Could Mary have sinned?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Cam, explain in English or Latin, but please, let me understand you. :

Your philosophy makes no sense. Particularly this:

[quote]She could do nothing but cooperate. Whereas we can change our view, she could not. She was capable, because she was human, but she could not, PRECISELY because it would change her character as a person.[/quote]

1. If she could do nothing but cooperate, then she had no choice and thus did not exercise free will.

2. The second sentence seems completely self-contradictory.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 10:19 PM']I don't believe that the final use of the word "could" is correct.  Could implies some uncertainty.  To say "necessarily...couldn't" is to make a certain statement and therefore leads one to conclude that "couldn't" in that sense is a reference to potestas, not to a subjunctive meaning (since "necessarily" is certain and would contradict "couldn't" in its subjunctive sense).
[right][snapback]773739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
(necessarily was an adverb to the verb of chose and has no bearing on the rest of that sentence)

she necessarily chose by a thomistic understanding of predestination
she chose what was foreknown by God she would choose by a mollinistic understanding of predestination

either one produces Cam's view that in the light of eternity she couldn't have sinned because of predestination.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 10:30 PM'](necessarily was an adverb to the verb of chose and has no bearing on the rest of that sentence)

she necessarily chose by a thomistic understanding of predestination
she chose what was foreknown by God she would choose by a mollinistic understanding of predestination

either one produces Cam's view that in the light of eternity she couldn't have sinned because of predestination.
[right][snapback]773745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again...English or Latin, I'm not fluent in Philosophospeak.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 10:28 PM']Cam, explain in English or Latin, but please, let me understand you. :

Your philosophy makes no sense.  Particularly this:

[quote]She could do nothing but cooperate. Whereas we can change our view, she could not. She was capable, because she was human, but she could not, PRECISELY because it would change her character as a person.[/quote]

1. If she could do nothing but cooperate, then she had no choice and thus did not exercise free will.

2. The second sentence seems completely self-contradictory.
[right][snapback]773743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because Mary was excluded from original sin (B), she was destined to be the Mother of God (A). Mary could not change her view ( C ), because she was excluded from original sin (B). Because she could not change her view ( C ), she was destined to be the Mother of God (A).

There it is in syllogistic view.

If B's are A's
and C's are B's
then C's are A's.

Does that help? If not, let me try this.

Mary was excluded from original sin. Because she participated in this, she could not sin, because she could do nothing other than good. To do other than good would lose the grace that was given to her at her conception. The grace given to her at her conception was effacious. It allowed her to choose good every single time.

Since merely sufficient grace (gratia mere sufficiens) in its very concept contains the idea of a withholding of consent on the part of free will, and is therefore at the very outset destined to inefficiency (gratia inefficax), the question in its last analysis reduces itself to the relation between free will and efficacious grace (gratia efficax), which contains the very idea that by it and with it the free will does precisely that which this grace desires should be done.

Mary participated completely and totally in gratia efficax. Humans who were born with original sin participate in gratia mere sufficiens, which leads to gratia inefficax. Mary did not participate in that. She participtated in gratia efficax. Because she was excluded from original sin from her conception. This is what we strive for and this is why she is called the new Eve and the prototypical Christian.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Mary could not change her view ( C ), because she was excluded from original sin (B).[/quote]

I don't understand what this means...that Mary couldn't change her mind?

That would diminish her human nature, since we make choices in time.

[Aloysius]

simply put without getting into one of those horrid debates on predestination, because Mary was predestined to not sin (by whichever Catholic system of predestination you adhere to, the two most popular acceptable ones are thomism and mollinism) then in that sense she couldn't have sinned

but as a human being she held the capacity to choose to sin and in that sense she could have sinned. a mollinist would say that God foreknew she wouldn't sin, a thomist would say that by God's providence she necessarily chose not to sin, either way in the light of eternity (where every moment is seen at once) she didn't sin and would not have sinned, in that sense she couldn't have sinned, because in the light of eternity what has happened, is.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]To do other than good would lose the grace that was given to her at her conception. The grace given to her at her conception was effacious. It allowed her to choose good every single time.[/quote]

I agree...but preceding that is this:

[quote]Because she participated in this, she could not sin, because she could do nothing other than good. [/quote]

She could have chosen not to participate at any point in here life, though, right? That's what the ability to sin is, afterall, and if she didn't have the ability to sin, then she wasn't human.

