Mary Needed A Savior, Therefore She's A Sinner!

[GreggAlvarez]

“Mary said herself she rejoiced in God HER SAVIOR. Who needs saving? Sinners! Mary was NOT sinless.”

Oh! You got us! The Catholic Church is wrong! Too bad, so sad. But not really…

This argument is really frustrating and I’m really tired of it (and just tired in general). Not just because it is thoughtless, but because of its thoughtlessNESS!

A better format of this argument would be the following:

1. Mary needed a Savior.
2. Only sinners need a Savior.
3. Therefore, Mary is a sinner.

Premise #1. Nobody argues that. Apparently to some, when we say she was sinless, we are also making sinlessness tantamount to not needing a Savior, which Scripture clearly contradicts that claim. That goes to show that those who argue that we say she didn’t need a Savior have their own agenda to run, and it has nothing to do with hearing us out but everything to do with finding more unreasonable reasons to hate Church teaching despite its veracity.

1. This is where the argument goes awry. “Only sinners need a Savior.” It is the “[o]nly” part that bugs me. If it said “sinners need a Savior”, then I would agree and the conclusion that Mary sinned would not follow based on an obvious informal fallacy.

But nooooo… They have to add “[o]nly”.

A person falls into a pit (sinner). A man helps him out of the pit.

Another person is headed for that same fate (Mary). A man helps her steer clear of this pit.

The definition of Savior in my dictionary is this: someone who saves someone from danger.

Both scenarios imply an absolute and unquestionable need for a Savior. Just replace “pit” with “original sin”. So, it is not true that “only sinners” need saving. Those headed for the same fate of original sin also need saving.

If a person is about to get hit by a car, what would you do? Attempt to save them, right? Let’s say the mission was successful. Did you save them? Yes. Are you a savior of sorts? Yes. Did they fall, get injured, etc…? No.

I will repeat this again: it is utterly false to say that only sinners need a Savior or only the fallen need saving or only those who are hit by 18-wheelers need saving and not those who are about to get hit.

Needless to say, things that are “needless to say” need not be said.

1. And as such, the conclusion doesn’t follow based on the fact that premise 2 is WRONG!

Conclusion: Did Mary need a Savior? Yes, and she agrees. Is Mary’s sinlessness compatible with her need for a Savior? Yes! Because those that are unknowingly about to fall into a pit need a Savior just as much as those in the pit (if not more).

To say “only sinners need a Savior” is to say that only people that have fallen need saving.

Today’s Lesson: Don’t go rock climbing with someone who believes that only the fallen need saving.

Note: I’m not making an argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary here, although I do believe it (and rightly so). I’m just making an argument against an argument against Mary’s sinlessness. So, if you want to regurgitate “All have sinned” like all the other drone-like naysayers, then go elsewhere. But if you want to have a peaceful discussion about this argument, I’m all ears and eyes. While I am adamant about this, I do still consider and listen to its adherents.

 

[Trishie]

There presumption seems to be that Saviour means simply saving from sin.
Heaven was closed to humankind by original sin.
In that sense, all humankind needed a Saviour to open heaven to humankind including Mary.

Strange though that we are accusing anyone of sinning. Are not our sins between God and ourselves, and our Confessor who is in persona Christi? There is no single indication of sin in the gospels that would allow us to accuse the woman whom God chose out of all the billions of women throughout time to be Mother of the Divine Son, so we are unjustified to presume. I can’t imagine Jesus being pleased to hear His dear mother accused of sinning, by anyone. Say nothing of His Mother that you would not say to the face of Jesus who even as He hung bleeding, trembling with exhaustion, sight fading, pushing up on the nails in His feet and dragging up on the nails in His wrists to painfully breathe, and to ask John to accept her and care for her as his own mother after He was gone. Shall we say to Him, “Your Mother was a sinner.”? I certainly wont. And the Angel sent by God to call her to her vocation to be Mother of the Saviour certainly didn’t.

Mary was truly humble. She wouldn’t have claimed no to need saving.
Various of the Saints who were beyond reproach, accused themselves of being sinners, awful sinners. St Francis ruined his sight from weeping for his ‘sins’ and the crucified Christ. And you do not think Mary was being humble? She wasn’t speaking ex-cathedra, she was speaking in humility and praise.

 

[Melchior_1]

Easy, quick answer; Mary was redeemed by the Cross before the Cross happened. How does that work? Jesus exists beyond time itself; He’s God. He can apply the graces found from the Cross anytime He feels like.

