Jump to content

Could Mary have sinned?


scardella

Could Mary have sinned?  

153 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Kevin said:

Again, your charity and maturity never cease to amaze. And I guess pointing out a basic flaw in logic is "salty"

But anyway, it actually does seem the Church teaches that Mary was impeccable, according to Canon 23 of Trent---i.e. her free will was held down by Calvinist irresistible grace her whole life like a robot with a "do not sin" protocol. Yet another reason to consider converting to the Orthodox or any other church.

You got the benefit of the doubt for your first couple posts. You respond to us with nothing but arrogance and bitterness. I will take no part in that, and I consider your contributions to be unwanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God creates everything and can create creatures that cannot sin, then why didn't he?

its pointless to go on about what Adam did and why Mary when the point is God creates creatures and keeps them from sin, why not the rest of us.    Is God is omniscient, wouldn't he have foreseen Adams fall and done something different?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

If God creates everything and can create creatures that cannot sin, then why didn't he?

its pointless to go on about what Adam did and why Mary when the point is God creates creatures and keeps them from sin, why not the rest of us.    Is God is omniscient, wouldn't he have foreseen Adams fall and done something different?   

Forget about Adam, immediately ask question pertaining to Adam.

 

Anyway I can't answer what if's that never were. The reason God made an impeccable creature was so that she would be a spotless vessel to bare the Son of God. The rest of us will never do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

If God creates everything and can create creatures that cannot sin, then why didn't he?

its pointless to go on about what Adam did and why Mary when the point is God creates creatures and keeps them from sin, why not the rest of us.    Is God is omniscient, wouldn't he have foreseen Adams fall and done something different?   

It is not for us to question God.  We are to assent our will to His.  God's reason for Mary being Immaculately Conceived and impeccable is for one singular reason, to bear Christ Jesus.  Mary wasn't any different from us insofar as she needed redemption.  It's just that her redemption took place at a different time than ours.  God broke natural law (ie., a miracle) when at her conception, she was excluded from all sin.  That doesn't change anything for the rest of us.  It was a singular happening.

God knows all things, but God won't force a choice on someone.  Human persons are not automatons.  They have the ability to choose freely to know Him, love Him, and serve Him, as to be happy in this world and the next.  Adam's choice was at the moment when Eve handed the fruit to him.  Mary's choice was at her conception.  Our choice is at our death.  It is the full assention of our will that gains us entry into heaven, nothing more, nothing less.  If we have sin on our soul, even the most trivial of venial, then we have not fully assented our will to God, and thusly need purgation.

You assume that God expects us to sin.  He does not.  God expects us to know Him, love Him, and serve Him, as to be happy in this world and the next.  When we fail to do that, it's not on God, it's on us; to a greater or lesser degree, it's on us.  Every human person has not been impeccable, except for 3.  Jesus, because His divine will always illumined his human will.  He is God.  Mary, due to her Immaculate Conception.  John the Baptist, at the moment in which Mary crossed the threshold.  That doesn't mean that John was immaculately conceived, but rather that he was freed from Original sin in the womb.

Edited by Cam42
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You got the benefit of the doubt for your first couple posts. You respond to us with nothing but arrogance and bitterness. I will take no part in that, and I consider your contributions to be unwanted.

"You respond to us with nothing but arrogance and bitterness"

You made a belittling comment when another poster made a comment: "Donny, you are out of your element" like you were in your element and, as I said, had an elevated understand of the issue.

Then you said:

"I think the issue here is the false understanding of free will requiring or somehow implying ability to sin. The ability to sin is a defect of free will, not a constitutive element. The first sin introduced the 'ability' to sin, which actually decreased and harmed our free will. To be able to sin is to be threatened by slavery. Mary's preservation from sin is truer freedom than our own."

Which bolded statement is logically impossible (that something can be prior to itself). I pointed out that it was a little ironic for someone to belittle others for being philosophically out of their depth and then commit such an obvious error.

If I was arrogant in saying so, I have no idea how. I was simply pointing out what was obviously the case. I may be arrogant and bitter in many matters, I don't even deny it, but in this I don't see it. Rather, I think you should look to the mote in your own eye on the matter of arrogance.

Edited by Kevin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2015, 3:51:41, Cam42 said:

So, according to you, I've not proven the position....okay, I accept that.  I've accepted that all along, which is why I continue to engage the conversation.  Oh, BTW, debate doesn't always entail a winner or a loser.  Sometimes, it's about the discussion.  So, I'm not so sure that it matters whether you believe me or not....but if you're going to continue, you need to get a sense of clarity and start responding to the debate, as opposed to being a snarky smart@$$.  I look past it....and pretty well ignore it.  I'm not interested in that part of your personality right now.

