Could Mary have sinned?

[Laudate_Dominum]

you did not.. wow, thanks Cam. hehe paragraph 8 isn't it? :

haha

You make me feel like a lazy bum, I go for answers that involve the least amount of typing. hehe

[Cam42]

Here is a thought on Mary's grace, by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,OP (a personal hero of mine)

[quote]Since Mary's first grace prepared her to be the worthy Mother of God, it must have been proportionate, at least remotely, to the divine maternity. But the final consummated grace of all the saints together is not proportionate to the divine maternity, since it belongs to an inferior order. Hence the final consummated grace of all the saints united is less than the first grace received by Mary.[/quote]

[quote]... In short, from the time she could merit and pray, Mary could obtain more without the saints than they could without her. But merit corresponds in degree to charity and sanctifying grace. Hence Mary received from the beginning of her life a degree of grace superior to that which the saints and angels united had attained to before their entry into heaven.[/quote]

With that being said, the Church teaches this......

[quote]In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.[/quote]

This means that her freedom from every personal sin [b]her whole life[/b] is to generally to be accepted as a truth of Revelation, without being solemnly defined.

This speaks directly to my point, which Jeff properly agreed with and supported with his earlier post.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 2 2005, 01:29 AM']you did not.. wow, thanks Cam. hehe paragraph 8 isn't it? :

haha

You make me feel like a lazy bum, I go for answers that involve the least amount of typing. hehe
[right][snapback]776699[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It was nothing, really.....

[Laudate_Dominum]

[zealousdefender]

I'm afraid that I did not take time to read all posts, so I may be missing the bus. I'm with Benedict when he said, "... but Jimmy Aiken and Cam say no..." I would like to add to that list my Godfather, Russell Ford. He taught me (he was my catechist as well) that even while she had free will, Mary could not have sinned. The subtleties of that lesson escape me now, but I was apparently sufficiently convinced that I do not now question it.

It seems that the disagreements here seem to center around the supposition that since Mary had free will, which she most certainly did, she was therefore [i]free[/i] to [i]choose[/i] to sin.

I'm a simple kind of guy, and I often try to understand others by putting myself in their place, or by relating circumstances of my own to theirs. Imagine for a moment what it must be like to be "full of grace" in the way that has been so thoroughly and beautifully explained in this thread. Not only free from original sin, but "by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life." (CCC 411) Well, I guess I can hardly put myself in her place. Let me see if I can relate circumstances.

I wonder, if long after I am dead, people will say, "Could ZD have committed suicide?" (OK, OK, overly simplistic to say the least, but hear me out.) Sure, I have free will, but I can tell you, I most definitely could not commit suicide. You may say, "Yeah, you can say that now, but you don't know what might happen in the future. You just never know how low you might fall." Let me tell you some things.

I only become a Catholic in 1997. I didn't always know about mortal sin, and mostly wasn't concerned anyway. I think it's safe to say that I have already reached the lowest points in my life and even if I haven't, I've experienced enough to know that the only way from down is up. I have been an abused child, an alchoholic, on the street as a child, lost everything more than a few times. I've been married, divorced, dumped, beaten, robbed, shot at, cut, chased, (including by the law,) and have spent eight years in prison. I have wanted to, and tried to commit suicide, but when the moment came I didn't have the courage. "Aha! So you tried but failed," you say. No. Wanted to but didn't. Couldn't. Not because I was afraid of the pain or losing my life. Hell, release from my life is what I wanted. But I knew that suicide would be my final act on earth, and I knew that there was a God, reason told me that. And not knowing how God would view my taking of my own life is what stopped me.

So anyway, all of this may seem to you a far cry from "Could Mary have sinned?" How lightly so many of you seem to take the gifts that were given Mary. "Could ZD have committed suicide?" I [i]was[/i] born with original sin, and I have [i]never[/i] been full of grace in the special way that Mary has always been. And yet even I could not commit such a sin. Not any more than Mary could have sinned.

