Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[aidanbradypop]

Part 2 to Protestant view…now…Non Catholic view of Mariology.

 

[Tomyris]

Oh, why not?

I thought about starting a thread about how, in order to be saved, Mary must have been a sinner. After all, Jesus came not to call the righteous but the sinners, and he did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. Thus, in order to be saved, at some point Mary must have been regarded both as a sinner and as sick. This thought lines up with Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.”

That does not mean that Mary actually sinned. It just means that she was considered a sinner forensically in order that she could be saved. Without that verdict there could be no salvation for her.

Otherwise she was saved in some way that is remote from the salvation offered to everyone else, with a grace that is alien to the rest of the human race, and certainly cannot understand, or have compassion, on our condition. The perception I get from Catholics is that she is so different as to be outside the common economy of salvation.

THAT ought to get the ball rolling…

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, why not?

I thought about starting a thread about how, in order to be saved, Mary must have been a sinner. After all, Jesus came not to call the righteous but the sinners, and he did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. Thus, in order to be saved, at some point Mary must have been regarded both as a sinner and as sick. This thought lines up with Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.”

That does not mean that Mary actually sinned. It just means that she was considered a sinner forensically in order that she could be saved. Without that verdict there could be no salvation for her.

Otherwise she was saved in some way that is remote from the salvation offered to everyone else, with a grace that is alien to the rest of the human race, and certainly cannot understand, or have compassion, on our condition. The perception I get from Catholics is that she is so different as to be outside the common economy of salvation.

THAT ought to get the ball rolling…

Perhaps you’re already familiar with the analogy made famous by Dun Scotus?

That is, suppose there is a woman who is walking in the woods and is saved from falling into a pit. She is saved in a pre-eminent way. But she is saved nonetheless.

The rest of humanity has fallen into the pit and needs the be redeemed by the Savior after already getting in the muck.

Duns Scotus said that since Christ is a perfect savior, there must be at least one instance of somebody who is perfectly saved by Jesus—saved from top to bottom and from beginning to end—saved so perfectly that they were saved, not by being pulled out of the pit of sin, but by being kept from ever falling in at all. And the fitting candidate for that perfect gift of preventative salvation is Mary:

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/question-about-marys-sinlessness#ixzz2XNlj8Dtm

 

[Monergistic]

Perhaps you’re already familiar with the analogy made famous by Dun Scotus?

I don’t think Duns Scotus is held in particularly high regard outside of Catholicism. He doesn’t get the same respect as, say, GK Chesterton. Of course, very few are at the level of Chesterton, but I’m saying Scotus isn’t at the level below him, either- and maybe not even the level below that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh, why not?

I thought about starting a thread about how, in order to be saved, Mary must have been a sinner. After all, Jesus came not to call the righteous but the sinners, and he did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. Thus, in order to be saved, at some point Mary must have been regarded both as a sinner and as sick. This thought lines up with Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.”

That does not mean that Mary actually sinned. It just means that she was considered a sinner forensically in order that she could be saved. Without that verdict there could be no salvation for her.

Otherwise she was saved in some way that is remote from the salvation offered to everyone else, with a grace that is alien to the rest of the human race, and certainly cannot understand, or have compassion, on our condition. The perception I get from Catholics is that she is so different as to be outside the common economy of salvation.

THAT ought to get the ball rolling…

You make a great point. Good thing St. Athanasius has already answered that question (amazing really how one piece of work that isn’t even that long has answers to almost everything about soteriology). Acknowledging that the issue of soteriology is one of corruption of nature, and not merely sin as an offense, means that even if one was not to commit any sin, such as the Theotokos, would still need to be saved.

 

[johndaniel]

Oh, why not?

I thought about starting a thread about how, in order to be saved, Mary must have been a sinner. After all, Jesus came not to call the righteous but the sinners, and he did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. Thus, in order to be saved, at some point Mary must have been regarded both as a sinner and as sick. This thought lines up with Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.”

That does not mean that Mary actually sinned. It just means that she was considered a sinner forensically in order that she could be saved. Without that verdict there could be no salvation for her.

Otherwise she was saved in some way that is remote from the salvation offered to everyone else, with a grace that is alien to the rest of the human race, and certainly cannot understand, or have compassion, on our condition. The perception I get from Catholics is that she is so different as to be outside the common economy of salvation.

THAT ought to get the ball rolling…

Do Protestants even believe in Original Sin, which is what the above post implies?

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t think Duns Scotus is held in particularly high regard outside of Catholicism. He doesn’t get the same respect as, say, GK Chesterton. Of course, very few are at the level of Chesterton, but I’m saying Scotus isn’t at the level below him, either- and maybe not even the level below that.

That is a belittlement of person for the sake of belittlement of argument. Could you please address the argument and not the person who said it? I found the argument rather compelling, though it doesn’t matter to me who said it. I would give you the same respect.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh, why not?