In this case, He applied them to His Mother.

 

[centurionguard]

Easy, quick answer; Mary was redeemed by the Cross before the Cross happened. How does that work? Jesus exists beyond time itself; He’s God. He can apply the graces found from the Cross anytime He feels like.

In this case, He applied them to His Mother.

Little more needs to be said.

Even a child could say if you were God, what kind of Mother would you create to hold the Divine Infant Savior Jesus in His Mother’s womb.

And the child answers; God would have created the best Mother He could perfect in every way without sin. Indeed; God created perfection when he created Mary His mother.

Only a perfect Holy Vessel could carry our Divine Savior Jesus.
What we know of the Blessed Virgin is far far less than what God the creator knows about the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary.

 

[Lonely_guy]

After some well educated answers I provide a daft one. Mary did not need a savior,she was chosen because she was free from sin,as Jacob to I assume. But it is not only sinners who need a savior. We all do,but some more some less.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

GreggAlvarez:

This argument is really frustrating and I’m really tired of it (and just tired in general). Not just because it is thoughtless, but because of its thoughtlessNESS!

It’s easy to become frustrated with prejudiced and bigoted persons. Even Jesus in the synagog with the man with the withered hand grew angry with the Pharisees as they refused to engage with him on any level.

There has to be a point at which you say to yourself, any further discussion will be useless. This frustration is exactly the end they work toward. You can apologize for not being able to express your convictions in a way they can understand. Sometimes a little humility goes farther than reasoned logic.

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

Well, as a prejudiced and bigoted person I thought I would reply!

Regarding whether Mary actually sinned it is not, IMHO a fit matter to discuss, in either direction. I like to think St. Augustine of Hippo and I are on the same bus seat on this one. If you say she was sinless, you put your opponent in the position of demonstrating the sin; if you say she sinned, you put your opponent in the position of proving she was sinless. And so there are arguments ad nauseum about this or that, whether John Chrysostom thought she sinned (as if it mattered), etc. This debate is actually inappropriate.

So there.

-Tina “Let’s Hear it for the Prejudiced and Bigoted! Whoo-hoo!” G

PS

Ok. Whether she actually sinned or not, she was considered at one point to be classified with the sinners, because only the sinners get saved. So EVEN IF she did not sin, she was declared a sinner, so that she could be declared righteous. Jesus came to call the ___ not the righteous, and it is the __ who need a doctor not the healthy (fill in the blanks). So he did not say “Not you, Mother,” to her. Everything and everyone, including Christ, got the condemnation charge so that He could have mercy on them (Romans 11:32 and preceding). Jesus was condemned on the cross, Mary was condemned with the world in order that she would be saved.

 

[Archedreamer]

As a past protestant I understand you my friend… but you must not say things how that you have written as a tittle so easyly… think this: how centhuries and centhuries of catholic tradition of theological thought would not have been able to give the Catholic Church the true that you present now as a simple silogism? The dogmas of the Church have a long history that must give them some credibility… you must not be so innocent (a tender thing not take me wrong) and you must have a dialogical position….

PS: Sorry! I have not read you and so I thought that you were any protestant little lady… but that I said is again true for protestant people… anything is so simple always to explain it with a silogism…

 

[jschutzm]

"
To say “only sinners need a Savior” is to say that only people that have fallen need saving.

Today’s Lesson: Don’t go rock climbing with someone who believes that only the fallen need saving.

HERE HERE… I thoroughly loved your post. I especially love the lesson of today. Brilliant logic. hehehehe

In the same vein as Rock climbing is this bit of common sense:

“Contrary to popular belief… You don’t need a parachute to sky dive. Technically, You only need a parachute to sky dive TWICE.”

 

[Glennonite]

Easy, quick answer; Mary was redeemed by the Cross before the Cross happened. How does that work? Jesus exists beyond time itself; He’s God. He can apply the graces found from the Cross anytime He feels like.

In this case, He applied them to His Mother.

I understand and agree; God withheld the stain of Original Sin from His Mother in anticipation of His Death and Resurrection.

Recently, while praying the Rosary, I stubbled onto these questions. Maybe some on this thread would lend me their insights.

Did Mary’s, “Fiat” come from her as a result of her state of grace (her Immaculate Conception)? Did Jesus chose to form Mary without sin because of her, “Yes.” to God? In other words, would a (any) woman who had Original Sin be inclined to give her permission to God as Mary did? Or, would a (any) woman who was free from Original Sin naturally say, “Yes!” to bearing the Son of God?

