Mary's Consignment to Disobedience

[mark_a]

The point I think I am trying to make is that at some point, logically, Mary lost her own righteousness

Mary never had her own righteousness. She was preserved from original sin by God, her Son. Wouldn’t you do the same for your mother if you could?

 

[ecohlman]

This is one of the best answers that I have seen on this issue.
From phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-mary-need-savior-too.html

The pre-existant Son, being beyond the bounds of time, is able to take the grace from the Cross, grace that the rest of us receive after the work is “finished” (Jn 19:30) and apply it to Mary, which in time appears as a retroactive endeavor. This grace protected her from the sin of Adam, which caused her to be immaculately conceived, or conceived without sin. Mary was saved from sin by this special act of God, which is why she is able to rejoice in God her “Savior” (Lk 1:47).

Another way I have tried to wrap my brain around this is thinking about it in terms of biology. Women have all the seed they are going to have, it is not something that is created through their lifetime. Mary already contained the seed that by the power of the Holy Spirit was to become our Savior. So through Christ, that was inside her, she was saved from the mark of original sin. Just another way to look at it I suppose. Hope that makes sense to someone other than myself.

~Beth

 

[TinaG]

Only implicitly.

Will implicit scripture suffice for the Immaculate Conception?

So did I misread you original post?

I don’t know.

-Tina “Kind of Puzzled” G

 

[TinaG]

Mary never had her own righteousness.

Maybe I’m misreading what I have read about her. Catholics seem to say it was because of her righteousness that God selected her, etc. I get the impression she stands outside the normal course of salvation, is if Christ did not need to die for her because she was so holy on her own.

She was preserved from original sin by God, her Son.

That is the Catholic position.

Wouldn’t you do the same for your mother if you could?

I don’t know how applicable this is to this unique situation.

-Tina “Shrugging” G

 

[TinaG]

This is one of the best answers that I have seen on this issue.
From phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-mary-need-savior-too.html

Another way I have tried to wrap my brain around this is thinking about it in terms of biology. Women have all the seed they are going to have, it is not something that is created through their lifetime. Mary already contained the seed that by the power of the Holy Spirit was to become our Savior. So through Christ, that was inside her, she was saved from the mark of original sin. Just another way to look at it I suppose. Hope that makes sense to someone other than myself.

~Beth

Thanks, I like that quote.

By the way, I am here not to argue but to understand, even though I find myself sucked into us versus them exchanges at times.

I have no trouble with the idea that God extended the covenant of grace backwards in time. Abraham, for example, was saved by faith in Christ and Christ’s atonement, even though it was so far in the future.

Here I think is the logical sequence:

1. God desired a mother full of grace for His Son.
2. With God, desire = action therefore He got one

This happened outside time, so the following happened:

1. In order to get a MFOG, He posited someone
2. He condemned her as a sinner
3. He forgave her
4. He washed away her condemnation
5. He applied the righteousness of Christ to her

Then, in time,
6. He created her.

I think in this way one can reconcile the IC with justification by faith.

Comments?
-Tina “Semper Reformanda” G

 

[Barbkw]

For those who enjoy Fr. Barron!

*"Mary the Warrior’

'In contrast to our conventional view of the Virgin Mary as a shrinking violet, the book of Revelation presents her as a warrior who has brought into the world a new way of dealing with worldly power: Christ (i.e. Love itself).

If we do not approach the world as a battlefield between love and violence, we will become spiritually blind. But the Virgin Mary, as warrior, helps us see this reality while assuring us that her Son has already conquered.’ *

wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/Sermon-501-Mary-the-Warrior-20th-Sunday-in.aspx

 

[mark_a]

1. In order to get a MFOG, He posited someone
2. He condemned her as a sinner
3. He forgave her
4. He washed away her condemnation
5. He applied the righteousness of Christ to her

Then, in time,
6. He created her.

I think in this way one can reconcile the IC with justification by faith.

Comments?
-Tina “Semper Reformanda” G

Tina,

I’m not sure we need to reconcile the IC with justification by faith. The Eternal Father knew (and knows Mary and all of us, for that matter) before time began. Not one of us, Mary included, is created before their conception in time. God did not become man through Mary because of her own righteousness, He is the cause of Mary’s righteousness.