I thought about starting a thread about how, in order to be saved, Mary must have been a sinner. After all, Jesus came not to call the righteous but the sinners, and he did not come to heal the healthy but the sick. Thus, in order to be saved, at some point Mary must have been regarded both as a sinner and as sick. This thought lines up with Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.”

That does not mean that Mary actually sinned. It just means that she was considered a sinner forensically in order that she could be saved. Without that verdict there could be no salvation for her.

Otherwise she was saved in some way that is remote from the salvation offered to everyone else, with a grace that is alien to the rest of the human race, and certainly cannot understand, or have compassion, on our condition. The perception I get from Catholics is that she is so different as to be outside the common economy of salvation.

THAT ought to get the ball rolling…

It would probably serve the conversation well if all agree what indeed sin is first. Seems to me we all say original sin, yet come to various conclusions of what it in fact is.

 

[EIF5A]

From what I gather from reading the various threads, sin is transgression by missing the mark, and original sin we’re born with is the consequence of the first sin and the resulting fallen human nature.

But does original sin also come with the tendency to sin, even though at the moment of conception/birth, no actual act of transgression has been committed?

Did Mary not have an inclination to sin?

 

[aidanbradypop]

From what I gather from reading the various threads, sin is transgression by missing the mark, and original sin we’re born with is the consequence of the first sin and the resulting fallen human nature.

But does original sin also come with the tendency to sin, even though at the moment of conception/birth, no actual act of transgression has been committed?

Did Mary not have an inclination to sin?

catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_conceived_without_sin_immaculate_conception.php

 

[MollyMac]

Do Protestants even believe in Original Sin, which is what the above post implies?

Yes, they do.

 

[MollyMac]

Did anyone answer the question about Stephen that someone posted in Part 1 of this thread?

“Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.” Acts6:8

Is there anything in the RC or EO doctrine regarding Stephen and the fact that he was pronounced full of grace and how that affected his life? Was he considered sinless or he is similar to Mary in that way being pronounced as “full of grace”?

 

[rfournier103]

From what I gather from reading the various threads, sin is transgression by missing the mark, and original sin we’re born with is the consequence of the first sin and the resulting fallen human nature.

But does original sin also come with the tendency to sin, even though at the moment of conception/birth, no actual act of transgression has been committed?

Did Mary not have an inclination to sin?

Original sin DID leave us with the tendancy to sin.

As for did Mary ever sin… The Church’s answer is “no”.

Of course God would want a stainless ark for the New Covenant (Jesus, of course, being the New Covenant!), and that is why Mary was born by way of a sinless immaculate conception. After the birth of Jesus, the Church teaches that Mary REMAINED sinless. A priest once explained that Mary remained sinless so Satan could never say to Jesus, “I had your mother!” Even if it was for a short period of time…

 

[aidanbradypop]

Did anyone answer the question about Stephen that someone posted in Part 1 of this thread?

“Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.” Acts6:8

Is there anything in the RC or EO doctrine regarding Stephen and the fact that he was pronounced full of grace and how that affected his life? Was he considered sinless or he is similar to Mary in that way being pronounced as “full of grace”?

Mintaka
Regular Member Join Date: August 6, 2005
Posts: 2,376
Religion: Catholic

Re: St Stephen ‘Full of Grace’?

---

Stephen is “pleres charitos kai dynameos”, which literally means “full of grace and power”.

Mary’s “full of grace” is the Greek word “kecharitomene”, which, as a form of address, is unique to her in the entire Bible. It is a perfect tense (past tense for something totally accomplished), passive mood participle (with some kind of special features, IIRC). So it means something like “totally graced one.”

As something other than a form of address, and in the masculine form of the dative case (“kecharitomeno”) the word does appear in the Septuagint version of Sirach 18:17, which book most Protestants don’t think is part of the Bible. It is part of a book which was written as proverbs, but Christians can see, in the relevant section before the verse, a Christological context of prophecy.

He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God: When a man hath done, then shall He begin: and when He leaveth off, [a man] shall be at a loss.

What is man, and what is his grace? and what is his good, or what is his evil? The number of the days of men at the most are a hundred years: as a drop of water of the sea are they esteemed: and as a pebble of the sand, so are a few years compared to eternity. Therefore God is patient in them, and poureth forth his mercy upon them. He hath seen the presumption of their heart – that it is wicked, and hath known their end – that it is evil. Then shall He begin. God is so great and incomprehensible, that when man has done all that he can to find out his greatness and boundless perfections, he is still to begin: for what he has found out, is but a mere nothing in comparison with his infinity.

Therefore hath He filled up His mercy in their favour, and hath shewn them the way of justice. The compassion of man is toward his neighbour: but the mercy of God is upon all flesh. He hath mercy, and teacheth, and correcteth, as a shepherd doth his flock. He hath mercy on him that receiveth the discipline of mercy, and that maketh haste in his judgments.