I thank God every day for having met Russell Ford in 1996, and for his gift for hammering a point so far home that even my pea-brain can retain at least the conclusions thereof, if not the arguments. To be Catholic is to know the heart of God, and from that standpoint, how could I ever be so low again?

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 2 2005, 12:27 AM']I am assuming that you are talking about the merit of Mary. I would put forward that if you view the former to be more "meritorious" than the latter, it is on account of an inadequate understanding of human free will, from which merit derives.

If I am misrepresenting your view, please correct me, but it would seem that your thought process is as follows:

1.) Freedom is the basis of meritorious actions (Premise)
2.) Freedom involves the ability to choose between good and evil (Premise)
3.) If Mary could not choose to sin, she would not be free (conclusion from 2)
4.) If Mary was not free, her actions would not be meritorious (conclusion from 3 and 1)
5.) It would be unfitting for God to make Mary unmeritorious (Premise)
6.) Therefore, God made Mary with the ability to sin after the Immaculate Conception

The problem with the above reasoning (if it is indeed your reasoning) is that Premise 2 is false. A person can be free whilst still being unable to sin. Thus, the question remains, and I think the answer is obvious.

Which is more fitting: For God to grace Mary in such a way that she is free and can sin, or for Him to grace her in such a way that she is free and cannot sin?

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]776559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, here's what I'm saying. Free will, by definition, can be abused. Hence, we have the fall and demons and people in hell. I'm speaking here in the capacity sense. Hence, premise #2. HOWEVER, Mary's character is so disgusted w/ the idea of sin, that it EFFECTIVELY would have been impossible for her to sin. Here, I'm saying effectively as opposed to necessarily; necessarily impossible would seem to be an implicit denial of her free will. So, we have Mary continually choosing the best good over other goods and evils. God's grace is not forcing her choice, per se, but her breeding, so to speak, would make any other choice ludicrous for her.

For a parallel example, say you're a car snob. You are presented w/ the choice of a Ferrari F430 Spider or a V6 Mustang Convertible. [b]Though you have the capacity to choose either, it would be a no brainer to choose the Ferrari[/b] (assuming that cost, etc. is not an issue). Effectively, your car snobbiness makes it impossible to choose the Mustang.

Edit: Unlike the angels, who made their final binding decision in one fell swoop, humans do not see the full effects of all their decisions until they receive the beatific vision. Therefore, while on earth, they must continually choose to love and serve God. We see that Adam and Eve, unfettered by Original Sin, committed it. In the same way, Mary, unfettered by Original Sin, could have committed a sin during her lifetime. I don't see a material difference between the old Eve (pre-sin) and the new that would make Mary unable to sin, except for the effective impossibility described above.

Edited November 2, 2005 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 2 2005, 10:45 AM']Ok, here's what I'm saying.  Free will, by definition, can be abused.  Hence, we have the fall and demons and people in hell.  I'm speaking here in the capacity sense.  Hence, premise #2.  HOWEVER, Mary's character is so disgusted w/ the idea of sin, that it EFFECTIVELY would have been impossible for her to sin.  Here, I'm saying effectively as opposed to necessarily; necessarily impossible would seem to be an implicit denial of her free will.  So, we have Mary continually choosing the best good over other goods and evils.  God's grace is not forcing her choice, per se, but her breeding, so to speak, would make any other choice ludicrous for her.

For a parallel example, say you're a car snob.  You are presented w/ the choice of a Ferrari F430 Spider or a V6 Mustang Convertible.  [b]Though you have the capacity to choose either, it would be a no brainer to choose the Ferrari[/b] (assuming that cost, etc. is not an issue).  Effectively, your car snobbiness makes it impossible to choose the Mustang.

Edit: Unlike the angels, who made their final binding decision in one fell swoop, humans do not see the full effects of all their decisions until they receive the beatific vision.  Therefore, while on earth, they must continually choose to love and serve God.  We see that Adam and Eve, unfettered by Original Sin, committed it.  In the same way, Mary, unfettered by Original Sin, could have committed a sin during her lifetime.  I don't see a material difference between the old Eve (pre-sin) and the new that would make Mary unable to sin, except for the effective impossibility described above.
[right][snapback]777012[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are a couple of fundamental errors in this thinking.

