Mary's Redemption

[Portrait]

Mary as a child of Adam, was subject to original sin, but was by divine intervention, kept from contracting its defilement. As Catholics it is our belief that Jesus did indeed redeem Mary, for it was on account of His merits that she was preserved free from original sin. We are redeemed from sin already present, whereas Mary was delivered from even contracring sin. Thus in her case it was a sort of retro-active redemption or, ‘redemption by exemption’.

Some Protestant apologists contend that this position robs the cross of Christ of its essential meaning. They point to typical statements relating to the nature of Christ’s atoning death, for instance, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21); “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6) and St. Peter’s statement that he “bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (I Pet. 2:24). But, so they claim, this teaching about Mary’s being delivered from sin before contracting sin is, well, a double contradiction. It is saying that Mary needed to be redeemed from something which she in no sense experienced; and when we realize that redemption is essentially a deliverance from guilt and its penalty, it can be seen how absurd the notion of deliverance from non-existent guilt is. Furthermore it is argued that she who never was in any real sense a sinner was saved, i.e. had her non-existent sins laid upon Christ.
It is quite clear what St. Paul means when he writes that Christ became “a curse for us” (Gal.3:13), namely, He bore the curse of God which was due to us on account of our sins. However, if Mary was always free from sin she could not be subject to God’s curse surely, for to be accursed for a sin which never existed would be utterly unjust.

It is also contended that a further failure in the Catholic position is that it has a totally inadequate view of original sin. For if this only consists in a want of sanctifying grace, then it can be dealt with by a conferring of grace. But if sin is, as Sacred Scripture declares it to be, an offence against God, the wages of which are death, then sin inevitably implies guilt, and redemption means pardon. Now if Mary was redeemed, as the Church freely admits (albeit retro-actively), then it would seem she had guilt to pardon and if she had guilt it was because of sin.

These Protestant arguments against the Immaculate Conception appear cogent but I am quite sure their is a satisying Catholic rebuttal and I’m sure that there is some seasoned Catholic who can knock the bottom out of them.

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

 

[ejb21]

Mary as a child of Adam, was subject to original sin, but was by divine intervention, kept from contracting its defilement. As Catholics it is our belief that Jesus did indeed redeem Mary, for it was on account of His merits that she was preserved free from original sin. We are redeemed from sin already present, whereas Mary was delivered from even contracring sin. Thus in her case it was a sort of retro-active redemption or, ‘redemption by exemption’.

Some Protestant apologists contend that this position robs the cross of Christ of its essential meaning. They point to typical statements relating to the nature of Christ’s atoning death, for instance, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21); “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6) and St. Peter’s statement that he “bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (I Pet. 2:24). But, so they claim, this teaching about Mary’s being delivered from sin before contracting sin is, well, a double contradiction. It is saying that Mary needed to be redeemed from something which she in no sense experienced; and when we realize that redemption is essentially a deliverance from guilt and its penalty, it can be seen how absurd the notion of deliverance from non-existent guilt is. Furthermore it is argued that she who never was in any real sense a sinner was saved, i.e. had her non-existent sins laid upon Christ.
It is quite clear what St. Paul means when he writes that Christ became “a curse for us” (Gal.3:13), namely, He bore the curse of God which was due to us on account of our sins. However, if Mary was always free from sin she could not be subject to God’s curse surely, for to be accursed for a sin which never existed would be utterly unjust.

It is also contended that a further failure in the Catholic position is that it has a totally inadequate view of original sin. For if this only consists in a want of sanctifying grace, then it can be dealt with by a conferring of grace. But if sin is, as Sacred Scripture declares it to be, an offence against God, the wages of which are death, then sin inevitably implies guilt, and redemption means pardon. Now if Mary was redeemed, as the Church freely admits (albeit retro-actively), then it would seem she had guilt to pardon and if she had guilt it was because of sin.

These Protestant arguments against the Immaculate Conception appear cogent but I am quite sure their is a satisying Catholic rebuttal and I’m sure that there is some seasoned Catholic who can knock the bottom out of them.

