Could Mary have sinned?

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Mary was conceived without sin.  Adam was created before sin entered the world.  A subtle difference, but nevertheless a difference. 

I do not see why the difference is significant. Can you explain why that matters?

8 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Mary's choice was always to do God's will.  

 Yes. But what she did do does not tell us anything about what she was capable of doing. The fact that she did not sin does not in and of itself rule out the possibility that she could have.

8 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Mary never wavered in her faith in God.

Please see my prior response. The same applies here.

4 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

To embrace sin is to embrace slavery, not true liberty.

That's nice. When I wrote "free-will" above I meant it as follows: Free-will: "the ability to act at one's own discretion". But I think you knew that.

[Cam42]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

I do not see why the difference is significant. Can you explain why that matters?

 Yes. But what she did do does not tell us anything about what she was capable of doing. The fact that she did not sin does not in and of itself rule out the possibility that she could have.

Please see my prior response. The same applies here.

That's nice. When I wrote "free-will" above I meant it as follows: Free-will: "the ability to act at one's own discretion". But I think you knew that.

Theologically, the difference is this.  When Adam was created, there was no sin.  None.  Adam lived in a world in which sin was not a reality.  Not until Eve was corrupted by Satan.  And once sin entered the world, Adam failed, immediately.  On the other hand, Mary lived in a world rife with sin.  Her failure should have been immediate as well, she is human after all.  But, she didn't.  She became the model for humanity, without a Divine Nature.  She found freedom in perfectly and completely doing God's will.  She didn't fail.  She couldn't.  Why?  Because if she did, Christ could not have entered the world.  How could God come into the world through a less than perfect vessel?  That would make God, less than perfect.  That would cause the Divine Nature of Christ to be less than perfect.  Remember, theologically, perfection begets perfection.  Also, we see the difference almost immediately.   Genesis 3:15 shows us the reasoning why she always chose to never sin.

Free will isn't to choose sin.  That is pop theology and incorrect.  Nihil is absolutely correct.  Free Will exsits in the positive, not the negative.  When we choose to do God's will we find liberty and freedom; we are excercising free will.  When we choose to sin, we are not free.  We are bound by sin and we are separated from the freedom of eternal life.  Check CCC #1736-1742.

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Theologically, the difference is this.  When Adam was created, there was no sin.  None.  Adam lived in a world in which sin was not a reality.  Not until Eve was corrupted by Satan.  And once sin entered the world, Adam failed, immediately.  On the other hand, Mary lived in a world rife with sin.  Her failure should have been immediate as well, she is human after all.  But, she didn't.  She became the model for humanity, without a Divine Nature.  She found freedom in perfectly and completely doing God's will.  She didn't fail.  

Well. It seems to me that when Eve was created there was no sin. So she was also created without the stain of original sin (but please correct me if I am wrong). Yet, Eve still sinned. So it seems that being born free of the stain of original sin does not negate one's free-will, or one's ability to commit a sin. How do you deal with that?

You seem to assume that Adam and Eve must have sinned. I do not see why that is the case. God gave them a choice to eat or not eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. They could have eaten it, or they could not have eaten it.

Even though we were born with original sin, you seem to assume that we must sin (even after we are baptized). But that is also not the case. It is possible for us not to sin. Jesus commands us to be perfect. Would He command us to do something that is impossible? Jesus states that with God anything is possible.

You seem to deny free-will, which would make you a Calvinist.

Quote

She couldn't.  Why?  Because if she did, Christ could not have entered the world.  How could God come into the world through a less than perfect vessel?  That would make God, less than perfect.  That would cause the Divine Nature of Christ to be less than perfect.  Remember, theologically, perfection begets perfection.  Also, we see the difference almost immediately.   Genesis 3:15 shows us the reasoning why she always chose to never sin.

Do you have a dogmatic document that states that Mary was incapable of committing sin? It seems that the Church has developed several Marian dogmas and spent a lot of time thinking about it. Does it not seem odd that She has not made a dogmatic statement concerning that, while at the same time dogmatically stating that Mary was immaculately conceived, etc?

