Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

But even if that idea were accepted it still means saving grace before the resurrection, thus vitiating that line of argumentation against the IC.

'zactly.

I was prepping for this.

So what say you, ConstantineTG? How is it that you can object to Mary’s salvation from sin prior to the atoning death of Christ, yet proclaim that Mary was sinless prior to the atoning death of Christ?

 

[Tomyris]

I’m not finding the posts I wanted to reply to, and the conversation is interesting.

Back to what seems to be my personal obsession here:

All men are sinners
John is a man
Therefore John is a sinner

Likewise:

All of creation is going to perish in judgement (unless saved)
Mary is part of creation
Therefore Mary will perish in judgement (unless saved)

Salvation only comes through Christ’s finished work on the cross
There is no other way to be saved
Therefore Mary was saved through Christ’s finished work on the cross

In order to be saved, one must first have the status (logically, not necessarily chronologically) of a sinner
He came to call not the righteous but the sinners
He called Mary
Therefore she must have been a sinner at some point logically (although that does
not mean she actually sinned or that sin touched her)

In order to have Christ’s righteousness she had to renounce her own
Therefore she rejected her own righteousness in order to obtain His
Therefore in some sense she regarded her own righteousness as faulty

Again, in Romans 11 Paul states (roughly, I don’t have a Bible here) that all things were shut up in sin that some might be saved - unless something was deemed to be sin it cannot be saved. Therefore at some point, logically, in order to be saved, Mary must have been reckoned as a sinner, even if it never happened chronologically.

 

[PRmerger]

You take great pleasure in frustrating people.

Your frustrations are your own, Monergistic.

Arguments that are presented to you that are irrefutable ought to make you go

Instead, it appears that they frustrate you. I am saddened by that. Especially when the frustrations make you incapable of dialogue.

But, at your essence, I think you are a searcher, and after you are able to let the seeds of our well presented and well reasoned arguments rest in your mind and heart, we will be welcoming you with open arms at the Holy Mass some day at our Easter Vigil.

 

[PRmerger]

Therefore she must have been a sinner at some point logically (although that does
not mean she actually sinned or that sin touched her)

I don’t understand this, Tomi.

How can I be, say, a cheater, although I have not actually cheated?
How can I be a murderer if I have not actually murdered?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not finding the posts I wanted to reply to, and the conversation is interesting.

Back to what seems to be my personal obsession here:

All men are sinners
John is a man
Therefore John is a sinner

Likewise:

All of creation is going to perish in judgement (unless saved)
Mary is part of creation
Therefore Mary will perish in judgement (unless saved)

Salvation only comes through Christ’s finished work on the cross
There is no other way to be saved
Therefore Mary was saved through Christ’s finished work on the cross

In order to be saved, one must first have the status (logically, not necessarily chronologically) of a sinner
He came to call not the righteous but the sinners
He called Mary
Therefore she must have been a sinner at some point logically (although that does
not mean she actually sinned or that sin touched her)

In order to have Christ’s righteousness she had to renounce her own
Therefore she rejected her own righteousness in order to obtain His
Therefore in some sense she regarded her own righteousness as faulty

Again, in Romans 11 Paul states (roughly, I don’t have a Bible here) that all things were shut up in sin that some might be saved - unless something was deemed to be sin it cannot be saved. Therefore at some point, logically, in order to be saved, Mary must have been reckoned as a sinner, even if it never happened chronologically.

I think the best response to this is: how do you believe that babies are saved? Where do babies or children who are below the age of reason fit into this syllogism?

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t understand this, Tomi.

How can I be, say, a cheater, although I have not actually cheated?
How can I be a murderer if I have not actually murdered?

Because you are a member of a group, and the whole group is condemned as such.

This is interesting in terms of how we approach salvation individually or as members of the church. We are members of the whole mass of unsaved humanity until we are brought into the church. We have the tendency to think of salvation as an individual thing when it can equally be thought of as a group activity. I am not sure when it is proper to view things one way, and when the other.

It is the good old Presbyterian both-and.

 

[PRmerger]

Because you are a member of a group, and the whole group is condemned as such.

Unless someone is singled out as an exception. Would this not be a possibility?

It is the good old Presbyterian both-and.