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

Yes, Mary was Redeemed ahead of time. God can do that. If there is any doubt about Mary being Redeemed one only has to look at her own words in the Canticle of Mary : “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior for He has looked with favor on His lowly servant”.

Mary’s dormition was different from the kind of death we experience because there was no guilt because there was no sin. Mary’s dormition was a great joy because she knew she would be reunited, for all eternity, with The Son she loved so much.

 

[Portrait]

Thankyou for your response but I, or rather the Protestant apologists, are not questioning the fact that Mary was redeemed, for as you point out her words in the Magnificat settle that beyond question. The issue of contention is when this occured. Now they maintain that it could not “be ahead of time” because of this whole thing about redemption. The word redemption can only be understood against the background of slavery, which is why, incidently, it was applied to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For the same reason it was a word easily understood in the first century A.D. when a slave was set free* after* the redemption price had been paid. Here is where the problem is, at least for the Protestant theologian, with the Catholic view, for in Mary’s case the price was paid to deliver from a slavery which never existed and the blood of Christ was shed to cleanse a non-existent stain.

I am sure there is Catholic way of responding to this issue, so can someone shed some light and refute these Protestant premises as regards our Lady’s redemption?

Warmest wishes,

Portrait

 

[ejb21]

Thankyou for your response but I, or rather the Protestant apologists, are not questioning the fact that Mary was redeemed, for as you point out her words in the Magnificat settle that beyond question. The issue of contention is when this occured. Now they maintain that it could not “be ahead of time” because of this whole thing about redemption. The word redemption can only be understood against the background of slavery, which is why, incidently, it was applied to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For the same reason it was a word easily understood in the first century A.D. when a slave was set free* after* the redemption price had been paid. Here is where the problem is, at least for the Protestant theologian, with the Catholic view, for in Mary’s case the price was paid to deliver from a slavery which never existed and the blood of Christ was shed to cleanse a non-existent stain.

I am sure there is Catholic way of responding to this issue, so can someone shed some light and refute these Protestant premises as regards our Lady’s redemption?

Warmest wishes,

Portrait

There is alot of stuff they don’t like and don’t agree with. Too bad! Mary was Redeemed ahead of time.

 

[robbmiller]

**CCC 2853
**Victory over the "prince of this world"169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is "cast out."170 "He pursued the woman"171 but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring."172 Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: "Come, Lord Jesus,"173 since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

 

[inkaneer]

There is alot of stuff they don’t like and don’t agree with. Too bad! Mary was Redeemed ahead of time.

Maybe a better question for all the protestants is for them to determine actually when they stopped believing in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The original “Reformers” certainly believed in both. So what happened on the road to today? Was it because these doctrines were “TOO Catholic” and did not support the “total depravity” of mankind idea that permeates protestantism?

 

[MarcoPolo]

The issue of contention is when this occured. Now they maintain that it could not “be ahead of time” because of this whole thing about redemption. The word redemption can only be understood against the background of slavery, which is why, incidently, it was applied to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. For the same reason it was a word easily understood in the first century A.D. when a slave was set free* after* the redemption price had been paid. Here is where the problem is, at least for the Protestant theologian, with the Catholic view, for in Mary’s case the price was paid to deliver from a slavery which never existed and the blood of Christ was shed to cleanse a non-existent stain.

I am sure there is Catholic way of responding to this issue, so can someone shed some light and refute these Protestant premises as regards our Lady’s redemption?

Warmest wishes,

Portrait

Their argument against “ahead of time” condemns anyone who died prior to 30 A.D. Also, I would agree that redemption suggests freedom from slavery, but that’s irrelevant to their argument. A person can just as well be saved from slavery before or after they become enslaved. I think their argument must show that God’s work must flow along the terrestrial timeline within creation. I don’t think they have any cause for asserting this. First of all because the saved people in the OT were saved “after” their temporal deaths, possibly by Christ coming to preach to them in their prison (1 Peter 3). So if Christ can save one after they died, what’s so hard for him to save someone like Mary before she is conceived? Additionally, God is known to operate outside of time such as the language of Revelation 13:8 which speaks of the Lamb slain before the foundation of creation.