Now, as for your question, it seems to me that Mary imparted her human nature to Jesus, but not His divine nature. As for one's human nature, you seem to think that having "the ability to sin" is something that makes one imperfect. But is that the case? I think that having an "inclination to sin" (original sin) makes one's human nature imperfect, but the "ability to sin" does not make one imperfect. Having the "ability to sin" means that you have free-will (using the definition that I set forth above). And God Created Adam and Eve with free-will. Does that mean that God's original creation was imperfect? That when God created man in His own image He created something that was imperfect? It seems to me that Adam and Eve became imperfect when they sinned. Before that, they were just as God created them, and intended them to be.

So, it seems to me that Jesus's human nature was perfect in that he was born free of original sin, and that because Mary, at the time of His birth, had not actually sinned. But if some point after His birth Mary had chosen to sin, I do not think that would have changed the fact that Jesus was born free of original sin.

This is just me pontificating, of course. I have not thought about this deeply. So I could be spouting heresy here. If that is the case someone please correct me.

Quote

Free will isn't to choose sin.  That is pop theology and incorrect.  Nihil is absolutely correct.  Free Will exsits in the positive, not the negative.  When we choose to do God's will we find liberty and freedom; we are excercising free will.  When we choose to sin, we are not free.  We are bound by sin and we are separated from the freedom of eternal life.  Check CCC #1736-1742.

Specifically, when you say "Free-Will" exactly how do you define it? Your definition seems to be: "Free will is obeying God's commands." Let us call this "Free-Will" (Theological Definition). You are talking about "liberty and freedom" in a deeper theological sense, but that is not what I am referring to in my posts. I am not using the "theological" definition of "free-will" whatever that may be. I am just using the common definition that you find in the dictionary for my purposes. And I do think that we have "free-will" as it is defined in the dictionary. Humans have the ability to sin, or the ability not to sin. If you want to call that "Free-Will" or term it something else that is perfectly fine by me. But I think the concept to which I am referring is sufficiently well understood.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Peace

[MarysLittleFlower]

What. a. thread.

I didn't actually read it all.

I think that while Adam and Eve were also created in a state of grace, there are a few differences with Our Lady.

She is full of grace and was like that from the beginning of her conception. She not ONLY was free from concupiscence, but she also received many additional graces from God to make her holier than any creature.

Did God force her to say yes to the Angel? no. It was her choice. She cooperated with God always, perfectly, but what I think some are missing here is that she wasn't like a copy of Eve. She was made as the most perfect creature and given a fullness, a plenitude of grace that has never been seen before and will never be seen again. So while she chose to follow God's Will, her will was always perfectly united with His.

I think what some people are saying here is that Mary wasn't forced to do God's Will and they are calling that free will. Others are saying that free will is not found in sin. It's true that she wasn't forced and it's true that free will is in obedience, not in evil, because sin does not make us free. She had a choice and she chose the right thing, but this came in perfect freedom and love, without internal temptation and concupiscence. On one hand to some people it might seem as "less" because she didn't have to struggle through concupiscence. But actually it's greater, because it was done from perfect love, not fear or imperfect motives we have when we do God's Will.

We have a choice too and when we choose evil, that is a choice that we are responsible for because our wills aren't forced by God to do something, like robots. However when we choose the truth, we become more free to love God, - from our attachments and the allurements of the world, and the devil.

However, just because she wasn't forced to do God's Will, doesn't mean that she was in some neutral zone and could have easily chosen something else. She was full of grace, and immaculately conceived, without concupiscence, given countless graces, her will was united to the Divine Will, she was the most perfect creature, had a great number of guardian Angels, etc. She loved God like no other creature loved Him from the beginning of her life - so it's not like she would have just slipped into sin at some point. Her will didn't even consider it - and remember that original sin came after consideration of the sin and listening to the serpent. Mary didn't listen.

I'll ask my priest if he has any information

If I said something incorrectly do correct me! :)

Just as a point.. We do receive merit in fighting interior temptations because we fight them, but Our Lady received more merit because her love was greater. It's charity, not necessarily just how much we have to fight, that determines merit. If we fight with greater charity, we would have greater merit than other times when we've had less charity.