Now, I can understand kinda if by "could not" you mean that, because she was granted the Immaculate Conception, which presupposes the divine knowledge that she would not sin, she could not sin in the sense that God already knew that she wouldn't, although she still had the ability to sin, then I can kind of understand, but it would still not be the nature of her Immaculate Conception alone which would keep her from sin, but her free choice throughout life. When we say merely that it was grace, we focus on the objective and cut out her subjective, her response to grace.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:02 PM']simply put without getting into one of those horrid debates on predestination, because Mary was predestined to not sin (by whichever Catholic system of predestination you adhere to, the two most popular acceptable ones are thomism and mollinism) then in that sense she couldn't have sinned

but as a human being she held the capacity to choose to sin and in that sense she could have sinned.  a mollinist would say that God foreknew she wouldn't sin, a thomist would say that by God's providence she necessarily chose not to sin, either way in the light of eternity (where every moment is seen at once) she didn't sin and would not have sinned, in that sense she couldn't have sinned, because in the light of eternity what has happened, is.
[right][snapback]773761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Okay, I can agree with that, particularly in light of your last sentence, but if I could get clear answers on my last couple questions to Cam, I might come closer to understanding.

Realize that I'm not trying to debate, but if I'm lacking in some knowledge of the faith and therefore am a material heretic in this matter, I'd like to understand so that I can clean out that little problem.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:07 PM']I agree...but preceding that is this:
She could have chosen not to participate at any point in here life, though, right?  That's what the ability to sin is, afterall, and if she didn't have the ability to sin, then she wasn't human.

Now, I can understand kinda if by "could not" you mean that, because she was granted the Immaculate Conception, which presupposes the divine knowledge that she would not sin, she could not sin in the sense that God already knew that she wouldn't, although she still had the ability to sin, then I can kind of understand, but it would still not be the nature of her Immaculate Conception alone which would keep her from sin, but her free choice throughout life.  When we say merely that it was grace, we focus on the objective and cut out her subjective, her response to grace.
[right][snapback]773765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The thing is that it is not merely grace, but effacious grace (gratia efficax). And we have not cut out the subjective at all, but rather it is her subjective submission to the gratia efficax that leads to the objective truth that Mary did not sin, not because she wasn't capable, but because of the grace that was infused at her conception, she wouldn't and couldn't.

I know that you are not trying to debate. The debate part of this is over.....however, Micah, this doesn't get much clearer. Al and I are pretty much restating our positions over and over. There really isn't any clearer way to state it. Apologies for that.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:28 PM']...but because of the grace that was infused at her conception, she wouldn't and couldn't.
[right][snapback]773781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's what I'm having a problem with. It sounds like you're basically saying that God forced His grace on her...that she had no choice but to accept it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:36 PM']That's what I'm having a problem with.  It sounds like you're basically saying that God forced His grace on her...that she had no choice but to accept it.
[right][snapback]773787[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, not at all....

She willingly accepted the grace. I said that a long time ago and have been assuming that is understood. My apologies.

[quote name='Cam42' date=' Yesterday, 11:58 PM']Incidentally, from the moment of our conception, we are full human beings. This cannot be denied. While we may have the stain of original sin, it doesn't mean that God cannot act in a miraculous way and eleviate that burden. As a matter of fact, he did, once, with Mary. [b]However, when God communicated with Mary it was at the moment of her conception. He said, "You have a choice, Yes or No?" She said YES!!!!!! That yes is vocalized in the Magnificat, but had existed from the moment of her conception.[/b]

In short, the Immaculate Conception was a miracle. In short, the Blessed Virgin is the prototypical Christian. She gave herself first and completely to God, from the moment of her conception, without ceasing without distraction, without regret. It is her joy and our standard. We should strive to be like her, in all things. Again, Totus Tuus.[/quote]

I am sorry if you missed this point. It was a good number of posts ago.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:41 PM']No, not at all....

She willingly accepted the grace.  I said that a long time ago and have been assuming that is understood.  My apologies.
I am sorry if you missed this point.  It was a good number of posts ago.
[right][snapback]773789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Could she change her mind?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:46 PM']Could she change her mind?
[right][snapback]773790[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, because her mind and her will were illumined by the gratia efficax. If she were to have changed her mind, she would not have been the Immaculate Conception. Because she would not have accpeted all that God asked of her. And she would have contradicted a characteristic of her person, which is gratia efficax.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 29 2005, 11:55 PM']No, because her mind and her will were illumined by the gratia efficax.  If she were to have changed her mind, she would not have been the Immaculate Conception.  Because she would not have accpeted all that God asked of her.  And she would have contradicted a characteristic of her person, which is gratia efficax.
[right][snapback]773792[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then during her life, she was not acting out of free will and therefore ceased to be human? If she could not change her mind, then she could not have been choosing freely. Are you telling me that for the Blessed Virgin, once saved always saved is the reality?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

1. Could Mary have made an act of the will at the moment of conception?

I can't see how the answer could be yes. It's before the age of reason, for starters. What's more, she didn't have a brain then and therefore couldn't process information.