Additionally, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is rooted in typology - something unfortunately all-too alien to modern Protestants anymore - such as her fulfillment of the golden Ark of the Covenant, or the NT type of Eve (who herself was formed without original sin). In typology, the NT antitype is always superior to the OT type. Jesus is superior to Adam (Rom. 5). The NT bread of life is superior to the OT manna (John 6). Etc… Once one recognizes the Biblical language communicating Mary as the new Eve, it becomes a violation of typology to say that Eve was formed without original sin, but Mary (who should be the superior antitype) is formed fallen.

EDIT: Oops, didn’t realize how old this thread was. Oh well, my above stays anyway!

 

[PJM]

=Portrait; Mary as a child of Adam, was subject to original sin, but was by divine intervention, kept from contracting its defilement. As Catholics it is our belief that Jesus did indeed redeem Mary, for it was on account of His merits that she was preserved free from original sin. We are redeemed from sin already present, whereas Mary was delivered from even contracring sin. Thus in her case it was a sort of retro-active redemption or, ‘redemption by exemption’."

Mary is saved for the following reasons:

1. In order to be the MOTHER of a perfect God; she to HAD TO BE PERFECT

1. Mary merited God’s ENORMOUS FLOW of grace to her by FREELY choosing never to sin; and to say YES to God; no matter what God asked. It is Mary’s reaction to God’s flow of Grace that wrought Her the Honor of being the Mother of God and all that it intailed, as well as Salvation. Mary HAD TOO [absolutely] cooperate FULLY with God’s plan and demands from God to merit Her salvation.

Some Protestant apologists contend that this position robs the cross of Christ of its essential meaning. They point to typical statements relating to the nature of Christ’s atoning death, for instance, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21); "The Lord has …

The PROBLEM here is there’s not our’s and not Mary’s. They desire to claim that Christ Sacrifice ALONE is [and was] sufficient for ONES’ Salvation. NOT SO! OSAS, the Sinners Prayer and other man-devised myths, are JUST and ONLY that. “Myths.”

Salvation is available ONLY in the manner God Ordains and Proclaims. Humanities RECENT believes, and innovations, while much easier are NOT effective and NOT likely accepted by God for ANYONE who knows Him and the Bible. NOT ONE TIME IN TRADITION, OR BIBLICAL HISTORY HAS OR DID GOD EVER APPROVE OF ANY SET OF FAITH BELEIFS OTHER THAT HIS OWN; NOW ENTRUSTED WITH THE KEYS TO HEAVEN TO THE POPE AND THE CC. ONE OF THESE KEYS IS THE EXCLUSIVE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE AND EXPLAIN THE BIBLE FULLY AND CORRECTLY; SOMETHING PROTESTANTS ARE UNABLE TO DO UNLIESS THEY CONFORM FULLY With the TEACHINGS OF THE CC.

"Salvation: and “Redeemption” are NOT the same thing, or the same act.

It is also contended that a further failure in the Catholic position is that it has a totally inadequate view of original sin. For if this only consists in a want of sanctifying grace, then it can be dealt with by a conferring of grace. But if sin is, as Sacred Scripture declares it to be, an offence against God, the wages of which are death, then sin inevitably implies guilt, and redemption means pardon. Now if Mary was redeemed, as the Church freely admits (albeit retro-actively), then it would seem she had guilt to pardon and if she had guilt it was because of sin

Again it is THEY lacking right understanding of both sin and grace.

Original sin is “merited” by the fact that we are members of humanity. SINS are personal and require OUR own freewill assent to them. Differnt causes have differing effects; all though both can be “deadly,” both have differnt God Approved Remedies

God who is Perfect must therefore also be “JUST and Fair”. Because He inflicts ALL [Mary excluded] with Original sin; He must make available to ALL; a remendy to make salvation possible. Baptism is as Circumsisson was] the remendy God choose as being sufficient to off-set the penalty of OS. Our-Sin because IT IS PERSOANLLY and freely chosen has it’s own Remendy: The Sacrament of Confessionj **[John20:19-23]. **It is because of the Protestsant refusal to ACCEPT God’s specified way for forgiveness of sins, that that do not, perhaps cannot grasp this reality.
[John 3:5].