Often, having more to struggle against can help us to grow more in charity, which is why a lot of the Saints were extremely tempted. But Our Lady already had fullness of grace and greater charity than anyone, because of the Immaculate Conception, and it increased through her love for God and the Divine Will. She was always full of grace but it's like her soul expanded to receive more and more of this fullness as her charity grew as well. We can grow in charity too in life and receive more of God, though we are not full of grace.

I hope I understand all this correctly. Some is from my parish catechism class. Again if I made a mistake let me know  

Edited November 26, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Basically, things are kind of different with Our Lady. One of the ways we can grow in charity is by by fighting temptations. Our Lady didn't have interior temptations, ie: concupiscence. But she had greater charity than anyone to begin with, through the Immaculate Conception and being full of grace... and she also grew in charity through her obedience to God's Will, which is what sanctity is. So she wasn't forced by God to follow Him, but her will was so united to His that she was more free to love.

[chrysostom]

We often ask God to set us free from sin, knowing that true freedom is in Christ.  Mary was full of grace and therefore perfectly free in every way.

[Peace]

22 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

What. a. thread.

I didn't actually read it all.

I think that while Adam and Eve were also created in a state of grace, there are a few differences with Our Lady.

She is full of grace and was like that from the beginning of her conception. She not ONLY was free from concupiscence, but she also received many additional graces from God to make her holier than any creature.

Did God force her to say yes to the Angel? no. It was her choice. She cooperated with God always, perfectly, but what I think some are missing here is that she wasn't like a copy of Eve. She was made as the most perfect creature and given a fullness, a plenitude of grace that has never been seen before and will never be seen again. So while she chose to follow God's Will, her will was always perfectly united with His.

I hope you had a nice holiday. I don't mean to be rude, but I am not convinced.

The crux of your argument seems to be that "full of grace" = "cannot sin", but I do not think that the Church has ever told us that those words should be interpreted in that manner. The Church has thought deeply about those and the few, other, passages in the Bible concerning Mary. The Church has considered the Tradition and She has made 4 dogmatic statements concerning Mary. "Mary could not have sinned" was not one of them.

But besides my rude appeal to authority (or more precisely, the lack thereof) I still think there are a few problems with your analysis above:

1) Does being the most holy creature lead to the conclusion that one is unable to sin? I do not see why that need be the case. Being the best basketball player on the planet does not mean that one is incapable of missing a shot. Or perhaps put a better way, the fact that one has never missed a shot does not mean that one is incapable of missing a shot.

2) How is it you know that Mary has been given a plenitude of grace that will never be seen again? It seems to me that God can give grace to the people that He chooses and in the amounts that He chooses, and at the times that He chooses.

3) How do you know that Mary's will was perfectly united with God's? It seems to me that the 3 Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united in will. If Mary's was perfectly united to God's before her death, it seems to me that there there are two ways of that happening: 1) She is the 4th person of the Trinity, and we certainly cannot go there. 2) She possessed the beatific vision before her death - but I do not think the Church has ever taught this.

4) It seems to me that God gives us grace, and we are then called to cooperate with that grace. Grace from God and the will of a human are different things. Our will has to cooperate with the grace that God gives us. If you do not leave open the possibility that Mary could have chosen to reject God's grace (as we all do) then it seems to me that you do not have a real human-being (because God created us with the free and ability to accept or reject Him). You seem to have something more akin to one of the free-will lacking robots that Calvinists contemplate.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not Mary could or could not have sinned. I would guess that if someone asserted  that She could have sinned, I would take issue with that too. Until the Church tells us the answer (which I doubt will happen) then I think we are just left in the realm of speculation. . .

Edited November 27, 2015 by Peace

[Cam42]

31 minutes ago, Peace said:

I hope you had a nice holiday. I don't mean to be rude, but I am not convinced.

The crux of your argument seems to be that "full of grace" = "cannot sin", but I do not think that the Church has ever told us that those words should be interpreted in that manner. The Church has thought deeply about those and the few, other, passages in the Bible concerning Mary. The Church has considered the Tradition and She has made 4 dogmatic statements concerning Mary. "Mary could not have sinned" was not one of them.