My son, in thy good deeds, make no complaint, and when thou givest any thing, add not grief by an evil word.

Shall not the dew assuage the heat? so also the good word is better than the gift.

Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified man.

“A justified man” (homine justificato) is how the Hebrew, and how the Septuagint’s “kecharitomene”, is translated at this point in the Vulgate. (Jerome of course gave precedence to the Hebrew, but I don’t know right off the top of my head if he did this part of the Vulgate.) The various Protestant translations go with “the gracious man” or the like.

But the connection here is with God granting mercy to His people, doing wonderful things, with Sirach’s son (also named Jesus, btw) making no complaint in his good deeds, with dew (dew on the fleece is an image of Jesus’ incarnation into Mary’s womb), and the Word.

So you could translate this verse prophetically as “Lo, is not the Word better than the gift? But both are with/to the Kecharitomeno.”

This is an interesting interpretation, because it says that “completely grace-filled” is a word suitable to use as a title for Jesus Christ, as well as Mary. But any way you slice it, it’s a very interesting foreshadowing of the Annunciation.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think Duns Scotus is held in particularly high regard outside of Catholicism. He doesn’t get the same respect as, say, GK Chesterton. Of course, very few are at the level of Chesterton, but I’m saying Scotus isn’t at the level below him, either- and maybe not even the level below that.

What regard others give him is irrelevant to this discussion, Monergistic. It is the analogy which is apropros.

Do you find the question addressed in an insightful way through the analogy?

That is, do you understand how Mary needed a savior yet never sinned better now that you can visualize a woman being saved before falling into a pit, while the rest of the world fell in?

 

[PRmerger]

Did anyone answer the question about Stephen that someone posted in Part 1 of this thread?

“Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.” Acts6:8

Is there anything in the RC or EO doctrine regarding Stephen and the fact that he was pronounced full of grace and how that affected his life? Was he considered sinless or he is similar to Mary in that way being pronounced as “full of grace”?

That was indeed addressed. The Greek word used for Stephen is different than that which is used as a title for Mary. Both are translated “full of grace” but mean different things.

 

[PRmerger]

Do Protestants even believe in Original Sin, which is what the above post implies?

Protestantism is a behemoth of different belief systems–to the tune of tens of thousands of differing denominations, each reading their Bible and coming to different teachings (some which even contradict each other)…

so it’s impossible to say “Do Protestants even believe” in anything as a single entity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

From what I gather from reading the various threads, sin is transgression by missing the mark, and original sin we’re born with is the consequence of the first sin and the resulting fallen human nature.

But does original sin also come with the tendency to sin, even though at the moment of conception/birth, no actual act of transgression has been committed?

Did Mary not have an inclination to sin?

In your first paragraph, this is all true, but why is it true? There’s another supernatural law which preceded the garden transgression. The disobedience, and us calling this sin is the end in a sequence of events.

That law is the creation law, which is that God creates man in His image and from dirt, then breaths His divine life into man. So man lives by the moment by the supernaturally infused virtue breathed into him, by God, and, He gave man a responsibility to cooperate with HIs Divinity which He breathed into us.

So we live by Gods Grace by the moment, not the air we breath, though He supplies that also so we may be able to cooperate with His Grace and remain in Communion with Him. We call it Sanctifying Grace.

As you see man did, and does have a free will, and a human nature which is basically animal without Gods Grace and fractured from the fall. As we severe ourselves from Gods Grace in our free will, we cut off the real life supply and embrace the earthy one called oxygen, and since that seems to work well we continue boldly down the path in free will. So the inclination to sin itself is a free act of man to turn from Gods Grace which further incites from the fall. Course mans fractured nature post-fall left us with death, and corruption overcame man, so the inclination to sin also incites more easily being banished from the paradise of Gods Grace, dust to dust. So then we pay to much attention to the dust, air and sin, and not enough to the order, Which is God and His Grace.

.
newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

 

[johndaniel]

From what I gather from reading the various threads, sin is transgression by missing the mark, and original sin we’re born with is the consequence of the first sin and the resulting fallen human nature.

But does original sin also come with the tendency to sin, even though at the moment of conception/birth, no actual act of transgression has been committed?

Did Mary not have an inclination to sin?

Mary didn’t have the inclination to do anything against God’s will, so, no. That does not mean she could not sin, it just means that she did not want to, her love of God was so great.

 

[Monergistic]

That is a belittlement of person for the sake of belittlement of argument. Could you please address the argument and not the person who said it? I found the argument rather compelling, though it doesn’t matter to me who said it. I would give you the same respect.

Suppose I come at you with something that Hans Kung said. No matter how brilliant the argument is, the fact that it’s Hans Kung always means something, and someone will let me know every time I bring him up (which is something that I know better than to do).

Duns Scotus is not held in quite as low regard as all that, but from what I can tell, he trends noticeably more in that direction than he does toward an Augustine or an Aquinas.

Just saying.