It is BECAUSE mortal me think that they know more or know better than God,and the Methods and way GOD HIMSELF has chosen, that is the root of this understanding.

Only the Pope and Magisterium and then ONLY on everthing everyone MUST believe, accept FULLY,and live, on Faith beliefs and Morals are actually protected by God. One should not grant rights to those not in Communion because they are NOT directed or COMMANDED by God Himself. Mt.1615-19; Mt. 28:16-20; John 14:16-17; John 17:15-19 and John 20:19-23] are but a few passages that affirm this position.

God Bless and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Pat

 

[bmullins]

The ark of the old covenant was made with meticulous precision, carefully and with exact parameters. It was made of gold and shíttîm wood. Both of which imply that it was incorruptible, and pure. After it was made it was not allowed to be touched by human hands.

The argument I use when talking to my protestant brothers is that Mary is the New Ark. She contained everything the other ark contained, in a more perfect form. She was overshadowed just as the ark was by the Spirit. King David jumped for joy, John in Elizabeth’s wound jumped for joy. Both rested for 3 months. Both were announced with how is it that the ______ comes to me? The parallels are irrefutable.

If God took so much care to make the ark of his written word perfect and to protect it from corruption, why do we think he would do less with the ark that touched the living Word of God?

 

[bogeydogg]

It seems to me that Paul makes it quite clear in Romans 1 that we fall when we exchange the glory of God for the images of animals, etc because we suppress the truth of God implanted upon us by our Creator and made manifest to us in Creation. We do this because we are first and foremost self worshipers.

If I have understood the RCC doctrine of mortal sin correctly, then all Mary would ever need to do is not commit this first mortal sin of exchanging the glory of God for other things. This non-exchange would speak to a heart wholly given over to the worship of God and the humility of a heart which would recognize that she could only have been so because God her redeemer had preserved her.

If Mary never committed mortal sin by doing violence to the grace God gave her by birth and by nature, then a life of humility and simplicity before God makes it quite easy for me to think that she would never have sinned as we do. But this sinlessness is a gift of grace given her by God not an achievement on her part and so she would say that God is her Savior because it is God’s grace which had saved her from the stain of sin which corrupts us all.

By whom did that grace come?

The same One by whom that grace will come to all of us, Christ Jesus.

We confess, if we are Christians, that one day in Christ we will be raised up incorrupt in the presence of God free from the taint of sin and preserved as such forever by His grace. But somehow it is inconceivable to us that Christ could have affected this in Mary from her birth rather than after she died.

Besides I think a lot of protestant object to the sinlessness of Mary because they assume we are born guilty of sin by accident of birth rather than sin being something we do based upon our affections.

If Mary has different affections and a different heart from birth then why could she not be sinless?

God Bless

 

[AmbroseSJ]

bogeydogg:

If Mary never committed mortal sin by doing violence to the grace God gave her by birth and by nature, then a life of humility and simplicity before God makes it quite easy for me to think that she would never have sinned as we do. But this sinlessness is a gift of grace given her by God not an achievement on her part and so she would say that God is her Savior because it is God’s grace which had saved her from the stain of sin which corrupts us all.

The only thing I would add to your otherwise excellent post is that cooperating with God’s Grace does gain merit to us. Consider the parable of the talents. Mary was given the rarest and most valuable graces ever, and by her making use of all those graces, she has been rewarded beyond anyone else in Salvation history. So it is not wrong to say that Mary has been meritorious, or acquired merit beyond anyone before or since. This can certainly be called an achievement. Just as the gifted child in school makes use of his/her gift, and it is considered an achievement.

You may have meant this all along. But there is also an error that looks upon Mary as just a normal person, who did absolutely nothing, other than be given God’s grace, which she didn’t deserve, and for which she deserves no veneration.