I know we are dealing with “God’s-Time”, and this may just be a chicken-or-the-egg question; but I think that there is more here.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Glennonite

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Easy, quick answer; Mary was redeemed by the Cross before the Cross happened. How does that work? Jesus exists beyond time itself; He’s God. He can apply the graces found from the Cross anytime He feels like.

In this case, He applied them to His Mother.

Indeed it is a quick and easy answer! But if only it convinced our Protestant brothers and sisters… (That is, the ones who object to the Immaculate Conception.)

 

[Pitcharan]

Everyone needs the Savior for his/her salvation. Not just sinners, but also saints.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die (john 11:25-26a)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Glennonite:

Did Mary’s, “Fiat” come from her as a result of her state of grace (her Immaculate Conception)? Did Jesus chose to form Mary without sin because of her, “Yes.” to God? In other words, would a (any) woman who had Original Sin be inclined to give her permission to God as Mary did? Or, would a (any) woman who was free from Original Sin naturally say, “Yes!” to bearing the Son of God?

All we need do is look at Eve. She was also an immaculate conception, although we don’t usually think of her like that. So Mary’s free will was fully free, just as Eve’s was.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

TinaG:

Hi!

Well, as a prejudiced and bigoted person I thought I would reply!

Just wanted to say that I do NOT consider Protestants to be automatically prejudiced and bigoted. There are some wonderful Protestants that post on this message board. But there are some that ARE (p&b.) Not because they are Protestant, but because they are actually prejudiced and bigoted. (Catholics can likewise fall into this category!)

So please do not take offense at my comment. It was meant only for the OP, as he seemed to be up against this type of person. I could be wrong, but I think GreggAlvarez to be a very cogent and sound apologist.

 

[Glennonite]

All we need do is look at Eve. She was also an immaculate conception, although we don’t usually think of her like that. So Mary’s free will was fully free, just as Eve’s was.

Yes, Eve was created w/o sin, yet sinned. But my question is in regards to Mary’s “Yes”.

Did her yes come because of her sinlessness? Or did her IC come as a result of her “Yes”?

Glennonite

 

[Usagi]

Yes, Eve was created w/o sin, yet sinned. But my question is in regards to Mary’s “Yes”.

Did her yes come because of her sinlessness? Or did her IC come as a result of her “Yes”?

Glennonite

Even when God rewards our behaviors, those behaviors are themselves a result of His grace working in us. So I’d put the IC “before” the fiat in terms of cause-and-effect as well as time. Even Mary has no room to boast of goodness before God, since whatever goodness she has came from Him.

That said, the full IC wouldn’t necessarily have been required in order for Mary to have sufficient grace to make her fiat. Christians today are able to align their wills with God’s at least some of the time, and we have only the lesser grace of Baptism (which restores us to God’s friendship and thus removes the ultimate consequence of original sin, but does not remove our concupiscence). The Old Testament saints received even lesser degrees of grace (they were not, as far as we know, permitted into the Beatific Vision proper until after Jesus’ death) but were still graced enough to cooperate with God on individual occasions.

Usagi

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes, Eve was created w/o sin, yet sinned. But my question is in regards to Mary’s “Yes”.

Did her yes come because of her sinlessness? Or did her IC come as a result of her “Yes”?

Glennonite

You are treading into the recondite and mysterious world of predestination, grace, and free will. Proceed at your peril… For myself, I have no problem understanding and believing these mysteries as the Church teaches. Are you sure it is relevant to your salvation to know such answers? Are you sure this isn’t just vain curiosity?

Usagi: Mary received the Grace to do God’s will, it’s true, but there is still Merit attached to using that grace, by the Heavenly dispensation. Therefore because Mary used all of the Grace God gave her, which was beyond anything ever given before or since, her merit is likewise beyond the Merit of anyone before or since. Just as in the parable of the Talents, the man that was given the largest amount of talents was able to profit more than any of the others, so likewise Mary profited (merited) more because so much more was given to her. It is why we attach so much importance to the BVM. Just like in the parable, Mary as a reward (for this profit or merit) is set over so much more, in fact she has been crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.

 

[Glennonite]

You are treading into the recondite and mysterious world of predestination, grace, and free will. Proceed at your peril… For myself, I have no problem understanding and believing these mysteries as the Church teaches. Are you sure it is relevant to your salvation to know such answers? Are you sure this isn’t just vain curiosity?