1. It isn't that Mary's character is "disgusted" with sin, but rather that aspect has been totally and completely excluded, so it is not even a possiblity.

2. It isn't a denial of free will to not sin, but rather it is the perfection of free will not to sin. That is a huge and accurate distinction.

3. It isn't a matter of "breeding." The reason that it isn't a matter of breeding is that the parents of Mary are sinful fallen creatures. Mary was fully human insofar as she was born of two human parents. The miracle comes at the moment of conception, when God, in his infinite wisdom, excluded Original Sin from Mary.

Why did he do this? He did this so that the human nature of Christ would not be corrupted when he took human form. Had Christ come through a sinful human person, then he would not be perfect. Since Christ's human nature comes from Mary alone, it must be held that Mary was perfected. If not, then Christ could not be perfect in his human nature.


Finally, there is another mistake that is being made. One is assuming that we must bring God to our level, in order to understand this. That most certainly is not the case. That is a Protestant error to assume that the only way that God can be understood is through human means. Not true.

If they cannot explain it in a human way, then they say, "It simply could not have happened." This is as bad as to try to raise our human ways up to GOD's divine level. It simply cannot be done. They fail to realize that GOD's ways are not our ways, nor are GOD's thoughts our thoughts'. (cf. Is 55:8-11)

The finite human mind is totally inadequate to comprehend the infinite mind of GOD.

Here are a series of questions to ask yourself:

Do you believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Why?
Is the doctrine defined in the Bible?
(No, it is not.)
Can anyone explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a human way?
How can there be three persons in one GOD?
Since you believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is not defined in the Bible, and cannot be defined in a human way, why do you not believe in the Immaculate Conception under the same conditions?

Do you believe Jesus Christ has both a divine and a human nature? Why?
How can there be two natures of Jesus Christ co-existing together, with the divine knowing all things as in John 21:17, and the human having to learn and gain wisdom as in Luke 2:52? Try to explain it in a human way.

Do you believe in creation? Why?
Explain the act of creation with all visible things being made out of nothing.
Science, the human way, tells you that you have to at least have atoms with which to start.

Do you believe Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit with the co-operation of a little Jewish girl named Mary? Why?
Explain the conception of Jesus Christ in a human way. Where did the 'seed' of man come from?

Another problem that has pervaded this thread is the idea of Eve and Mary. One assumes that they are on the same level. Not so. Mary is the perfected Eve. That is why she is called the New Eve, or the second Eve.

Here is a comparasion and contrasting that I was taught in college:

Eve, the O.T."Type".........................Mary, the N.T. "Antitype"
Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25.........Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42 *1
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25.......................There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17..........................There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13................There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6...........A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7...............................There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7....................There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20...........................There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19..............Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22................She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24......Approached the "Tree of Life", John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24............An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15.......The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1...................Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8................Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20................The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Returned to dust, Gen 3:19................................Taken to Heaven, Rev 11:19,12:1

*
1. Since Eve was created without original sin as well as Adam, then the realities of these Old Testament "types" had to be without original sin also. We know that Jesus had no original sin, and so Mary, the New Testament reality of Eve had to be without original sin also, or else she was inferior to her "type".

[quote name='Saint Justin Martyr' date=' Dialogue with Trypho (c. 155 AD)']...and that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the powers of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her would be called the Son of God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.[/quote]

[quote name='St. Augustine' date=' Christian Combat (22,24)']Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, who came to liberate mankind, in which both males and females are destined to salvation, was not averse to males, for He took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female He was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both.[/quote]

[quote name='Tertullian' date=' The Flesh of Christ (17,5)']For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.[/quote]

and finally:

[quote name='St. Irenaeus' date=' Against Heresies (3,22,4)']Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey.... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.... Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.[/quote]

So, I think that what we see, is that Mary is the perfection of Eve. We see that Mary was fundamentally different than Eve, insofar as she listened to Gabriel and not to Satan.