But besides my rude appeal to authority (or more precisely, the lack thereof) I still think there are a few problems with your analysis above:

1) Does being the most holy creature lead to the conclusion that one is unable to sin? I do not see why that need be the case. Being the best basketball player on the planet does not mean that one is incapable of missing a shot. Or perhaps put a better way, the fact that one has never missed a shot does not mean that one is incapable of missing a shot.

2) How is it you know that Mary has been given a plenitude of grace that will never be seen again? It seems to me that God can give grace to the people that He chooses and in the amounts that He chooses, and at the times that He chooses.

3) How do you know that Mary's will was perfectly united with God's? It seems to me that the 3 Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united in will. If Mary's was perfectly united to God's before her death, it seems to me that there there are two ways of that happening: 1) She is the 4th person of the Trinity, and we certainly cannot go there. 2) She possessed the beatific vision before her death - but I do not think the Church has ever taught this.

4) It seems to me that God gives us grace, and we are then called to cooperate with that grace. Grace from God and the will of a human are different things. Our will has to cooperate with the grace that God gives us. If you do not leave open the possibility that Mary could have chosen to reject God's grace (as we all do) then it seems to me that you do not have a real human-being (because God created us with the free and ability to accept or reject Him). You seem to have something more akin to one of the free-will lacking robots that Calvinists contemplate.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not Mary could or could not have sinned. I would guess that if someone asserted  that She could have sinned, I would take issue with that too. Until the Church tells us the answer (which I doubt will happen) then I think we are just left in the realm of speculation. . .

So, from Ineffabilis Deus, which defines the Immaculate Conception as Dogmatic, "Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

This is as authoritative as can be stated.  She was conceived and PRESERVED from ALL stain of original sin.  Because she was preserved from and granted freedom from ALL original sin, no sin was in her soul.  She could not sin, because she didn't know what sin was.  This is exactly what Pope Pius IX meant as he was defining the Immaculate Conception.

The Pope goes on to say, "...we renew the Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, especially Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV, in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin; and also in favor of the feast and veneration of the conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as is manifest, was instituted in keeping with that pious belief."

So Peace, without having to trudge through correcting your definition of free will, we can see that from all eternity, Mary could not have sinned because she didn't know what sin was.  She was preserved from it.  The reason that we sin is that we are born into it.  Even though our Baptism wipes away the stain of original sin, it does not wipe away our proclivity towards it.  That is the burden we bear, due to the original action of Adam and Eve.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

So, from Ineffabilis Deus, which defines the Immaculate Conception as Dogmatic, "Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

This is as authoritative as can be stated.  She was conceived and PRESERVED from ALL stain of original sin.  Because she was preserved from and granted freedom from ALL original sin, no sin was in her soul.  She could not sin, because she didn't know what sin was.  This is exactly what Pope Pius IX meant as he was defining the Immaculate Conception.

The Pope goes on to say, "...we renew the Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, especially Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV, in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin; and also in favor of the feast and veneration of the conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as is manifest, was instituted in keeping with that pious belief."

So Peace, without having to trudge through correcting your definition of free will, we can see that from all eternity, Mary could not have sinned because she didn't know what sin was.  She was preserved from it.  The reason that we sin is that we are born into it.  Even though our Baptism wipes away the stain of original sin, it does not wipe away our proclivity towards it.  That is the burden we bear, due to the original action of Adam and Eve.

That's nice. But I think that you are going to have to do better than that. The document does not state that Mary was prevented from committing sin for all time. That appears to be what you want it to mean, but that is not what it says.

The document says that her soul was preserved from all stain of original sin "in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body". Please note the use of the words "original sin" (as opposed to "all sin") and "first instant" (as opposed to "for all time"). The document indicates what we know as the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was created without the stain of original sin. The document does not state that Mary, at some later point in time after her birth, could not have exercised her free-will and rejected God's grace.