Usagi: Mary received the Grace to do God’s will, it’s true, but there is still Merit attached to using that grace, by the Heavenly dispensation. Therefore because Mary used all of the Grace God gave her, which was beyond anything ever given before or since, her merit is likewise beyond the Merit of anyone before or since. Just as in the parable of the Talents, the man that was given the largest amount of talents was able to profit more than any of the others, so likewise Mary profited (merited) more because so much more was given to her. It is why we attach so much importance to the BVM. Just like in the parable, Mary as a reward (for this profit or merit) is set over so much more, in fact she has been crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Yeah; total vanity.

Glennonite

 

[vz71]

“Mary said herself she rejoiced in God HER SAVIOR. Who needs saving? Sinners! Mary was NOT sinless.”

Today’s Lesson: Don’t go rock climbing with someone who believes that only the fallen need saving.

 

[Sig]

“Mary said herself she rejoiced in God HER SAVIOR. Who needs saving? Sinners! Mary was NOT sinless.”

Oh! You got us! The Catholic Church is wrong! Too bad, so sad. But not really…

This argument is really frustrating and I’m really tired of it (and just tired in general). Not just because it is thoughtless, but because of its thoughtlessNESS!

A better format of this argument would be the following:

1. Mary needed a Savior.
2. Only sinners need a Savior.
3. Therefore, Mary is a sinner.

Premise #1. Nobody argues that. Apparently to some, when we say she was sinless, we are also making sinlessness tantamount to not needing a Savior, which Scripture clearly contradicts that claim. That goes to show that those who argue that we say she didn’t need a Savior have their own agenda to run, and it has nothing to do with hearing us out but everything to do with finding more unreasonable reasons to hate Church teaching despite its veracity.

1. This is where the argument goes awry. “Only sinners need a Savior.” It is the “[o]nly” part that bugs me. If it said “sinners need a Savior”, then I would agree and the conclusion that Mary sinned would not follow based on an obvious informal fallacy.

But nooooo… They have to add “[o]nly”.

A person falls into a pit (sinner). A man helps him out of the pit.

Another person is headed for that same fate (Mary). A man helps her steer clear of this pit.

The definition of Savior in my dictionary is this: someone who saves someone from danger.

Both scenarios imply an absolute and unquestionable need for a Savior. Just replace “pit” with “original sin”. So, it is not true that “only sinners” need saving. Those headed for the same fate of original sin also need saving.

If a person is about to get hit by a car, what would you do? Attempt to save them, right? Let’s say the mission was successful. Did you save them? Yes. Are you a savior of sorts? Yes. Did they fall, get injured, etc…? No.

I will repeat this again: it is utterly false to say that only sinners need a Savior or only the fallen need saving or only those who are hit by 18-wheelers need saving and not those who are about to get hit.

Needless to say, things that are “needless to say” need not be said.

1. And as such, the conclusion doesn’t follow based on the fact that premise 2 is WRONG!

Conclusion: Did Mary need a Savior? Yes, and she agrees. Is Mary’s sinlessness compatible with her need for a Savior? Yes! Because those that are unknowingly about to fall into a pit need a Savior just as much as those in the pit (if not more).

To say “only sinners need a Savior” is to say that only people that have fallen need saving.

Today’s Lesson: Don’t go rock climbing with someone who believes that only the fallen need saving.

Note: I’m not making an argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary here, although I do believe it (and rightly so). I’m just making an argument against an argument against Mary’s sinlessness. So, if you want to regurgitate “All have sinned” like all the other drone-like naysayers, then go elsewhere. But if you want to have a peaceful discussion about this argument, I’m all ears and eyes. While I am adamant about this, I do still consider and listen to its adherents.

I find the opening statement, "“Mary said herself she rejoiced in God HER SAVIOR. Who needs saving? Sinners! Mary was NOT sinless” much more valid than, and logical than what you’re saying.

You have to believe Mary was sinless; therefore, it’s known to all that your position is driven primarly by your presuppositions. (If you don’t believe Mary is immaculately conceived and sinless, you can’t be RC.)

I don’t have to believe anything about Mary except for that recorded in the Biblical record, and according to the statesments of the whole of Scripture, I can only conclude that Mary is not sinless.

If memory serves me correctly, the Roman Catholic church herself states that Mary being sinless is not “necessary” to anything concerning Mary, but that it is “fitting” that she be considered sinless. The church, by reason of her belief that she has the authority to proclaim whatever she will regarding anything Christian, has proclaimed Mary sinless on that basis. IOW, Mary is said to be sinless only because the church has declared her so.

God bless.