If the idea hasn’t been suggested to and rejected by you, Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn explains the IC, plus other Marian dogma in a very straightforward manner. It is a very easy, pleasant read replete with scripture references. Even though some of the conclusions may be objectionable to you, you will gain a better understanding of the IC and the Catholic reasoning behind it.

 

[TinaG]

For those who enjoy Fr. Barron!

*"Mary the Warrior’

'In contrast to our conventional view of the Virgin Mary as a shrinking violet, the book of Revelation presents her as a warrior who has brought into the world a new way of dealing with worldly power: Christ (i.e. Love itself).

If we do not approach the world as a battlefield between love and violence, we will become spiritually blind. But the Virgin Mary, as warrior, helps us see this reality while assuring us that her Son has already conquered.’ *

wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/Sermon-501-Mary-the-Warrior-20th-Sunday-in.aspx

Mary was not heard of again after the early chapters of Acts. She passed out of sight and history. She was incredibly courageous, particularly at the cross, but really…

-Tina “I have nothing against her” G

 

[mark_a]

Mary was not heard of again after the early chapters of Acts. She passed out of sight and history.

How 'bout in Revelation?

If you want to argue, that’s ok too. But if you want to understand Catholic (and very similar Orthodox teaching) get the Scott Hahn book, even if only for refutation.

 

[TinaG]

How 'bout in Revelation?

If you want to argue, that’s ok too. But if you want to understand Catholic (and very similar Orthodox teaching) get the Scott Hahn book, even if only for refutation.

Mark,

I already have a ridiculously large reading list, which I should probably be tackling instead of arguing on CAF. Like I know enough to argue, which I don’t. Let me rephrase it by saying I should probably be tackling my reading list instead of spouting uninformed and unformed opinions about things of which I know nothing. Oh, well.

Here goes with some more spouting.

Mary isn’t in Revelations, despite Catholic teaching. I think you are referring to Revelations 12. The Church selectively picks out certain things in that there passage and ignores other things. It is very inconsistent. Read the whole passage and see what I mean. According to the Church, Mary had no birth pains. The woman in Rev 12 did. I think there are some other things that mess the whole application up, but I don’t remember what they are.

-Tina “Nice Talking to You” G

 

[Zooey]

Maybe I’m misreading what I have read about her. Catholics seem to say it was because of her righteousness that God selected her, etc. I get the impression she stands outside the normal course of salvation, is if Christ did not need to die for her because she was so holy on her own.

-Tina “Shrugging” G

Nope. She was so holy because God made her that way.
Bishop Sheen may have put it best, when he quoted artist James Whistler. Whistler was told by an admirer that the painting now called “Whistler’s Mother” was the most beautiful painting he had ever seen, to which Whistler replied:
“Well, you know how it was? I just tried to make my mother as beautifully as I could”…to which the good bishop added: “And of course, there is only** one** Person Who actually did make His own mother.”
And I thought, why, that makes perfect sense!

Thanks, I like that quote.

By the way, I am here not to argue but to understand, even though I find myself sucked into us versus them exchanges at times.

I have no trouble with the idea that God extended the covenant of grace backwards in time. Abraham, for example, was saved by faith in Christ and Christ’s atonement, even though it was so far in the future.

-Tina “Semper Reformanda” G

Aha!! Now that is more like it!! That’s exactly how to look at the issue.
God’s grace extended to Mary before her birth (as opposed to afterward, like the rest of us).

 

[mark_a]

Mark,

I already have a ridiculously large reading list, which I should probably be tackling instead of arguing on CAF. Like I know enough to argue, which I don’t. Let me rephrase it by saying I should probably be tackling my reading list instead of spouting uninformed and unformed opinions about things of which I know nothing. Oh, well.

Well, I guess your list should come first.

Here goes with some more spouting.

Mary isn’t in Revelations, despite Catholic teaching. I think you are referring to Revelations 12. The Church selectively picks out certain things in that there passage and ignores other things. It is very inconsistent. Read the whole passage and see what I mean. According to the Church, Mary had no birth pains. The woman in Rev 12 did. I think there are some other things that mess the whole application up, but I don’t remember what they are.

That seems pretty dismissive for someone who, a couple of posts ago, seemed unclear about Catholic teaching.

Anyway- best wishes and catch ya later.

 

[TinaG]

Well, I guess your list should come first.
That seems pretty dismissive for someone who, a couple of posts ago, seemed unclear about Catholic teaching.

Anyway- best wishes and catch ya later.

Sorry.

-Tina “” G