And we know that not having the stain of original sin does not mean that one is incapable of sinning. We have a clear example of that with Adam and Eve. They were not "born into sin" yet they did sin. Another example, and please correct me if I am wrong - I had thought that baptism removes the stain of original sin. That is why we baptize infants, is it not? Yet that stain of original sin having been removed, we are still able to sin. So I do not think that being made free from original sin is something that prevents us from sinning.That seems to be rather clear. I think you need to go back to the "full of grace" argument if you are to win.

As for not knowing what sin was - what do you even mean by that? Obviously, there were plenty of other people around her who committed sinful actions. Are you saying that she did not know that those actions were wrong? Sure, I am reading what you wrote too literally here, but if not literally, exactly what do you mean by that? It seems to be a nice, fluffy, statement without substance.

As for "correcting" my definition of free will. My definition comes right from the dictionary and I stated the specific manner in which I used that term. I defined it as the ability to act at one's own discretion, and I assert that Mary had that ability. Also, I asked you to set forth your own definition of "free-will" as you understand and use the term. You have not yet done so. So I do not think you are in a position to go around correcting other people on the point when you have not even defined what you believe to be the correct meaning of it. Give us your definition and then perhaps we can talk about whether or not mine is correct.

After 29 pages of argument on the matter I would guess that a 30th page will not be the page on which you claim victory, but you are welcome to keep trying, of course.

[Cam42]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

That's nice. But I think that you are going to have to do better than that. The document does not state that Mary was prevented from committing sin for all time. That appears to be what you want it to mean, but that is not what it says.

The document says that her soul was preserved from all stain of original sin "in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body". Please note the use of the words "original sin" (as opposed to "all sin") and "first instant" (as opposed to "for all time"). The document indicates what we know as the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was created without the stain of original sin. The document does not state that Mary, at some later point in time after her birth, could not have exercised her free-will and rejected God's grace.

And we know that not having the stain of original sin does not mean that one is incapable of sinning. We have a clear example of that with Adam and Eve. They were not "born into sin" yet they did sin. Another example, and please correct me if I am wrong - I had thought that baptism removes the stain of original sin. That is why we baptize infants, is it not? Yet that stain of original sin having been removed, we are still able to sin. So I do not think that being made free from original sin is something that prevents us from sinning.That seems to be rather clear. I think you need to go back to the "full of grace" argument if you are to win.

As for not knowing what sin was - what do you even mean by that? Obviously, there were plenty of other people around her who committed sinful actions. Are you saying that she did not know that those actions were wrong? Sure, I am reading what you wrote too literally here, but if not literally, exactly what do you mean by that? It seems to be a nice, fluffy, statement without substance.

As for "correcting" my definition of free will. My definition comes right from the dictionary and I stated the specific manner in which I used that term. I defined it as the ability to act at one's own discretion, and I assert that Mary had that ability. Also, I asked you to set forth your own definition of "free-will" as you understand and use the term. You have not yet done so. So I do not think you are in a position to go around correcting other people on the point when you have not even defined what you believe to be the correct meaning of it. Give us your definition and then perhaps we can talk about whether or not mine is correct.

After 29 pages of argument on the matter I would guess that a 30th page will not be the page on which you claim victory, but you are welcome to keep trying, of course.

So, what you want is the language to suit your use of it.  It doesn't always do that.  I can take it back to the Latin and you'll see exactly what it says, but I fear that won't be good enough for you either.  However, because you continue to disagree...here is the Latin:  "...ab omni macula peccati originalis praeservatam immunem."  Mary was immune to sin.  She could not sin, because she was preserved immune from original sin.  This doesn't mean for a finite term, but rather it means forever.  Incredibly clear.  And just for transparency's sake, the Greek says, "...διατηρημένα απαλλαγμένη από κάθε κηλίδα του προπατορικού αμαρτήματος."  That translates to maintains.  (There is no churn.  I also don't read the documents just in English and assume the translation to be correct.)

Of course Adam and Eve weren't born into sin.  They weren't born at all.  They were created from dust and rib meat, respectively.  They were not preserved from sin in the way that Mary was, they had no need to be, because sin did not yet exist.  However, once sin entered into the world, the assumption was that they would not.  They did.  Once they did, the protoevangelium was necessary, as I stated before.  That is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, with Mary being the vessel.  The pure vessel.  She could not have sinned, because to do so would make her impure.

