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

[AmbroseSJ]

Yeah; total vanity.

Glennonite

Vain curiosity is not the same as vanity. It’s another way of saying idle curiosity. Curiosity that serves no purpose. E.g. How high is up.

I don’t mean to degrade your question, but you persisted even after the example of Eve. Why would you think the Immaculate Conception degrades Mary’s nature so that she has no free will? That’s what you are saying when you say the IC made her “yes” possible. Or conversely, why would you say that her “yes” made the IC possible. We know for a fact that Jesus, by His Redemption, made the IC possible. Mary’s “yes” and the Immaculate Conception are not co-dependent.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sig:

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.

Mary said she needed a Savior for the same reason all of humanity needs a Savior. We are all fallen heirs of Adam and Eve. Mary’s Salvation is what we call the Immaculate Conception. A special grace given to Mary, sparing her the contamination of original sin in anticipation of the Saving Power of Jesus Christ. There is nothing contradictory in saying that Mary is sinless and/or that she was Saved by Jesus Christ.

 

[Sig]

Mary said she needed a Savior for the same reason all of humanity needs a Savior. We are all fallen heirs of Adam and Eve. Mary’s Salvation is what we call the Immaculate Conception. A special grace given to Mary, sparing her the contamination of original sin in anticipation of the Saving Power of Jesus Christ.

When and where did that happen?

There is nothing contradictory in saying that Mary is sinless and/or that she was Saved by Jesus Christ.

I didn’t say anything about a contradiction, but that I don’t think it’s true.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

When and where did that happen?

Do you know what the Immaculate Conception means?

 

[Sig]

Do you know what the Immaculate Conception means?

Yes.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

This statement is invalidated by the fact that you did not validate this claim.

If you came here arguing for the validity of my opening statement (which isn’t my opening statement), then everybody would by default know everything you said below. You just wasted some good debate time.

So, to start off this discussion, I will give you the floor by saying why this argument from the objectors of the Immaculate Conception (IC) is more valid and logical than my argument against it.

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.)

So? You start by the presupposition of Sola Scriptura, right? Whatever your answer is, it is supposed to be a “Yes”.

But as it is my belief and perhaps my primary reason (whatever that means) for my argument, my secondary reason (whatever that means) is somewhere where we can all agree: Definitions. The definition of “Savior” was the crux of my argument and NOT that I originally believed it.

So, tell me why my argument is less valid and less logical than the objectors’ arguments.

**Here is my argument in a nutshell:

Needing a savior is NOT contingent only upon being fallen.**

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.

Addendum: based on your interpretation of Scripture.

Ok, did you not read my plea? I want to discuss this argument, and NOT the IC itself. Sure, there will be tangents. That’s fine. But I want mainly to discuss this argument and not the IC itself BECAUSE there are so many arguments for and against it that this thread will lose its focus. Catch my drift?

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.

So what if its not necessary? Our very existence is not necessary. Does that change its significance? God saw it “fitting” that we share in His existence (i.e. share in His Love).

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.

Nope. She does not “proclaim whatever she will”. She proclaims what has been believed since the dawn Christianity/Catholicism. That is what we believe. Take it from a Catholic.

IOW, Mary is said to be sinless only because the church has declared her so.

“IOW” means “In other words”. These words have absolutely no affiliation with the previous sentiment, nor is it a logical following.

Mary is said to be sinless because she was… sinless. Whether or not the Church infallibly proclaims that Mary is sinless, she was still believed to be sinless from the dawn of Christianity.

Anyway, I’m done correcting you on Catholic beliefs. Can we stay on topic here? Pretty please?

Why is the objector’s argument more logical and valid than mine?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

When and where did that happen?

When she was conceived and wherever she was conceived.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

Thank you! (I don’t know about the apologist part, though! Haha…)

But yeah, prejudiced and bigoted are words to describe those that are actually those things, and not because of any title (like Protestant, Catholic, Atheist). If a person acts like it, then they are, regardless of their religion.

But now-a-days, being Catholic means I’m prejudiced, bigoted, an idol-worshipper, arrogant, etc… So Life goes, huh? I guess…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Sig,
I was thinking of a good way to get the ball rolling on this discussion. I would like for you to answer the questions at the end of these scenarios:

1. While you and I are rock climbing, I fall off and break a leg. Do you help me?
2. While you and I are rock climbing, you see that I am about to fall. If it’s within your power, do you save me?

I would like them to be answered with either a “Yes” or a “No”. I don’t want if’s, and’s, but’s, explanations, extrapolations, elaborations, or any other -ation. The answers don’t need qualifications anyway. They should be clear cut. Any qulaifications you might can be added below.