Does this mean that Mary could not sin? Yes. Why? Because it was not in her nature to do so.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 2 2005, 12:18 PM']
1. It isn't that Mary's character is "disgusted" with sin, but rather that aspect has been totally and completely excluded, so it is not even a possiblity.[/quote]

You haven't proved that. I don't think you can.

[quote]2. It isn't a denial of free will to not sin, but rather it is the perfection of free will not to sin. That is a huge and accurate distinction.[/quote]

I didn't say that. I said it is the denial of free will to say she didn't choose, which is what you seem to be implying.

[quote]3. It isn't a matter of "breeding." The reason that it isn't a matter of breeding is that the parents of Mary are sinful fallen creatures. Mary was fully human insofar as she was born of two human parents. The miracle comes at the moment of conception, when God, in his infinite wisdom, excluded Original Sin from Mary.[/quote]

I meant breeding figuratively.

[quote]Why did he do this? He did this so that the human nature of Christ would not be corrupted when he took human form. Had Christ come through a sinful human person, then he would not be perfect. Since Christ's human nature comes from Mary alone, it must be held that Mary was perfected. If not, then Christ could not be perfect in his human nature.[/quote]

I never said Mary was not perfected. Her sinlessness makes that obvious.

[quote]Finally, there is another mistake that is being made. One is assuming that we must bring God to our level, in order to understand this. That most certainly is not the case. That is a Protestant error to assume that the only way that God can be understood is through human means. Not true.[/quote]

Where have I said this?

[quote]
The finite human mind is totally inadequate to comprehend the infinite mind of GOD.[/quote]

I agree completely.

[quote]Do you believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Why?[/quote]
Yes, the Church teaches it.
[quote]Is the doctrine defined in the Bible?[/quote]
Not explicitly.
[quote]Can anyone explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a human way?
How can there be three persons in one GOD?[/quote]
Who am I to guess at God's nature? Yet, Mary, being human is much easier to get an understanding of.
[quote]Since you believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is not defined in the Bible, and cannot be defined in a human way, why do you not believe in the Immaculate Conception under the same conditions?[/quote]
Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception? You've concluded, not the Church, that she was unable to sin.
[quote]Do you believe Jesus Christ has both a divine and a human nature? Why?[/quote]
Scripture seems fairly conclusive. Plus, the Church has defined it infallibly.
[quote]How can there be two natures of Jesus Christ co-existing together, with the divine knowing all things as in John 21:17, and the human having to learn and gain wisdom as in Luke 2:52? Try to explain it in a human way.[/quote]
The way I've had it explained is that, being fully human and fully Divine, he has a human intellect and a Divine Intellect.

[quote]Do you believe in creation? Why?[/quote]
I exist, silly!
[quote]Explain the act of creation with all visible things being made out of nothing.[/quote]
Not going to try.

[quote]Do you believe Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit with the co-operation of a little Jewish girl named Mary? Why?[/quote]
Its in the Creed. It's in the Bible. The Church says it's so.
[quote]Explain the conception of Jesus Christ in a human way. Where did the 'seed' of man come from?[/quote]
Don't have to. I believe in miracles.

[quote]Another problem that has pervaded this thread is the idea of Eve and Mary. One assumes that they are on the same level. Not so. Mary is the perfected Eve. That is why she is called the New Eve, or the second Eve.[/quote]
See my statement about character or breeding...

*
[quote]1. Since Eve was created without original sin as well as Adam, then the realities of these Old Testament "types" had to be without original sin also. We know that Jesus had no original sin, and so Mary, the New Testament reality of Eve had to be without original sin also, or else she was inferior to her "type".
and finally:[/quote]
Ok.

