What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

[chevyontheriver]

She referred to that Savior as "my" Savior, however.

Exactly. Which is why I wrote "Mary had a savior". Nobody but nobody is claiming Mary did not have a savior. She said so. The Bible says so. The Church says so. She had a savior, a savior who was 'her' savior. Can we agree that we all agree on that? Or maybe not? Maybe that's too much to agree on?

What we do not agree on is that having a savior forces Mary to be a sinner. Some of us think that she was saved from being a sinner as opposed to being saved as a sinner. Very much saved, but differently saved. You apparently think that is impossible.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is possible she was born with the stain of Adam and God cleansed her. I was not back then so, I have no reason to claim that she sinned.

All sorts of things are 'possible'. It would have been possible for Mary to have sinned and still been the mother of God. Catholics do not claim that Mary HAD TO BE sinless to be the mother of Jesus. We just claim that it is fitting.

I do not believe that Jesus had the stain of Adam because that would disqualify him as being an acceptable sacrifice to his Father. A Lamb without stain or blemish.

You will get many different claims about that, from there being no stain of Adam in any of us to how Jesus shared the stain of Adam with us. I would say he is like us in all things except sin, and I would include the sin of Adam as something he did not have. He had an exact human nature, the same as Adam was created with. He shares our human nature as well, except that his human nature is not at all bent by sin in any way, shape, or form.

He did not have to be born of a sinless person to avoid being a sinless person. That would require a regression back to sinless grandparents and sinless great-grandparents and on and on. Not the claim. The claim is that it was fitting that Jesus be raised by holy people. That Joseph was a holy man and that Mary was even more holy. None of this was required for Jesus to be holy or sinless or divine. It was just fitting.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When she was cleansed from Adams sin that would make God her Saviour.

That would make God her savior, one of may ways possible. And in fact some have thought that. Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that Mary was sanctified before birth, even if not from the very moment of her conception. That she never sinned. This is a far cry from the common recent Protestant position that she was a sinner as a matter of course. But Thomas' position isn't the actual Catholic claim. The Catholic claim is here, in what pope Pius IX said in 1854:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Which means that the saving would have happened at conception and she never was infected with Adam's sin, nor did she sin later on. Of course, like Adam, she was fully capable of sin, but by grace she did not.

Also, we know that the Holy Family was saved by a dream from God to go to Egypt.

Which means they were 'saved'. God saved Mary and Joseph and Jesus from Herod. Illustrating that there are many levels where God could have saved Mary and did save Mary. I think the level we are speaking of here is God saving Mary from actual sin and from any taint of sin.

 

[Albion]

The differences isn't as big of a deal as to what you are making it out to be.

After considering what you said here, I think they really are.

We believe or hold different theories with in the characteristics of the experience but the point of both sides is what matters.

Well, exactly what DO you believe the differences are? With that, we might be able to see and appreciate that there aren't any important differences.

 

[Albion]

Exactly. Which is why I wrote "Mary had a savior". Nobody but nobody is claiming Mary did not have a savior. She said so. The Bible says so. The Church says so. She had a savior, a savior who was 'her' savior. Can we agree that we all agree on that?

Of course.

What we do not agree on is that having a savior forces Mary to be a sinner.

Forces? No one said that.

But the fact is that her witness is there in divine revelation--the same witness in the same source that you refer to when attempting to prove that there was an "Immaculate Conception."

 

[lordjeff]

Okay, but Purgatory is not a belief of Orthodox Eastern Christianity.

This is true it isn't a belief in Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't understand why it is in Catholicism. Makes no sense if you have ever been to a wake where we put on this fancy service & give all sorts of blessings if one is only to a storage room.

 

[Cis.jd]

After considering what you said here, I think they really are.


Well, exactly what DO you believe the differences are? With that, we might be able to see and appreciate that there aren't any important differences.

As i said, the characteristics are different. We have different theories of what happens during this time, the point is we both agree about this specific event after death and the main purpose for it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course.

Wow! Major triumph. At least for now.

Forces? No one said that.

Then you agree that just because Mary was saved does not mean she had to be a sinner? I'm doubting you want to agree to that, but if you do ... then ... Wow!

But the fact is that her witness is there in divine revelation--the same witness in the same source that you refer to when attempting to prove that there was an "Immaculate Conception."

The fact is we all just agreed that Mary needed and had a savior. And the fact is some of us have a good rationale for not forcing that to mean Mary had to be a sinner.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is true it isn't a belief in Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't understand why it is in Catholicism. Makes no sense if you have ever been to a wake where we put on this fancy service & give all sorts of blessings if one is only to a storage room.

The Orthodox don't pray for the dead, do they?

 

[Albion]

As i said, the characteristics are different. We have different theories of what happens during this time, the point is we both agree about this specific event after death and the main purpose for it.

If we don't agree on what happens there or who goes there, how can it be said that "we both agree about this specific event" or "the purpose for it?" The fact that there isn't any agreement on those matters is what caused me to make my comment in the first place.

 

[Albion]

The fact is we all just agreed that Mary needed and had a savior.

All right. Then that necessarily means she was not sinless. I think that's where we came in. [/QUOTE]

 

[Hmm]

All right. Then that necessarily means she was not sinless. I think that's where we came in.

I agree. If she was sinless but still had a saviour then what was she actually saved from?

 

[chevyontheriver]

All right. Then that necessarily means she was not sinless. I think that's where we came in.

Oh, bother. 451 posts and not on whit of resolution. We may as well be aliens to each other.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree. If she was sinless but still had a saviour then what was she actually saved from?

Saved from becoming a sinner.

 

[prodromos]

All right. Then that necessarily means she was not sinless. I think that's where we came in.

It necessarily means she was mortal.

 

[prodromos]

I agree. If she was sinless but still had a saviour then what was she actually saved from?

Death.

 

[Cis.jd]

If we don't agree on what happens there or who goes there, how can it be said that "we both agree about this specific event" or "the purpose for it?" The fact that there isn't any agreement on those matters is what caused me to make my comment in the first place.

Because the real important thing is that it is not unbiblical that there is a destination (or state) prior to heaven and hell. The importance is that a moment prior to this for the soul has been taught in scripture and by tradition, it's not invented as protestants claim.

Christians even have different views of what heaven and hell is, such as hell not being a literal place, that doesn't mean Christians are in general disagreement about these places.

 

[Hmm]

Saved from becoming a sinner.

Is there any Biblical support for that assertion? And what does it mean anyway?

 

[coffee4u]

What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is there any Biblical support for that assertion? And what does it mean anyway?

You have read the previous 450 or so posts, right?

And here is what it means. There is one savior, but what we are saved from differs. Some are saved after having fallen. Mary was saved from falling. That is how she can be kecharitomene, the one given an ovewhelming grace that was never deserved. It means Mary was really and actually saved, saved from falling, but not needing to be saved after falling because she never fell..