Hey! That’s* my* line! (With “Catholic” subbed for “Presbyterian”)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

For many years I thought that it was easier to view the sinless life of our Blessed Virgin Mary with Orthodox glasses regarding Original Sin. In that we are not culpable for Adam’s sin but that our very nature is not perfect due to it being human. Our perception of good and evil is corrupted by Adam eating from the tree, since we don’t have the mind of God to be able to perfectly distinguish how each one is. As such, since our Blessed Mother was still very young at the time of Annunciation, the fullness of the Grace of God clearly separates and prepares Her as the Ark of the New Covenant.

However, regardless of how imperfect my rationalizations might be, I realize that Mary is who She is because of who Christ is. Undoubtly, in all the ages Mary was the one and only vessel worthy of nurturing our Lord and Savior. And who am I to contest that?

Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You mean like the salvation of Jesus Christ which is first manifested in Mary, who’s preserved from the stain of that sin prior to the Cross in the sequence which the Lord already knew also?

So then while indeed the chronological order in time is in place, so also the spiritual? Which precedes the chronological?

 

[pablope]

I’m glad we can eliminate one of those possibilities- which, again, has to do with you, a Roman Catholic, obnoxiously and somewhat childishly grilling an Eastern Orthodox Christian of all people, demanding to be shown chapter and verse, word for word, where it is that a particular idea is contained in Scripture.

Well…and so following your logic here…a protestant who asks the same question…where is it, chapter and verse in the Bible…is also being obnoxious for asking the same?

Have you asked the same of catholics…ask them chapter and verse in the Bible?

And when you did…were you being obnoxious or not?

And one more thing…if you run across another non catholic here asking the same…are you going to tell them this is obnoxious and tell them to stop doing so?

Bottom line, stop demanding chapter and verse in order to artificially short-circuit a discussion, as you are currently so fond of doing. Act like an adult. Maybe you can add this to your archives so you don’t forget.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You mean like the salvation of Jesus Christ which is first manifested in Mary, who’s preserved from the stain of that sin prior to the Cross in the sequence which the Lord already knew also?

So then while indeed the chronological order in time is in place, so also the spiritual? Which precedes the chronological?

Interesting, yes…

I was thinking more in this line:

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting, yes…

I was thinking more in this line:

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

.

Amen, interesting also. I crossed posts with you, I was thinking about the post by Tomyris. Also with dvd in that we become inclined to become caught in what Tradition indicates by an individual and in time, no different than with St John or St Augustine and predestination or perhaps the Catholic Church today. Still the Tradition remains the same, Mary being predestined before the Cross is indeed true. Her yes becomes the continued cooperation and to the Cross, this same cooperation is evident before and after though as it is for man, this placed Her in the unique role to say yes or no, and the yes or no is always in relation to the already existing infused Grace.

In other words Christ through Mary is the par excellence example of all;. shown by Creator and Creature as opposed to Adam and Eve, as She believed so it was true, all She had to do was cooperate with the infused Grace which become a further responsibility after the yes. As it was with Eve when commanded not to venture from Grace. That was Eves yes or no. She chose no

While Christ is perfect through Divinity, and this can be strived for, so too Marys role is as close to perfect we can aspire to from a completely human. And for sure there are still very Blessed souls Biblically, none were chosen by the Incarnate Word but Mary. Look at Daniel or Isaiah, they had no issue ascending Jacobs ladder. They needed to be encouraged by the Lord is all to cooperate with His grace. I don’t think anyone could suggest of what ease in degree since this varies as we see with Paul or Judas. Judas was chosen also, and for sure the emanating Grace touched him, how could it not, he was in the presence of the Living God. And Christ knew all this also.

The question still remains why at the incarnation, annunciation or moment of conception. Certainly She is preserved before the redemption of man for from Christ through Mary the redemption came.

Anyway I probably should listen instead of talking as I may well miss something which solidifies my oh so many questions of “why”.

 

[Monergistic]

Well…and so following your logic here…a protestant who asks the same question…where is it, chapter and verse in the Bible…is also being obnoxious for asking the same?

 

[pablope]

Then I salute you wholeheartedly for your own personal growth in this realm.

If I see a non Catholic do it once or twice, I will probably not say it’s obnoxious but I will inform them that it’s not a good thing to do- along with several other people, I imagine. I would only call someone obnoxious and childish if they do this about once a week for months at a time while completely ignoring people who tell them it’s not a good thing to do.

Guess how many people there are on CAF who do that.

