Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[narnia59]

“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.” Luke 1:46-47, 49 KJV

Mary has a Savior!!!

Yes she does.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

 

[narnia59]

Those who have sinned know they need a saviour.

1 Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And one who has been preserved of sin by the merits of her son would know they needed a savior as well.

Please note that Mary does not refer to the babe in her womb as her 'future savior'.

 

[visionary]

Yes she does.

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Mary sees God as her Savior.... she must think she needs saving..

 

[narnia59]

hi visionary,

I don't know what Mary's sin or sins may have been in this life, but yes, I find no reason that she wasn't intended when the prophet wrote, "For all have sinned and fall short of God's glory." And yes her own testimony was that she had a Savior.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

If St Paul, or Scripture in general, used the term 'all' to refer to every individual person -- no exceptions -- then that would indeed be something to consider.

But Scripture does not do that. In fact, one can come to some pretty absurd conclusions if that standard is applied throughout Scripture. There is no reason to infer that this particular verse is an exception to the standard Scripture sets when referring to 'all' -- a generic statement about mankind that does not imply every single individual.

I myself find quite a good reason why she is not part of Paul's "all". It would mean that either her son was not capable of saving her from sin without first letting her sin, or it would mean that he chose not to do so.

If he chooses not to do so, can he be said to have held nothing back in fulfilling the Father's command to honor his mother? Furthermore, why would he choose to not honor her in such fashion?

And yes, she most definitely needed, and had, as Savior -- her son, Jesus Christ. Nobody is saying she didn't.

 

[narnia59]

Mary sees God as her Savior.... she must think she needs saving..

Or recognizing that she has already been saved...

Does she refer to Christ as her 'future savior'?

 

[narnia59]

Interesting the definition---mother of Jesus.

It's odd He says My hour hasn't come and then does the miracle anyway. Perhaps the explanation is He was waiting for a specific moment, say sunset about 6pm, and she spoke about 3pm.

Christ's "hour to come" is his passion. This is made clear throughout Scripture.

This miracle is the beginning of the journey to his 'hour'. Once he demonstrates who he is in this way, he is on the way to Jerusalem.

He and Mary both understand this when she tells them that they have no more wine.

 

[narnia59]

Mary sees God as her Savior.... she must think she needs saving..

Please note she is not professing God as her savior with only her mouth....she is professing that her soul 'magnifies' the Lord....

 

[Standing Up]

Christ's "hour to come" is his passion. This is made clear throughout Scripture.

This miracle is the beginning of the journey to his 'hour'. Once he demonstrates who he is in this way, he is on the way to Jerusalem.

He and Mary both understand this when she tells them that they have no more wine.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Doesn't make sense to identify this hour with His passion hour. This hour is within the context of His first miracle, the start of His public ministry, not the ending of His ministry. She asked Him to perform a miracle, before He was going to start, before His hour. What have I to do with thee?

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

And yes, she most definitely needed, and had, as Savior -- her son, Jesus Christ. Nobody is saying she didn't.

Right. Everyone agrees she needed one, like all others. The difference is why she needed one. RC believes she never sinned. Everyone else agrees she did (or inherited the fallen Adamic nature, like everyone else).

 

[narnia59]

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Doesn't make sense to identify this hour with His passion hour. This hour is within the context of His first miracle, the start of His public ministry, not the ending of His ministry. She asked Him to perform a miracle, before He was going to start, before His hour. What have I to do with thee?

There are multiple translations that pen it as "what has that to do with us". If you look at the original Greek, it would seem to be there's a lot added to the English to make it come out and lots of 'room' for interpretation:

John 2:4 Bible Lexicon

Jesus does not have multiple "hours". His "hour", per Scripture, comes at the time of his passion. But this is the beginning of that road.

It makes no sense to have the understanding that she has asked him to change the timeline of his redemptive work, to do something he does not want to do, that he chides her for it, but then does it anyway.

This is a deep exchange between mother and son, the only two who have an understanding of what is about to occur and the road it sets him on -- there can be no turning back -- it sets him on the road to his 'hour'.

 

[narnia59]

Right. Everyone agrees she needed one, like all others. The difference is why she needed one. RC believes she never sinned. Everyone else agrees she did (or inherited the fallen Adamic nature, like everyone else).

In general, the Orthodox believe she did not sin, but as this has not been made doctrine, you certainly see some dissension from that, especially in more recent times. You will hear a variety of opinions. They would agree she inherited fallen nature, but basically they say that about Christ too. which I believe most Protestants would object to. So it's not exactly a Catholic vs everybody else thing -- much more complex than that.

 

[Standing Up]

In general, the Orthodox believe she did not sin, but as this has not been made doctrine, you certainly see some dissension from that, especially in more recent times. You will hear a variety of opinions. They would agree she inherited fallen nature, but basically they say that about Christ too. which I believe most Protestants would object to. So it's not exactly a Catholic vs everybody else thing -- much more complex than that.

Really? Is that right EOers? Christ inherited fallen nature? WHat's the explanation?

 

[narnia59]

Really? Is that right EOers? Christ inherited fallen nature? WHat's the explanation?

Now before you get me in trouble with every Orthodox person here, please keep in mind that the Orthodox definition of fallen human nature does not necessarily equate to the Protestant one.

They would say it doesn't equate to the Catholic one either, but I'm not so sure about that.

I'll have to see if I can find some of the conversations about this, but I've been told by multiple Orthodox on this forum that the human nature that Christ assumes is the same as yours and mine in all ways, including the consequences of ancestral sin.