 

[PJM]

[QUOT]E=bogeydogg;

If I have understood the RCC doctrine of mortal sin correctly, then all Mary would ever need to do is not commit this first mortal sin of exchanging the glory of God for other things. This non-exchange would speak to a heart wholly given over to the worship of God and the humility of a heart which would recognize that she could only have been so because God her redeemer had preserved her

Thanks for your insights! Know dear friend that the CC position of sin [both Mortal and venial] is Biblical and God’s OWN understanding mandated by Divine Justice.

NO, because their is still Original sin. Amry HAD TO BE [absolute sense] perfected in order to become the Mother of a Perfect God. You’re also wrong about God perserving “her.” To always and everytime say “YES to God and NO to sin” HAD to be Mary’s freewill choice in order to be perrfected. God OFFERED Grace but MARY had to freely choose to accept and correctly apply it.

1John.1: 8 to 10 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."**

**1John.5: 16 to 17 **"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

John.20: 20 to 23" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"

MEANING: with Christ OWN authority and powers **[Matt.10: 8 **“Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay”]

But this sinlessness is a gift of grace given her by God not an achievement on her part

***NO, AS STATED THIS IS INCORRECT. God indeed offerd Mary Grace [as He does every human person]. BUT Mary’s perfect condition HAD TO BE the result of Her Own Freewill choices. Like us She could have [but choose never too sin]. Therein lies the key to Mary’s perfection. ***

The same One by whom that grace will come to all of us, Christ Jesus.

We confess, if we are Christians, that one day in Christ we will be raised up incorrupt in the presence of God free from the taint of sin and preserved as such forever by His grace. But somehow it is inconceivable to us that Christ could have affected this in Mary from her birth rather than after she died.

There are MANY incorrect conclusions in the above statement. 1. Mary HAD TO BE PERFECTED B4 becooming the Mother of Christ and then Choose to stay perfected by Personal choices. 2. ONLY those who do as God Commands will attain heaven. Salvation is a PROCESS, and forgiveness of SIN the wway Christ Ordains is a requirement. Mortal mens devided easier way’s WILL NOT get the job done! What you deem inconceivible is doubting God’s capabilities. That dear friend is silly. GOD can do ANY GOOD THING!

Besides I think a lot of protestant object to the sinlessness of Mary because they assume we are born guilty of sin by accident of birth rather than sin being something we do based upon our affections.

The simple and logical fact is that because God IS, and MUST REMAIN PERFECT; Christ [God] could not issue forth from a SINFUL human-being. What is being ignored here in the fact that it is GOD we are talking about. All-Mighty; All Powerfu;, and All-Good God . With BILLIONS and BILLIONS of choices; God Choose Mary because She ALONE merited by her humility and faithfulness; She alone was willing to endure and suffer as she would be required to; and She ALONE had PERFECT Faith; Perfect TRUST in her God. God choose Mary, offered her sufficient Grace KNOWING how She would respond; BUT never interfering with Mary’s OWN freewill to do so.

Please understand I’m NOT shouting. Just placing eemphasis wehre warranted.
I pray dear friend that this clarifies the issue for you? If not I’ll try again.

God Bless you, and Merry Christmas!
Pat**

 

[bogeydogg]

Thanks for your insights! Know dear friend that the CC position of sin [both Mortal and venial] is Biblical and God’s OWN understanding mandated by Divine Justice.

I agree largely with the RCC’s understanding of sin both mortal and venial.

NO, because their is still Original sin. Amry HAD TO BE [absolute sense] perfected in order to become the Mother of a Perfect God. You’re also wrong about God perserving “her.” To always and everytime say “YES to God and NO to sin” HAD to be Mary’s freewill choice in order to be perrfected. God OFFERED Grace but MARY had to freely choose to accept and correctly apply it.