IF you think that this is about winning, it isn't.  It never has been.  It is about educating the faithful on dogmatic theology.  You don't know me.  Some are still around who do.  This isn't about a win, this is about teaching and getting people to understand what the Church teaches.  If you're not clear, talk to your priest or spiritual director.  I'm as clear as can be.

I mean "she didn't know sin," just as she was perpetually virgin and "didn't know man."  She was pure.  She maintained her perpetual innocence from sin, just as she maintained her perpetual innocence from intercourse.  Stop thinking that I'm speaking from a colloquial point of view.  Not here.  I do that other places.  I am very precise and my definitions meet the Church, not society.


 

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

So, what you want is the language to suit your use of it.  It doesn't always do that.  I can take it back to the Latin and you'll see exactly what it says, but I fear that won't be good enough for you either.  However, because you continue to disagree...here is the Latin:  "...ab omni macula peccati originalis praeservatam immunem."  Mary was immune to sin.  She could not sin, because she was preserved immune from original sin.  This doesn't mean for a finite term, but rather it means forever.  Incredibly clear.  And just for transparency's sake, the Greek says, "...διατηρημένα απαλλαγμένη από κάθε κηλίδα του προπατορικού αμαρτήματος."  That translates to maintains.  (There is no churn.  I also don't read the documents just in English and assume the translation to be correct.)

I interpret the English language differently than you do. As for the Latin or the Greek, I do not read those languages, so I cannot speak to them. If the original languages mean "forever" then why was it not translated as such? I do not see "forever" in the translation. I can imagine that the translators that they have over there at the Vatican are pretty good. I remain unconvinced. And again - you have not established that being preserved from original sin means that one therfore cannot sin.

3 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Of course Adam and Eve weren't born into sin.  They weren't born at all.  They were created from dust and rib meat, respectively.  They were not preserved from sin in the way that Mary was, they had no need to be, because sin did not yet exist.  However, once sin entered into the world, the assumption was that they would not.  They did.  Once they did, the protoevangelium was necessary, as I stated before.  That is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, with Mary being the vessel.  The pure vessel.  She could not have sinned, because to do so would make her impure.

 Having a free-will (as I define it) does not make one impure. And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not state that Mary was prevented from committing sin for all time. It states that she was preserved from original sin at the time of her conception. You seem to think that being preserved from original sin at the time of one's conception must mean that the person cannot therefore sin at any point in time thereafter. But you have not demonstrated this. Nor has the Church said so.

3 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

IF you think that this is about winning, it isn't.  It never has been.  It is about educating the faithful on dogmatic theology.  You don't know me.  Some are still around who do.  This isn't about a win, this is about teaching and getting people to understand what the Church teaches.  If you're not clear, talk to your priest or spiritual director.  I'm as clear as can be.

Well. You aren't clear enough to convince me. It really is not an issue of great personal concern of mine whether or not Mary could have sinned. I have admitted on this forum where I have been wrong. I just don't find you convincing, and apparently I am not the only one. It is what it is.

As for asking my priest, perhaps I will do so if I have a chance. There are more pressing questions that I would typically use that time for, but thank you for the suggestion.

3 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

I mean "she didn't know sin," just as she was perpetually virgin and "didn't know man."  She was pure.  She maintained her perpetual innocence from sin, just as she maintained her perpetual innocence from intercourse.  Stop thinking that I'm speaking from a colloquial point of view.  Not here.  I do that other places.  I am very precise and my definitions meet the Church, not society.

OK. You meant that she did not sin. I agree that she did not sin.

[Benedictus]

The key point of the Immaculate Conception is that God created Mary without any sin. She needed to be a pure vessel to conceive God and be the new 'Eve'. It could be said that God, by the act of the Immaculate Conception, made it impossible for Mary to sin in any way. Sin wouldn't occur because Mary wasn't tainted to begin with (unlike the rest of humanity). How can sin corrupt something that's pure and has an unbreakable connection with God from the start?

Another persepctive could be that God created Mary without sin, freeing her from Original Sin, but that God allowed her the capacity to sin (by partcipating and making choices). However, as God knew she'd always be pure (as he saw how it would turn out) then his will was done.