 

[narnia59]

Here ya go:

Secondly, this notion of salvation as sharing implies -- although many have been reluctant to say this openly -- that Christ assumed not just unfallen but fallen human nature. As the Epistle to the Hebrews insists (and in all the New Testament there is no Christological text more important than this): “We do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but he was in all points tempted exactly as we are, yet without sinning” (4:15). Christ lives out his life on earth under the conditions of the fall. He is not himself a sinful person, but in his solidarity with fallen man he accepts to the full the consequence of Adam’s sin. He accepts to the full not only the physical consequences, such as weariness, bodily pain, and eventually the separation of body and soul in death. He accepts also the moral consequences, the loneliness, the alienation, the inward conflict. It may seem a bold thing to ascribe all this to the living God, but a consistent doctrine of the Incarnation requires nothing less. If Christ had merely assumed unfallen human nature, living out his earthly life in the situation of Adam in Paradise, then he would not have been touched with the feeling of our infirmities, nor would he have been tempted in everything exactly as we are. And in that case he would not be our Savior.

St. Paul goes so far as to write, “God has made him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake” (2 Cor. 5:21). We are not to think here soley in terms of some juridical transaction, whereby Christ, himself guiltless, somehow has our guilt “imputed” to him in an exterior manner. Much more is involved that this. Christ saves us by experiencing from within, as one of us, all that we suffer inwardly through living in a sinful world.

Bishop Kallistos Ware, “The Orthodox Way”


My point here is that trying to draw a line between Catholics and "everybody else" on this topic isn't really quite accurate because of the different views of the Orthodox and Protestants regarding "fallen" human nature, original sin, etc.

 

[Philothei]

In general, the Orthodox believe she did not sin, but as this has not been made doctrine, you certainly see some dissension from that, especially in more recent times. You will hear a variety of opinions. They would agree she inherited fallen nature, but basically they say that about Christ too. which I believe most Protestants would object to. So it's not exactly a Catholic vs everybody else thing -- much more complex than that.

wow... who would say what about Christ?? This is def. not accurate We would never say Christ was with sin ...NEVER as Christ is sinless... for sure it is in the Gospel for one thing

And the sinless state of Theotokos is NOT new... there are certain Fathers like Chrysostom that indeed believed she was not sinless. So there...

 

[Philothei]

Christ lives out his life on earth under the conditions of the fall. He is not himself a sinful person, but in his solidarity with fallen man he accepts to the full the consequence of Adam’s sin. He accepts to the full not only the physical consequences, such as weariness, bodily pain, and eventually the separation of body and soul in death. He accepts also the moral consequences, the loneliness, the alienation, the inward conflict.

Yes he was NOT sinfull but he did assumed our condition of what it means to be human if he would not then he would not have been able to save us.

 

[narnia59]

wow... who would say what about Christ?? This is def. not accurate We would never say Christ was with sin ...NEVER as Christ is sinless... for sure it is in the Gospel for one thing

And the sinless state of Theotokos is NOT new... there are certain Fathers like Chrysostom that indeed believed she was not sinless. So there...

Hopefully the quote I provided by Kallistos Ware cleared that up -- Orthodox (at least some) do indeed say that Christ assumed our fallen nature. However, as I pointed out to Standing Up, that generally does not have the same meaning to the Orthodox as to Protestants...

I'm under the impression that saying someone inherited fallen human nature in the Orthodox world is not the same as saying someone actually sinned, so now you've confused me by implying that by saying Christ had a fallen human is somehow saying he isn't sinless?

And I'm aware of Chrysostom's view. Virtually all beliefs that haven't been defined as doctrines at the time find some in the ECF who disagree. But Kallistos Ware also states in that book that "all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin". So he obviously had the view that Orthodoxy was united in that belief despite Chrysostom's early views. But in talking to people on this forum over the years I've found those who will say that Orthodox teaching is that Mary is sinless, and others who disagree with that, so it seems to me that either Ware was in error in what all Orthodox believe, or more recently there is more disagreement about that.

See, I knew the topic was going to get me in trouble.

 

[Standing Up]

Now before you get me in trouble with every Orthodox person here, please keep in mind that the Orthodox definition of fallen human nature does not necessarily equate to the Protestant one.

They would say it doesn't equate to the Catholic one either, but I'm not so sure about that.

I'll have to see if I can find some of the conversations about this, but I've been told by multiple Orthodox on this forum that the human nature that Christ assumes is the same as yours and mine in all ways, including the consequences of ancestral sin.

Mary, however, was free of "ancestral sin"?

 

[narnia59]

Mary, however, was free of "ancestral sin"?

Per the Catholics yes, per the Orthodox no.

But again, "ancestral sin" and its consequences mean something different to the Orthodox (at least from the Protestant view), and my understanding is they would not say that Jesus was free of "ancestral sin" either.

My point again is simply there is not this line that can be drawn that says the Catholic are on one side of it and everybody else on the other. The Orthodox have their own take that's different from both.

 

[narnia59]

Yes he was NOT sinfull but he did assumed our condition of what it means to be human if he would not then he would not have been able to save us.

This I think is the crux of the difference between the Catholic/Orthodox view.

Catholics do not believe that 'what it means to be human' is equivalent to our fallen state. We were not created to be in this state -- it is a result of the fall. We are 'less human' now than Adam was before the fall because we are less than God created humanity to be.

In the Catholic view, Christ does not need to assume the condition of fallen humanity in order to redeem us. The humanity he assumes is as God created it to be. He doesn't have to come down into the pit to bring us out of the pit.

He still experiences much of the consequences of fallen humanity because he is living as a human in a fallen world. Those consequences he experiences are not the result of his human nature being fallen, but of ours.