OK

***NO, AS STATED THIS IS INCORRECT. God indeed offerd Mary Grace [as He does every human person]. BUT Mary’s perfect condition HAD TO BE the result of Her Own Freewill choices. Like us She could have [but choose never too sin]. Therein lies the key to Mary’s perfection. ***

OK. I would rather have thought both of these statements would have been covered, at least in my mind which I admit is very Augustinian in my thinking, that Mary having never had a corrupted heart and corrupted desires would not sin because of grace, but that not sinning would of course have been her choice. I did not intend to imply that she was an automaton. In the same way that Jesus chose not to sin, else how would we make sense of the temptations were He not tempted even though in His flesh and not in His heart, so Mary, not having the perversities of sin would still choose obedience, but in that choosing is still the awesome, but not overpowering (we are not Calvinists here, grace of God.

There are MANY incorrect conclusions in the above statement. 1. Mary HAD TO BE PERFECTED B4 becooming the Mother of Christ and then Choose to stay perfected by Personal choices. 2. ONLY those who do as God Commands will attain heaven. Salvation is a PROCESS, and forgiveness of SIN the wway Christ Ordains is a requirement. Mortal mens devided easier way’s WILL NOT get the job done! What you deem inconceivible is doubting God’s capabilities. That dear friend is silly. GOD can do ANY GOOD THING!

Actually in this I was offering a reductio ad absurdum. The protestant position is that no one can be preserved from sin in this life… well except Jesus. AND the protestant position is one day we will all be raised incorruptible, free from sin in the presence of our Lord Christ to the glory of God forever.

So what I was I was pointing out was, if we believe both of these things are true, then why is it inconceivable that Mary could have received this preserving grace before she died?

BTW, I agree salvation is a process, and end following on rebirth, baptism, sanctification, given to us by the Church through the Table, confession, remission of sin, living lives of penitence, charity, faith, humilty, and walking daily with our God, that we may receive salvation at His hand following some sort of purgation. ← Cuz ya know Paul seems pretty clear there is some sort of burning away of worthless things.

Man I gotta get to RCIA.

The simple and logical fact is that because God IS, and MUST REMAIN PERFECT; Christ [God] could not issue forth from a SINFUL human-being. What is being ignored here in the fact that it is GOD we are talking about. All-Mighty; All Powerfu;, and All-Good God . With BILLIONS and BILLIONS of choices; God Choose Mary because She ALONE merited by her humility and faithfulness; She alone was willing to endure and suffer as she would be required to; and She ALONE had PERFECT Faith; Perfect TRUST in her God. God choose Mary, offered her sufficient Grace KNOWING how She would respond; BUT never interfering with Mary’s OWN freewill to do so.

OK

God Bless you, and Merry Christmas!
Pat

Merry Christmas to you

God Bless

 

[InDefense]

That’s strange, Jesus never esteemed Mary. Not once !!

 

[PJM]

=bogeydogg;8730988]I agree largely with the RCC’s understanding of sin both mortal and venial.

OK

OK. I would rather have thought both of these statements would have been covered, at least in my mind which I admit is very Augustinian in my thinking, that Mary having never had a corrupted heart and corrupted desires would not sin because of grace, but that not sinning would of course have been her choice. I did not intend to imply that she was an automaton. In the same way that Jesus chose not to sin, else how would we make sense of the temptations were He not tempted even though in His flesh and not in His heart, so Mary, not having the perversities of sin would still choose obedience, but in that choosing is still the awesome, but not overpowering (we are not Calvinists here, grace of God.

Actually in this I was offering a reductio ad absurdum. The protestant position is that no one can be preserved from sin in this life… well except Jesus. AND the protestant position is one day we will all be raised incorruptible, free from sin in the presence of our Lord Christ to the glory of God forever.

So what I was I was pointing out was, if we believe both of these things are true, then why is it inconceivable that Mary could have received this preserving grace before she died?

BTW, I agree salvation is a process, and end following on rebirth, baptism, sanctification, given to us by the Church through the Table, confession, remission of sin, living lives of penitence, charity, faith, humilty, and walking daily with our God, that we may receive salvation at His hand following some sort of purgation. ← Cuz ya know Paul seems pretty clear there is some sort of burning away of worthless things.

Man I gotta get to RCIA.

OK

Merry Christmas to you

God Bless

And also to you my friend,
God Bless you,
Pat