Sure…but do you think there are better ways of communicating this other than being we arer seen as obnoxious ourselves?

 

[PRmerger]

Not recently, it’s been a few years, but the last time I did so I was being obnoxious and childish.

Then I salute you wholeheartedly for your own personal growth in this realm.

Me, too!

http://rgifs.gifbin.com/20048442yu.gif

Sure…but do you think there are better ways of communicating this other than being we arer seen as obnoxious ourselves?

One has to wonder if Monergistic is capable of manifesting continued maturity.

I vote yes! I subscribe to the Catholic paradigm, articulated so beautifully by our late, great Pope JPII, of crossing the threshold of hope!

 

[PRmerger]

Guess how many people there are on CAF who do that.

I think you are referring to me here.

And I will simply repeat my legacy here on the CAFs.

[SIGN1]I have never been banned, or suspended. Not even once. Nor do I have any infractions[/SIGN1].

And when you can honestly and proudly proclaim that which I can honestly and proudly proclaim, then you can criticize my posting style.

Until then, not so much.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Amen, interesting also. I crossed posts with you, I was thinking about the post by Tomyris. Also with dvd in that we become inclined to become caught in what Tradition indicates by an individual and in time, no different than with St John or St Augustine and predestination or perhaps the Catholic Church today. Still the Tradition remains the same, Mary being predestined before the Cross is indeed true. Her yes becomes the continued cooperation and to the Cross, this same cooperation is evident before and after though as it is for man, this placed Her in the unique role to say yes or no, and the yes or no is always in relation to the already existing infused Grace.

In other words Christ through Mary is the par excellence example of all;. shown by Creator and Creature as opposed to Adam and Eve, as She believed so it was true, all She had to do was cooperate with the infused Grace which become a further responsibility after the yes. As it was with Eve when commanded not to venture from Grace. That was Eves yes or no. She chose no

While Christ is perfect through Divinity, and this can be strived for, so too Marys role is as close to perfect we can aspire to from a completely human. And for sure there are still very Blessed souls Biblically, none were chosen by the Incarnate Word but Mary. Look at Daniel or Isaiah, they had no issue ascending Jacobs ladder. They needed to be encouraged by the Lord is all to cooperate with His grace. I don’t think anyone could suggest of what ease in degree since this varies as we see with Paul or Judas. Judas was chosen also, and for sure the emanating Grace touched him, how could it not, he was in the presence of the Living God. And Christ knew all this also.

The question still remains why at the incarnation, annunciation or moment of conception. Certainly She is preserved before the redemption of man for from Christ through Mary the redemption came.

Anyway I probably should listen instead of talking as I may well miss something which solidifies my oh so many questions of “why”.

Hot Dog man!!! Big Amen!

You know, the biggest thing is that we sometimes take things for granted. For the longest time I did not contrast Eccl 11:5 with the revealed mistery of the Incarnation. Here we have a person receiving the seed of everlasting life, the beginning and the end of all things visible and invisible, the Logos, the Action, the Perfect One taking on the flesh from this one person from all the persons in the history of mankind… How, in my right mind, I cannot see the Fullness of the Grace of God manifested with everything that such fullness of Grace entails?

Thanks for the exchange, Gary! I’ll sit back with you and listen.

Let’s do whatever He tells us!

God Bless,

Jose

 

[PRmerger]

Still the Tradition remains the same, Mary being predestined before the Cross is indeed true.

Something the Orthodox and Calvinists have to explain, given their claim that no one is saved, outside of the chronological events of the atoning death of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well I would have to say that since both Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration that it is safe to assume that they were both saved, not to mention that Elijah was “taken up to heaven”. Do you think there is anyone in heaven who has not been saved? So who said Elijah was saved? The word of God.

Elijah wasn’t saved until Christ has completed his work on earth. Even if his body was taken up, the Messiah has not come.

I doubt you will find any sources that will agree with your point here. This idea has only come up fairly recently with proponents trying to use this instance to justify the IC. Certainly no Church Father ever taught that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

CTG tells me that Mary never sinned. Then why does she need Jesus as her savior?

Because we need to be saved from corruption, as St. Athanasius taught. It is not sin (the legalistic understanding of the West) that God came to save us from. He can forgive us our transgressions even if we don’t ask for it, but that is not what saves us. What saves us is becoming like God, first by repentance and then by coming into communion with Him.