I have heard that all have been redeemed but not all have been saved? What exactly does that mean?

# redemption Vs salvation

Everyone is redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection, meaning that humans have the *opportunity* to reach salvation. So, we are “automatically” redeemed, but have to choose to be saved, since salvation is a free gift from God.

This is kind of another question but Mary being without sin still had to be saved. As evidenced by the churches teachings and Acts. So Jesus and Mary were without sin but Jesus was and is the savior from sin.

What’s the other question?

That might be another question, but it is a very good (and, at least, a related question).

The Church, several centuries ago, considered whether to define the Immaculate Conception (the sinlessness of Mary) as a doctrine of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas (the Doctor of Doctors of the Catholic Church, often called the “Angelic Doctor”) argued that the Church could not promulgate such a Doctrine unless She answered this question: *How could Mary be sinless if she preceded Jesus*?

It is important to note that St. Thomas Aquinas did not ever express *doubt* about the validity of the teaching, but pointed out that the Church could appear to be philosophically unfounded if She taught such a doctrine without having a ready answer to this objection (Aquinas was, first and foremost, a philosopher, and perceived an unanswered objection).

Largely upon the influence of Aquinas’ objection, the Church tabled the matter (Trent did not teach on it, though many expected it to do so). Later theologians considered that God was not bound (as we are) by space and time (not a particularly novel idea to modern folk raised on science fiction, but very novel at the time). It would be novel even to scientists, because this teaching was promulgated about a half-century before Einstein (who was, himself, a Jew, and was probably not well acquainted with the Doctrine) formulated relativity, which would (eventually) give a scientific framework for this particular Church Doctrine.

These later theologians (later “relative” to Aquinas, not to Einstein) reasoned that there is no * doctrinal* reason why God could not “retroactively” apply the merits of Christ to Mary, despite the fact that the Crucifixion occurred “after” the Immaculate Conception. This objection and its response is specifically referenced in

*Ineffabilis Deus*and was later acknowledged (in a sense) by Nobel-winning scientists who described relativity (which, ironically, would not include Einstein himself, who won a Nobel prize, but never for relativity, but for his research into why some metals produce weak electrical potentials when exposed to light - the photovoltaic effect).

In a very real sense, the Church discovered relativity a half-century before Einstein ever contemplated it from his office (as a Patent Examiner, Third Class) in Bern, Switzerland.

Math is the Queen of science. Philosophy is the Queen of math (every mathematical “proof” is really an exercise in philosophy). The Church has always been pretty good at philosophy. And philosophy is the ultimate means whereby humanity can discover Truth.

In a very real sense, the Church discovered relativity a half-century before Einstein ever contemplated it from his office (as a Patent Examiner, Third Class) in Bern, Switzerland.

I would like to take this opportunity to add to this discussion by borrowing from my physics background. While I agree that physics is founded upon math, and that upon philosophy, I don’t think you can trace a path directly from the doctrinal to the empirical notion of relativity. Special relativity, as currently formulated, does not allow the switching of the ordering of events in time, e.g. effect before cause. Otherwise, causality, the most sacred tenet of physics, is broken, and physics is robbed of its predictive power. Therefore to say that Mary is sinless because of Christ’s later sacrifice is to declare the Immaculate Conception to be miraculous, that is, it breaks the laws of physics. But breaking causality is also a big problem in philosophy.

So I guess I’m confused on how special relativity provides a scientific framework for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. :twocents:

So what did tradition teach about this? What did the earliest church fathers think? Any philosophy is only as good as it’s premises.

Do you mean Church tradition? Or philosophical tradition?

Philosophy is the ONLY means by which humans untimely perceive truth. True, it is only as good as its (not It’s) premise, but if the premise is accepted as truth, then the conclusion (if validly formulated) must be accepted as truth. This is why Descartes formulated the premise, “I think, therefore I am.” A reader might question whether Descartes “thought,” but a reader could not question his own thoughts (which allows him to comprehend what Descartes wrote).

Consider the ancient Greek mathematicians who (philosophically) determined that the square-root of two could not be a rational number (meaning any number that can be expressed as a fraction):

Let’s suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a,b are whole numbers, but b is not zero.

We additionally assume that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, since that can obviously be done with any fraction. Notice that in order for a/b to be in its simplest terms, both a

aandbmust be not be even. One or both must be odd. Otherwise, you could simplify the fraction.

From the equality √2 = a/b it follows that 2 = a2/b2, or a2 = 2 * b2. So the square of a is an even number since it is two times something. From this we can know that a itself is also an

evennumber. How do we know that? Because it can’t be odd; if a itself was odd, then a * a (a times a) would be odd too. Any odd number times any odd number is always odd.

If a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. We don’t need to know exactly what k is; it won’t matter. Soon we arrive at the contradiction:

If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a[sup]2[/sup]/b[sup]2[/sup], this is what we get:

2 = (2k)[sup]2[/sup]/b[sup]2[/sup]

2 = 4k[sup]2[/sup]/b[sup]2[/sup]

2*b[sup]2[/sup] = 4k[sup]2[/sup]

b[sup]2[/sup] = 2k[sup]2[/sup]

T

his means b[sup]2[/sup] is even, from which follows again that b itself is an even number!!!

WHY is that a contradiction? Because we started the whole process saying that a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that a and b would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.

This is the most elegant proof in all of mathematics. It was developed centuries before Jesus was born. The idea of an irrational number was so profound that the developers of this proof are unknown to history, because they kept their proof a secret for centuries because they thought that people would consider them insane for even proposing such an idea as an “irrational number.”

But this “mathematical proof” is 100% PHILOSOPHY. Because it is based on a LOGICAL (meaning “philosophical”) **contraction**.

This is not Church doctrine. None of the Fathers, as far as I know, taught about rational numbers. But it is TRUTH. And **nobody** today disputes it.

Both.