2. If she could not change her mind, then her "fiat" is a once-for-all, like the angels. She wouldn't be human.

3. She must be allowed to cooperate freely with the grace throughout her life. It could not take hold of her and force her to cooperate...such would not be true cooperation. Yet, that is precisely what it would be doing if she had no choice to change her mind.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 12:01 AM']Then during her life, she was not acting out of free will and therefore ceased to be human? If she could not change her mind, then she could not have been choosing freely.  Are you telling me that for the Blessed Virgin, once saved always saved is the reality?
[right][snapback]773796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, since merely sufficient grace (gratia mere sufficiens) in its very concept contains the idea of a withholding of consent on the part of free will, and is therefore at the very outset destined to inefficiency (gratia inefficax), the question in its last analysis reduces itself to the relation between free will and efficacious grace (gratia efficax), [b]which contains the very idea that by it and with it the free will does precisely that which this grace desires should be done.[/b] Mary has effacious grace.

It is by acting WITH the free will that the gratia efficax accomplishes that which is desired. There is no loss of freedom of will, but as I have said before, total cooperation with the will and grace allowed Mary to act in the manner that she did.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 30 2005, 12:19 AM']Again, since merely sufficient grace (gratia mere sufficiens) in its very concept contains the idea of a withholding of consent on the part of free will, and is therefore at the very outset destined to inefficiency (gratia inefficax), the question in its last analysis reduces itself to the relation between free will and efficacious grace (gratia efficax), [b]which contains the very idea that by it and with it the free will does precisely that which this grace desires should be done.[/b] Mary has effacious grace.

It is by acting WITH the free will that the gratia efficax accomplishes that which is desired.  There is no loss of freedom of will, but as I have said before, total cooperation with the will and grace allowed Mary to act in the manner that she did.
[right][snapback]773804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then how did Eve change her mind?

If Mary was unable to reject this grace at any point along her natural life, then she was being driven by grace, not cooperating freely with it.

[qfnol31]

I think, Micah, that Cam is arguing that if one is Immaculately Conceived, she could not have sinned, but not not in the sense that she did not have the capacity, but if she had sinned it would have taken away the Immaculate Conception?

I think that's right. I'm pretty sure that to get a further explanation might cause more confusion...this is why I like philosophy in the background.

Anyways, if you read the first question, it reads as though it's a question about the capacity to sin, which is what everyone has been arguing about, right?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 12:24 AM']Then how did Eve change her mind?

If Mary was unable to reject this grace at any point along her natural life, then she was being driven by grace, not cooperating freely with it.
[right][snapback]773809[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mary is not Eve. Mary is the NEW Eve.

It isn't that Mary wasn't unable to reject this grace. She freely accepted it and therefore did not need to reject it. You are assuming that Mary is coming from the position of all humans. She does not. She was excluded from having original sin. She was able from the moment of her conception to be able to freely accept all the grace that God bestowed upon her.

This was also spoken to earlier.

The reason that she could not have sinned is because she was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

It is not the same as when we are baptized, the relationship of God's Grace to Mary is totally different and unique. It is a characteristic of Mary. It is part of her being. She is not eveloped in it as we are. The sanctifying grace is not given sacramentally, as it is with you and I, but rather it was granted from the moment of conception.

Her will was illumined and supported by this special grace from the moment of her conception. Another way of looking at it, she was endowed with sanctifying grace from the moment of her conception to the moment of her death, unceasingly.

This might seem as though her free will would be in some way compromised, but that could not be farther from the truth. Her free will cooperated completely and fully with God at all times. It was part of the endowment of sanctifying grace. It was freely given and was freely accepted at the moment of conception. Hence the Immaculate Conception.

Incidentally, from the moment of our conception, we are full human beings. This cannot be denied. While we may have the stain of original sin, it doesn't mean that God cannot act in a miraculous way and eleviate that burden. As a matter of fact, he did, once, with Mary. However, when God communicated with Mary it was at the moment of her conception. He said, "You have a choice, Yes or No?" She said YES!!!!!! That yes is vocalized in the Magnificat, but had existed from the moment of her conception.

Mary is the Second Eve. Now let us consider what this implies. Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom was divinely committed the naming of all things, entitled her "the Mother of all the living", a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity; but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again had she her own special place as regards its trial and its fall in Adam. In those primeval events, Eve had an integral share. "The woman, being seduced, was in the transgression." She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband, and he ate of it. She co-operated, not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin; she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a sine-qua-non, a positive, active, cause of it. And she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognised as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly. In that awful transaction there were three parties concerned,-the serpent, the woman, and the man; and at the time of their sentence, an event was announced for the future, in which the three same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman, and the man; but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to me undeniable; but at all events (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration.