As for my being a "snarky smart@$$" and so forth - I think that you threw the first volley when it came to all of that. As I said previously, if you cannot take it do not dish it out. Speak in a respectful manner and people will respond to you in a respectful manner. If you disrespect then it really should not come as a surprise if you get disrespected back. That is only human nature.

But I do not think it would benefit anyone to continue down this path. If you want to agree to let bygones be bygones and get back to debating the issues I am all for it.

On 12/20/2015, 3:51:41, Cam42 said:

Unless you give me solid reasoning as to why you don't accept it, other than, "I don't buy your argument....," I don't doubt that you won't get very far.  What EXACTLY is your problem with my argument?  Where does it fall down?  Where is it invalid and or unsound?  AND why.  That is why you need to back yourself up, theologically.

See, a debate is a two way street.  I can only provide one side of the debate, not both.  Yes, I do have to prove the veracity of my claim.  I believe I've done that.  I can't argue with you based upon the fact that you don't like my position.  WHY don't you like my position?  That will bring resolution.

If you go back through the thread and see what I wrote, I think that you will see my objections, many of which seem to have been outright ignored or not fully rebutted.

I will be happy to go back and restate those objections - but not now. I need to check out of the thread for a bit because work is busy going into the holiday.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peace said:

[snip]

If you go back through the thread and see what I wrote, I think that you will see my objections, many of which seem to have been outright ignored or not fully rebutted.

I will be happy to go back and restate those objections - but not now.

[snip]

I spoke to every one of them.  Please restate if you think that I have not addressed them fully.  I cannot read your mind.  However, please read what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange has to say at the top of page 35.  It's important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Lady was "Full of Grace" leaving no room for sin.  If that weren't enough, she was so closely united with her Son, all of the Graces we humans receive come through her.  Our Lady's freedom from sin was also necessary because she is the "New Eve".  Satan had no dominion over her, even for and instant.  God's plan of salvation for us was spoiled by the first Eve.  In the New Eve, God's plan finally succeeded.  The Virgin Mary is nature's solitary boast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

I spoke to every one of them.  Please restate if you think that I have not addressed them fully.  I cannot read your mind.  However, please read what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange has to say at the top of page 35.  It's important.

I know that you cannot read my mind Cam. That is why I indicated that I will restate the objections when time permits.

I read the post above. Thanks.

10 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Our Lady was "Full of Grace" leaving no room for sin.  If that weren't enough, she was so closely united with her Son, all of the Graces we humans receive come through her.  Our Lady's freedom from sin was also necessary because she is the "New Eve".  Satan had no dominion over her, even for and instant.  God's plan of salvation for us was spoiled by the first Eve.  In the New Eve, God's plan finally succeeded.  The Virgin Mary is nature's solitary boast. 

LOL. Mediatrix of ALL graces? I feel another 36 page thread getting started . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Peace said:

LOL. Mediatrix of ALL graces? I feel another 36 page thread getting started . . .

Have you ever read "True Devotion to Mary" by St. Louis de Montfort? It can be pretty intense but after a couple reads might give you the answers you're looking for. I used to struggle with Marian theology and it was very helpful.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Peace said:

I know that you cannot read my mind Cam. That is why I indicated that I will restate the objections when time permits.

I read the post above. Thanks.

I actually agree with you, and in fact, I find the notion that Mary was impeccable in the sense that it was impossible for her to sin (and unlike Christ because it was outside of his nature to sin, but rather by Calvinist irresistable grace that forced her to act according to God's will even on this earth) which no matter what kind of sophistry these fellows roll out means she had no free will in any meaningful sense. But it is hard to get around Trent: "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema." It really does seem that the Mary was essentially a puppet.

5 minutes ago, HisChildForever said:

Have you ever read "True Devotion to Mary" by St. Louis de Montfort? It can be pretty intense but after a couple reads might give you the answers you're looking for. I used to struggle with Marian theology and it was very helpful.

Note the "all" he highlighted. Also noted that the 5th Marian Dogma was unanimously rejected by the conference the Holy See called in 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dUSt, can we get a phishy tag for Kevin here for essentially calling Marian teaching, and especially Marian teachings from Trent, Calvinist?

bbaumgarweby2.jpg

As he so conveniently pointed out for us, "let him be anathema."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...