Either way the end result is the same.

[little2add]

Hail Mary 

[Cam42]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

I interpret the English language differently than you do. As for the Latin or the Greek, I do not read those languages, so I cannot speak to them. If the original languages mean "forever" then why was it not translated as such? I do not see "forever" in the translation. I can imagine that the translators that they have over there at the Vatican are pretty good. I remain unconvinced. And again - you have not established that being preserved from original sin means that one therfore cannot sin.

 Having a free-will (as I define it) does not make one impure. And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not state that Mary was prevented from committing sin for all time. It states that she was preserved from original sin at the time of her conception. You seem to think that being preserved from original sin at the time of one's conception must mean that the person cannot therefore sin at any point in time thereafter. But you have not demonstrated this. Nor has the Church said so.

Well. You aren't clear enough to convince me. It really is not an issue of great personal concern of mine whether or not Mary could have sinned. I have admitted on this forum where I have been wrong. I just don't find you convincing, and apparently I am not the only one. It is what it is.

As for asking my priest, perhaps I will do so if I have a chance. There are more pressing questions that I would typically use that time for, but thank you for the suggestion.

OK. You meant that she did not sin. I agree that she did not sin.

....and that is the problem with English.  It's dynamic.  It's changing.  Latin doesn't.  That is why I went there.  That is why Latin is so very, very important.  The reason that it was not translated as such, is because there are errors in the translation, it's a translation.  You're right, I don't use the English language the same way you do.  I use a more formal style and it is much more literal.  It's how I was
taught to use the language, as I was getting my degrees in Theology, Philosophy, Catholic Studies, and working toward my Masters in Theology.  So, you remain unconvinced.  I'm sorry.  I cannot be any clearer, neither can the Church.  You need to take this to prayer and your spiritual director then.  We are speaking about dogma and that has to be assented to, regardless of complete understanding.  Not my rules, the Church's.

Your definition of free will in incorrect, theologically.  I'm not interested in what society has to say about it.  That isn't how the Church deals with it.  Wanna discuss it, start a thread.  Otherwise, you have to come to the terms of the Church, not your own.  YOUR opinion doesn't mean anything, neither does mine.  We have to interpret what the Church teaches through the lens of the Church and apply it.  That is what is going on here and has been since 2005.  I know, I've been here through it all.  There isn't much humility in that paragraph, my friend.

You speak of the Immaculate Conception as doctrine.  It is more than that.  It is dogma.  Just sayin'.

The reason this thread is still alive is because people are unconvinced.  Congratulations on understanding why the phorum exists.  It is to convince people of the truth of the Church.  That has always been dUSt's mission.

You're welcome.

Good.

[Peace]

No, I speak of the Immaculate Conception as dogma. You read more into the dogma than what it states. What you assert is neither doctrine nor dogma. It is a private interpretation by a random person on the Internet, despite however many degrees you may have.

But thank you for reading me your resume. Perhaps after you obtain 3 or 4 more degrees that will be sufficient for you to understand your error. Here on the forum, it is evidence and arguments that carry the day, and you still have not proven your assertion.

As for your assertion that the Church could not be clearer on that point, you are wrong. If the Church wanted to make a dogmatic statement to that effect She could do so, and She could do so much more clearly than the language that you allege as indicating that Mary could not have sinned.

As for what I need to submit to prayer and assent to, thank you for the suggestion. When making such suggestions in the future, please keep in mind that despite your numerous degrees, to me you remain a random person on the Internet.

As for whether my definition of free-will is correct, again, you have not affirmitavely put forth a definition of your own (despite my two requests for you to do so) so you are not in a position to discuss it. You may say "you are wrong" as many times as you like, but realize that you do not have authority. You must convince using reason, and you have not done so. Lastly, what I wrote stands, regardless of whether you call "the ability to act at one's discretion" "free-will" or whether you call it something else. Whether "the ability to act act at one's discretion" meets the theological definition of free-will (again, which you refuse to define) is quite irrelevant, because my previous statements are not based on that assumption.