St Ireneaus says:

[quote name='Adv. Haer. iii. 22.34']With a fitness, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold Thy handmaid, 0 Lord; be it to me according to Thy word.' But Eve was disobedient; for she obeyed not, while she was yet a virgin. As she, having indeed Adam for a husband, but as yet being a virgin . . becoming disobedient, became the cause of death both to herself and to the whole human race, so also Mary, having the predestined man, and being yet a Virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation.
. . . And on account of this the Lord said, that the first should be last and the last first. And the Prophet signifies the same, saying, 'Instead of fathers you have children.' For, whereas the Lord, when born, was the first-begotten of the dead, and received into His bosom the primitive fathers, He regenerated them into the life of God, He Himself becoming the beginning of the living, since Adam became the beginning of the dying. Therefore also Luke, commencing the line of generations from the Lord, referred it back to Adam, signifying that He regenerated the old fathers, not they Him, into the Gospel of life. And so the knot of Eye's disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith.[/quote]

As Eve failed in these virtues, and brought on the fall of the race in Adam, so Mary by means of them had a part in its restoration.

John Henry Cardinal Newman says:

[quote] they declare she co-operated in our salvation not merely by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy Ghost within her soul; that, as Eve forfeited privileges by sin, so Mary earned privileges by the fruits of grace; that, as Eve was disobedient and unbelieving, so Mary was obedient and believing; that, as Eve was a cause of ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all; that as Eve made room for Adam's fall, so Mary made room for our Lord's reparation of it; and thus, whereas the free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it follows that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil, Mary co-operated in effecting a much greater good.[/quote]

continued......

[Cam42]

Cardinal Newman goes on to say,

[quote]I have drawn the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as an immediate inference, from the primitive doctrine that Mary is the Second Eve. . . . If controversy had in earlier days so cleared the subject as to make it plain to all, that the doctrine meant nothing else than that, in fact, in her case the general sentence on mankind was not carried out, and that, by means of the indwelling in her of divine grace from the first moment of her being (and this is all the decree of 1854 has declared), I cannot believe that the doctrine would have ever been opposed; for an instinctive sentiment has led Christians jealously to put the Blessed Mary aside when sin comes into discussion. This is expressed in the well-known words of St. Augustine, All have sinned "except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish no question to be raised at all, when we are treating of sins." (de Nat. et Grat. 42);[/quote]

and he also says:

[quote]We, as the children of Adam, are heirs to the consequences of his sin, and have forfeited in him that spiritual robe of grace and holiness which he had given him by his Creator at the time that he was made. In this state of forfeiture and disinheritance we are all of us conceived and born; and the ordinary way by which we are taken out of it is the Sacrament of Baptism.

But Mary never was in this state; she was by the eternal decree of God exempted from it. From eternity, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, decreed to create the race of man, and, foreseeing the fall of Adam, decreed to redeem the whole race by the Son's taking flesh and suffering on the Cross. In that same incomprehensible, eternal instant, in which the Son of God was born of the Father, was also the decree passed of man's redemption through Him. He who was born from Eternity was born by an eternal decree to save us in Time, and to redeem the whole race; and Mary's redemption was determined in that special manner which we call the Immaculate Conception. It was decreed, not that she should be cleansed from sin, but that she should, from the first moment of her being, be preserved from sin; so that the Evil One never had any part in her. Therefore she was a child of Adam and Eve as if they had never fallen;. . .[/quote]

That is very consistent with what I have been saying all along.

Cardinal Newman also says;

[quote]Now this is fulfilled, not only in our Lord's having taken flesh from her, and being her Son, but moreover, in that she had a place in the economy of Redemption; it is fulfilled in her spirit and will, as well as in her body.... [/quote]

[quote]And so of the great Mother of God, as far as a creature can be like the Creator; her ineffable purity and utter freedom from any shadow of sin, her Immaculate Conception, her ever-virginity-these her prerogatives (in spite of her extreme youth at the time when Gabriel came to her) are such as to lead us to exclaim in the prophetic words of Scripture, both with awe and with exultation, "Thou art the glory of Jerusalem and the joy of Israel; thou art the honour of our people; therefore hath the hand of the Lord strengthened thee, and therefore art thou blessed for ever."[/quote]

And it is precisely because she is free from any shadow of sin that she couldn't sin.....because she was free from it. There was no need for it to enter into her character.