Replies

Sorry for the word swap, it was not intentional.

:) I figured. No harm, no foul.

However, good, or righteous, Mary falls into that set of people, and was in need of a Savior as much as you or I.

Of course, she was... and she said so, herself (cf. Luke 1:47). But a few things need to be clarified, here:

1) "Needing a Saviour" does not translate into "having fallen into sin"; I can be saved (for example) from a muddy pit by being pulled out and cleaned off, or I can be saved from a muddy pit by having my Saviour prevent me from falling into the pit in the first place. We fall into the second category; the Blessed Virgin falls into the first. She was not free from sin by any merit of her own, apart from God; rather, she was kept sinless by God, Himself (cf. Luke 1:48-49, though that's not a proof-text: it's merely an indication that Mary attributed all the wondrous things about herself to God alone)... and the Catholic Church has always taught thusly

2) It may help to remember that God is quite able to create a woman without original sin; it may help further to know that He DID so, at least one other time... when He created Eve! Why would it be so bizarre for God to bestow on the New Eve (i.e. Mary) the same unfallen nature that He gave to the first Eve, especially since both free choices of both women were absolutely fundamental to our salvation or reprobation?

Noah was righteous per scripture, and Job was described as Perfect, per King James.

All right; then how do you square this with Romans 3:10? Either "there is none righteous, no, not one", or there is one (or more) righteous; one cannot have it both ways. There are only three clear possibilities: (a) the Scriptural descriptions of Noah and Job were erroneous; (b) the statement of St. Paul in Romans 3:10 is erroneous; or (c) there is more to these statements than the merest and most flatly "English-face-value-without-context" approch might suggest. I assert to you that (c) is, in fact, the case.

Tobit is non-canonical.

:) Would you care to prove that?

Children reach age of accountability, but all are born into sin. Innocence is innocence. But lies do come, pride does come, coveting others things does come, “no” to your mother does come. SIn comes. Inevitable. Then there is need of Jesus.

I agree... but what of the unborn children who (for example) die by abortion, well before they have any capacity to lie, act proudly, covet, or disobey their parents? Have they committed actual (personal) sin?

Of course there is original sin, from Adam to today. Who would say otherwise?

That rather depends on what you mean... and I'd like to be quite certain that we mean the same thing by the term "Original Sin" (and I'm not at all sure we do). I mean "the state of deprivation of sanctifying grace (and the deprivation of the preternatural protections, such as a lack of suffering, lack of death, lack of weakened will and clouded intellect, etc) which our first parents enjoyed before the fall". This state, which is called "Original Sin", is a lack of God's Sanctifying Grace within our souls (i.e. the life of the Blessed Trinity, living within us)... a state which is remedied by Sacramental Baptism. Is that what you mean?

That being the case, Noah, Job, and Mary, not to mention John the Baptist and Moses all needed Christ.

Of course... and no faithful and well-informed Catholic would argue otherwise. But Mary (by a singular privilege) received Christ's salvation "by prevention", rather than salvation "by forgiveness and redemption".

Good Morning paladinan, hope all is well with you and yours.

‘1) “Needing a Saviour” does not translate into “having fallen into sin”; I can be saved (for example) from a muddy pit by being pulled out and cleaned off, or I can be saved from a muddy pit by having my Saviour prevent me from falling into the pit in the first place. We fall into the second category; the Blessed Virgin falls into the first. She was not free from sin by any merit of her own, apart from God; rather, she was kept sinless by God, Himself’

I suupose that one could opine that that could be the case. BUT, isn’t it true that Jesus Himself is the only human not to have sinned, who lived a ‘sinless’ life, and therefore was the perfect sacrificial ‘Lamb’? If mary was kept sinless, then SHE could have been that sacrifice, n’est pas?

“Noah was righteous per scripture, and Job was described as Perfect, per King James.

All right; then how do you square this with Romans 3:10? Either “there is none righteous, no, not one”, or there is one (or more) righteous; one cannot have it both ways. There are only three clear possibilities: (a) the Scriptural descriptions of Noah and Job were erroneous; (b) the statement of St. Paul in Romans 3:10 is erroneous; or (c) there is more to these statements than the merest and most flatly “English-face-value-without-context” approch might suggest. I assert to you that (c) is, in fact, the case.’

I will also go with ‘c’. Unfortunately for us, English can be a poor language when compared to others, lacking nuances that can be Very Important to meaning. (Agape vs Phileo vs Eros, yet all translate as ‘love’ into English. Just for an example). So, Job being ‘perfect’ does not necessarily mean ‘sinless’. But rather that he pursued God, folowed His word, which would include repenting of sin as it occurred. The same could be said of Noah.

The Apocrypha are included in the Catholic Bible, not in the King James, except as a reference. There are contradictions in them that rendered them not included. You may consider them scripture, I do not. No offense meant.

Having said that, the most important common ground is Jesus.

‘I agree... but what of the unborn children who (for example) die by abortion, well before they have any capacity to lie, act proudly, covet, or disobey their parents? Have they committed actual (personal) sin?’

They have not, yet they will, all are sinful. The first lie will come. Prior to that? It is my belief they are welcomed by Jesus, still unstained by sin. Being unstained it would follow they would welcome and see Jesus as who He is, their Savior.

‘Of course... and no faithful and well-informed Catholic would argue otherwise. But Mary (by a singular privilege) received Christ’s salvation “by prevention”, rather than salvation “by forgiveness and redemption”.’

It seems there is desire to elevate Mary, or grant her special characteristics to explain the apparent conflict in the idea that something ‘pure’ could come from something’sinful’.

Bear with me, as I try to get this all out intelligently.

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, all in the same package. Another way to see it is that Jesus left His throne and came to wrap himself in the flesh of His creation.

Mary bore a baby son, an earthly son, a human and flesh son. That son was Human. And, also Divine, as Jesus lived in him. That flesh was not divine at all. As the man, Jesus was tempted in the flesh, as we are. He felt the desires we do. He felt pain as we do, wept, laughed, was anguished. He even prayed for another way to accomplish His work, though surrendering to the will of His Father. Through it all, He escaped surrender to sin.

He escaped sin here, by virtue of Himself, not by being birthed from a ‘sinless’ woman. In the final analysis, it is ALL Jesus, nothing else.