Question on Mary

[chessmane4e5]

I first decided not to involve myself in this thread but what you said is wrong. Without bloodshed there is no forgiveness of sins, and the Bible cannot be clearer.

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]

As far as I know they “have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb”. This washing is the washing of sins.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 9:22[/BIBLEDRB]

And without shedding of blood there is no remission or forgiveness. This is clear. Bloodshed was required for the forgiveness of sins, and that was Christ’s blood. I really hope that you just made and error, and that you did not mean it. Without His blood there is no forgiveness. Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I think you misinterpreted what was being said. God could have forgiven everyone sins without bloodshed, because He can do anything, but He obviously didn’t. I am pretty sure that is what was meant.

 

[Echo_Angels]

No, Jesus could have been born of anyone and still been sinless.

We believe that it was fitting for Jesus to be born of a woman whom was sinless. This belief is backed up by Scripture, “Hail Mary Full of Grace”.

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being born sinless, although her parents did have original sin.

I’m sorry, I’m still a little confused. What does it mean by “fitting?” I’ve read the wiki on Immaculate Conception, and I’m not fully understanding it.

So the doctrine is saying it wasn’t necessary that Mary be sinless to carry Jesus, and this preservation from original sin was not for Jesus?

 

[Cristian_B]

I think you misinterpreted what was being said. God could have forgiven everyone sins without bloodshed, because He can do anything, but He obviously didn’t. I am pretty sure that is what was meant.

I believe that He didn’t because He would have contradicted Himself if He would. He is just; forgiving just like that without demanding the consequences for sin isn’t just. But He is also loving. Because He is just He had to punish and because He is Love He had to save.

All this is like a judge that declared His family guilty of crime, and they had to die. The judge, almost crying, went to see his family. He told them that he [the judge] will pay the price of death for them, because it is better for one to die, instead of many.

But in our case, it does not have a sad ending: the “judge” resurrects. There are lots of parables that can be told to help understand better.

So God, since He is just, He couldn’t forgive just like that, because He is just.

Actually, if you think it better, it’s not forgiveness. Because when you accept Him, you accept Him to die for your sin. So it is not forgiveness, but is somehow like forgiveness. I don’t know if I can explain it with words.

When you say: “God, forgive me!”, you don’t actually ask Him to forgive you, but you ask Him to die for you. It’s like saying: “Father, I have sinned; please send your Son to death for me!”. Happily for us, He already gave us His Son without us even asking for him. So it is forgiveness from our point of view, but in His eyes, the price of sin is still paid, but not by us. It’s like transferring punishment. I hope you understand.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I’m sorry, I’m still a little confused. What does it mean by “fitting?” I’ve read the wiki on Immaculate Conception, and I’m not fully understanding it.

So the doctrine is saying it wasn’t necessary that Mary be sinless to carry Jesus, and this preservation from original sin was not for Jesus?

Well, the only reason I say it was not necessary is because God can do anything. But if you think about it,

Luke 5:36-39 He told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. [37] And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. [38] No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. [39] And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ "

So while God most likely could have had Jesus be conceived and born of a woman with the stain of original sin, it makes more sense that God would have prepared a “vessel” worthy of carrying Jesus who is God.

This is my understanding, maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I believe that He didn’t because He would have contradicted Himself if He would. He is just; forgiving just like that without demanding the consequences for sin isn’t just. But He is also loving. Because He is just He had to punish and because He is Love He had to save.

All this is like a judge that declared His family guilty of crime, and they had to die. The judge, almost crying, went to see his family. He told them that he [the judge] will pay the price of death for them, because it is better for one to die, instead of many.

But in our case, it does not have a sad ending: the “judge” resurrects. There are lots of parables that can be told to help understand better.

So God, since He is just, He couldn’t forgive just like that, because He is just.

Actually, if you think it better, it’s not forgiveness. Because when you accept Him, you accept Him to die for your sin. So it is not forgiveness, but is somehow like forgiveness. I don’t know if I can explain it with words.

When you say: “God, forgive me!”, you don’t actually ask Him to forgive you, but you ask Him to die for you. It’s like saying: “Father, I have sinned; please send your Son to death for me!”. Happily for us, He already gave us His Son without us even asking for him. So it is forgiveness from our point of view, but in His eyes, the price of sin is still paid, but not by us. It’s like transferring punishment. I hope you understand.

I completely understand. I hope that when any Christian asks for forgiveness they remember that they are really asking for Jesus to die on the cross. But all I am saying is that it didn’t HAVE to be that way. At least that is my opinion. I am not sure what the Catholic Church teaches. I guess I better find out.

 

[Cristian_B]

I completely understand. I hope that when any Christian asks for forgiveness they remember that they are really asking for Jesus to die on the cross. But all I am saying is that it didn’t HAVE to be that way. At least that is my opinion. I am not sure what the Catholic Church teaches. I guess I better find out.

It didn’t have to be, but it was because of His love. It was not obligatory. It was because of love, and because of His love we have Grace, which is forgiveness of sins trough His death. So God didn’t have to but chose to, and that is why we should be grateful, and we should thank Him by accepting Him in our hearts.

 

[chessmane4e5]

It didn’t have to be, but it was because of His love. It was not obligatory. It was because of love, and because of His love we have Grace, which is forgiveness of sins trough His death. So God didn’t have to but chose to, and that is why we should be grateful, and we should thank Him by accepting Him in our hearts.

Bolding mine.

Right, and most of us are.

But I think that is what giuseppeTO meant with “Can you give us the source of this quote? I thought we already established that no bloodshed was required by God for the forgiveness of sins?” Bolding mine

 

[FCEGM]

I’m sorry, I’m still a little confused. What does it mean by “fitting?” I’ve read the wiki on Immaculate Conception, and I’m not fully understanding it.

So the doctrine is saying it wasn’t necessary that Mary be sinless to carry Jesus, and this preservation from original sin was not for Jesus?

Welcome to CAF.

By applying the merits of Christ to His mother “outside of time” (and so Baptizing her into Christ in advance), Jesus was able both to come from the line of Adam (through Mary) and take on an undamaged humanity like that of Adam (and Eve) before the Fall. Indeed, this was clearly God’s plan from the start, per Genesis 3:15, which places “the woman” (a New Eve) in opposition to the serpent, bringing the Messiah out of that, the Seed of the woman pitted against the seed of the serpent. Otherwise, Jesus would not have taken on a sinless and uncorrupted human nature, but our fallen nature, and so He could not have been the New Adam, but a fallen son of Adam like all the rest of us.

One must also keep in mind that the sin which plunged humanity into darkness was that of Adam, not of Eve. Eve did sin first; but until Adam, as head of the human family, joined her in sin (instead of remaining faithful and interceding for her), humanity as a whole was not cut off from God, and this is the problem which the New Adam came to repair; and, since woman was not the cause of mankind’s final break with God, God takes the creation of woman and re-builds the human race from her (a New Eve - Mary), using her to bring the New Adam (the God-man) into the world which, in the very same dynamic, makes this New Eve’s sinlessness possible.

Regarding fittingness, both in scripture and theology, the argument from fittingness supports many doctrines. For example, Hebrew 2.10: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.” And Hebrews 7:26: “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”

God is free to do anything in whatever manner He chooses, but the way He does things is always perfect and most fitting for what is to be accomplished. Thus, e.g., with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was most fitting that His Son be conceived and born to a woman preserved from Original Sin, and thus it was fitting that the Mother of God be a virgin inviolate throughout her life. This fittingness was recognized quickly by the Fathers who so readily see her as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.