P
Portrait
Guest
Dear beloved friends,
Cordial greetings.
Have a problem appertaining to the retro-active redemption of Mary, which I hope someone may be able to throw some light upon.
As Catholics we reconcile our Lady’s expressed need of redemption with the Immaculate Conception by asserting that Christ did indeed redeem Mary, for it was on account of His forseen merits that she was preserved free from the taint of Original Sin. As Christians we are redeemed from sin already present, whilst Mary was delivered retro-actively from even contracting sin.
However, according some Protestant polemicists, this denudes the Redemption of its essential meaning since Christ in His death “bore our sins in his body on the tree”; “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” and “he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (I Pet. 2: 24; Is. 53: 6; II Cor. 5: 21). Here are typical statements as to the nature of His atoning death; He truly bore our sins. However, Catholic teaching regarding Mary being delivered from sin prior to contracting sin is, or so it is argued, a double contradiction. It is saying that she needed to be redeemed from something which she in no sense ever experienced. Moreover, when it is realized that deliverance or redemption is essentially a deliverance from guilt and its penalty, then a deliverance from a non-existent guilt is said to be absurd. The implication is, so the argument runs, that Mary who was never in any real sense a sinner was saved, that is to say, she had her non-existent sins laid upon Christ. It is quite clear as to what St. Paul means when he writes that Christ became “curse for us” - He bore the curse of God which was due to us on account of our sins. However, if Mary was always free from the blot of sin then she could not be subject to the curse of God, for to be accursed for a sin which never existed would surely be utterly unjust.
The further failure in the theory of the retro-active redemption of our Lady, according to some Protestant controversialists, is that it evinces a wholly inadequate view of Original Sin. If this consists only in the want of sanctifying grace, then it can be dealt with simply by a conferring of grace. However, if sin is, as Sacred Scripture declares it to be, an offence against Almighty God, the wages of which are death, then sin inevitably denotes guilt and redemption means pardon. Now if Mary was redeemed retro-actively, as is freely accepted by we Catholics, then she had gulit to be pardoned and if she had guilt it was because of sin.
This appears, at least superficially, to be a very sound, logical and cogent argument against the Immaculate Conception, but I am sure that there are also very equally convincing arguments against it. Would very much appreciate hearing them and any persuasive refutation of this Protestant polemic. Thankyou ladies and gentlemen.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Cordial greetings.
Have a problem appertaining to the retro-active redemption of Mary, which I hope someone may be able to throw some light upon.
As Catholics we reconcile our Lady’s expressed need of redemption with the Immaculate Conception by asserting that Christ did indeed redeem Mary, for it was on account of His forseen merits that she was preserved free from the taint of Original Sin. As Christians we are redeemed from sin already present, whilst Mary was delivered retro-actively from even contracting sin.
However, according some Protestant polemicists, this denudes the Redemption of its essential meaning since Christ in His death “bore our sins in his body on the tree”; “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” and “he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (I Pet. 2: 24; Is. 53: 6; II Cor. 5: 21). Here are typical statements as to the nature of His atoning death; He truly bore our sins. However, Catholic teaching regarding Mary being delivered from sin prior to contracting sin is, or so it is argued, a double contradiction. It is saying that she needed to be redeemed from something which she in no sense ever experienced. Moreover, when it is realized that deliverance or redemption is essentially a deliverance from guilt and its penalty, then a deliverance from a non-existent guilt is said to be absurd. The implication is, so the argument runs, that Mary who was never in any real sense a sinner was saved, that is to say, she had her non-existent sins laid upon Christ. It is quite clear as to what St. Paul means when he writes that Christ became “curse for us” - He bore the curse of God which was due to us on account of our sins. However, if Mary was always free from the blot of sin then she could not be subject to the curse of God, for to be accursed for a sin which never existed would surely be utterly unjust.
The further failure in the theory of the retro-active redemption of our Lady, according to some Protestant controversialists, is that it evinces a wholly inadequate view of Original Sin. If this consists only in the want of sanctifying grace, then it can be dealt with simply by a conferring of grace. However, if sin is, as Sacred Scripture declares it to be, an offence against Almighty God, the wages of which are death, then sin inevitably denotes guilt and redemption means pardon. Now if Mary was redeemed retro-actively, as is freely accepted by we Catholics, then she had gulit to be pardoned and if she had guilt it was because of sin.
This appears, at least superficially, to be a very sound, logical and cogent argument against the Immaculate Conception, but I am sure that there are also very equally convincing arguments against it. Would very much appreciate hearing them and any persuasive refutation of this Protestant polemic. Thankyou ladies and gentlemen.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
But I will adjust my comment somewhat. The Holy Orthodox Church believes that what makes St Mary an “exception” is the fact that she serves as the great example of asceticism to mankind–not because she was spared from original sin.