If you answered “yes” to #1, then thank you for saving me. I will buy the next round. If you answered “no” (which I am more than sure will not be the case), then perhaps we are at an impasse.

If you answered “yes” to #2, then it is only logical that you concede to the point of my argument that you are my savior (not to be confused with Savior) because you saved me from danger.

(Note: conceding to my argument doesn’t mean you concede to the IC; it just means that you agree the objector’s argument is invalidated based on the definition and application of the word “savior”.)

If you answer “yes” and STILL disagree with my argument, then you don’t understand my argument. “Only the fallen need saving” is completely false. If you saved me, then you don’t believe that only the fallen need saving. We are fallen. Those who are going to join the ranks of the fallen ALSO need saving (we believe Mary to be in this category). Disregard the IC for now (as if you’ve ever regarded it) because it is irrelevant to the conclusion of my argument. It is not ONLY the sinner who need saving, but also those subject to being sinners.

If you say “no” to #2, then this is where it gets ugly, uglier than me. But I’m pretty sure you won’t say “no”.

 

[Sig]

When she was conceived and wherever she was conceived.

Where does Scripture say that?

 

[Sig]

If you answer “yes” and STILL disagree with my argument, then you don’t understand my argument.

Your statement is most certainly fallacious. "If I don’t agree with you it’s because I don’t understand." C’mon, gimme a break, man.

“Only the fallen need saving” is completely false.

That’s false.

The scriptural statement is “all have fallen…” (Rom 3:23). That’s what you won’t deal with.

I say that in love.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Where does Scripture say that?

Different thread. That is Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition.

Your statement is most certainly fallacious. “If I don’t agree with you it’s because I don’t understand.” C’mon, gimme a break, man.

Well, it would be fallacious if you did understand my argument and I made that claim. But you have yet to show that you do understand and that’s not my fault. If you do understand, then show it. And if you do show it, give me something I can work with. I will be the judge of whether or not you understand my argument. I’m a reasonable and fair person in debate. Trust me. This is how I know you don’t understand my argument and its not by the sheer virtue of the fact that you don’t agree with my argument (that indeed would be unfair ad unreasonable). It is because you keep reiterating one way or another that you don’t believe Mary was immaculately conceived. In light of this, the fact that you said my statement was fallacious is itself fallacious.

And I refuse to give you a break. You have yet to present an argument against my argument against an argument against the IC.

Can you give me a rational justification for saving someone that’s about to fall while also believing that those who are about to fall do not need (or perhaps have) a savior? Because you haven’t yet.

That’s false.The scriptural statement is “all have fallen…” (Rom 3:23). That’s what you won’t deal with.I say that in love.

sigh
Read my plea again. I am not arguing FOR the IC! I am making an argument AGAINST an argument AGAINST the IC! Kind of like St. Thomas Aquinas making an argument against St. Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. (By no means am I comparing myself to either of those. I’m not even worthy to even think about comparing myself to them.)

So I don’t have to “deal with” “All have sinned.”

Even if I do have to “deal with” it, the fact that it is non-sequitor to my argument invalidates its relevancy to the discussion. Hmm… Let’s see. Me: “Here is my argument in a nutshell:Needing a savior is NOT contingent only upon being fallen… ‘Only the fallen need saving’ is completely false.” Your response: “All have sinned”. Can you sit there (or stand) and tell me that you have trumped my argument to an objection? If yes, then you don’t understand my original argument (and hence, my statement is NOT fallacious, but you’re just mad that I said that in the first place, and you couldn’t respond). If no, then you’re right. Let’s get on with it and discuss who needs saving: ONLY the fallen or those who are subject to falling also.

If this thread said “Let’s discuss the IC”, THEN you have good reason to mindlessly regurgitate the out-of-context proof-text (pre-text) “All have sinned” thinking that it wins automatically.

YOU have to deal with rational scrutiny. And you’re not taking it too well in light of the fact that you have yet to adequately respond to my objections, except to say “I still disagree with IC”, which all readers of this thread already know anyway.

I say that in love also. It will seem more loving when you join in the actual discussion at hand, but it is loving regardless.

 

[Calgar]

Oh! You got us! The Catholic Church is wrong! Too bad, so sad.

I lol’d.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I have always rationalize it this way:
_ Mary is not divine.
_ Since Mary is a mortal (unlike Jesus), she can’t be sinless on her own (unlike Jesus)
_ God preserves her from sins, in effect delivered and perfected and purified her from stains of sins.
_ Since God did all those things to her, God is her savior, who literally saved her from the life of sins.