Mary's Savior

[Guest cmcuffman]

Why does Mary call God her "Savior" in Luke 1:47? If she was sinless, in what way was God her "Savior"? Lord makes sense. Referring to herself as his servant makes sense. But, she had no sin to be saved from. I'm confused on this.

[Brother Adam]

Thank you for your question. Theologians and saints throughout time have asked the exact same question.

There are three key points when understanding the Immaculate Conception, that flow together, and so I think it is best to understand them as a whole.

1. Mary was preserved from original sin from the first moment of her existence. Since Mary did not suffer from original sin, she was preserved from any stain (effects) of sin. Mary did not suffer a corrupt nature.
2. The Immaculate Conception deals only with Mary's freedom from original sin. However, the Church believes and teaches that Mary was free from all personal (actual) sin as well.
3. This privilege was given to Mary in light of the merit's of Christ. The only way for Mary to be free from original sin is through the action of God - who saved Mary from original sin? God. God is rightly then her Savior. Jesus was Mary's Savior. She was redeemed just as we are, except that her redemption is unique: it was a proactive redemption. The fruit of Christ's redemption was applied to preserve Mary from sin, as it was applied to us to remove any such sin contracted. Even though Mary did not need redemption to cleanse her from sin, she did need redemption to preserve her from sin.

When I was studying Catholicism and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was explained to me, I inquired to why God would find any need to do this. What is the theological purpose?

All things leading back to Christ, I found it has to do with Jesus and the Incarnation. Mary became the ark of the New Covenant when she gave her fiat and accepted her Savior in her womb.

"A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark" (Ex 40:34-35)
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." (Luke 1:35)

The ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Sam 6:11)
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)

King David asked "How can the ark of the Lord come to me" (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth asked Mary "why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

David leaped and danced before the Lord when the ark arrived (2 Sam 6:14-16)
John the Baptized leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)

God took pains to prepare and preserve the vessel that contained His written Word. It was made of pure gold and acacia wood. God demanded the container be without defect. God struck Uzzah dead because he dared to touch it. If God took such care to preserve the Old Testament Ark from stain, defect, or profanation, who much more would He carefully preserve the NT ark, which carried infinitely holier cargo - the living Word, God Himself, from all stain of sin?

Eve did not suffer from the inclination to sin, and her "no" was made in complete freedom. For Mary to undo the disobedience of Eve, Mary's "yes" must also be free from sin and the inclination to sin.

I would encourage you to read St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure on the question. All of them explicitly ask "Why did Mary need a Savior in Jesus if she was free from original sin?" and deal with it. As we said, this problem was solved (Duns Scotus gives the best answer for clarity) by realizing that Mary did not just need a savior, she needed a more perfect redemption. If a man pulls you out of quicksand, he has saved you, but what if he kept you from falling into the quicksand in the first place?

There is no dispute that the merit's of Christ were applied to the Old Testament saints - those who have already passed, recognizing Christ's universal redemption. So too was Mary saved by His action on the cross. Yes, in a unique way as the New Eve, but God's restoration makes things better than the original. Mary's yes was more perfect than Eve's no.

There is much more that could be discussed, but for the sake of brevity I will close there.

Adam Janke