[quote]So, I think that what we see, is that Mary is the perfection of Eve. We see that Mary was fundamentally different than Eve, insofar as she listened to Gabriel and not to Satan.[/quote]
What's your point? That's in the middle of her life. At any point she could have veered off course, had she given in to an external temptation. Just because she was perfect didn't mean she couldn't become imperfect, because Eve was perfect until she sinned. You've not convinced me.

[quote]Does this mean that Mary could not sin? Yes.[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]Why? Because it was not in her nature to do so.
[right][snapback]777084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Perhaps effectively, you're correct, as I've said before. She still had the capacity to sin, until such time as she made a permanent binding decision. That binding takes place at Judgement.

[White Knight]

No, she was born without Original Sin.

[qfnol31]

Eve was created the same way.

[Benedict]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 1 2005, 12:15 PM']is that not the tense that was used in the scripture?  I'm pretty sure it means the same thing as "you who have always been full of grace"[/quote]
Most literally, I believe it would be "you who have al[b]ready [/b]been fully graced."

(The following is just a FYI point). Because it is a past participle, and the verb is [i]charitoo[/i], to grace, it should be rendered with grace as a verb, not a noun. Hence, fully graced rather than full of grace, although it is not much of a difference in substance.

[quote]I know at the very least it refers to something that existed continuously in the past and still exists in the present. I suppose it could be said to have begun at some point in the past not necessarily her conception, but it had to have been a continuous state up until the point of the annunciation. and the whole time during that state, at every point, she couldn't have been sinning. because it was continuous.[/quote]
Now all of this is absolutely true and required by the word. The only argument left open by [i]kecharitomene [/i]is [b]when[/b] Mary was fully graced. I do believe that the most logical answer is, as the Church teaches, at her conception.

[quote]but I thought its connotation was actually [i]always been [/i]full of grace... I could be wrong. I've done nothing but dabble here and there in Greek every once in a while in my life[/quote]
I am not too much a student of Greek, but I have spent some time studying this one word. I can see where it might imply always, but the only requirement of the word is a past action performed upon the subject that continues, perfect in both duration and extent, in perpetuity.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 2 2005, 10:45 AM']Ok, here's what I'm saying.  Free will, by definition, can be abused.  Hence, we have the fall and demons and people in hell.  I'm speaking here in the capacity sense.  Hence, premise #2.  HOWEVER, Mary's character is so disgusted w/ the idea of sin, that it EFFECTIVELY would have been impossible for her to sin.  Here, I'm saying effectively as opposed to necessarily; necessarily impossible would seem to be an implicit denial of her free will.  So, we have Mary continually choosing the best good over other goods and evils.  God's grace is not forcing her choice, per se, but her breeding, so to speak, would make any other choice ludicrous for her.

For a parallel example, say you're a car snob.  You are presented w/ the choice of a Ferrari F430 Spider or a V6 Mustang Convertible.  [b]Though you have the capacity to choose either, it would be a no brainer to choose the Ferrari[/b] (assuming that cost, etc. is not an issue).  Effectively, your car snobbiness makes it impossible to choose the Mustang.

Edit: Unlike the angels, who made their final binding decision in one fell swoop, humans do not see the full effects of all their decisions until they receive the beatific vision.  Therefore, while on earth, they must continually choose to love and serve God.  We see that Adam and Eve, unfettered by Original Sin, committed it.  In the same way, Mary, unfettered by Original Sin, could have committed a sin during her lifetime.  I don't see a material difference between the old Eve (pre-sin) and the new that would make Mary unable to sin, except for the effective impossibility described above.
[right][snapback]777012[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are confusing Free Will and the necessary prerequisites for Free Will to exist. The ability to sin is not found in Free Will, it is found in one of the prerequisites for Free Will, and then only under certain conditions.

In charity, may I inquire which doctors or saints of the Church you have read on the topic of free will? It seems like you are still getting caught up in the modern understanding of Free Will.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 2 2005, 12:59 PM'][quote name='Cam42']1. It isn't that Mary's character is "disgusted" with sin, but rather that aspect has been totally and completely excluded, so it is not even a possiblity.[/quote]
You haven't proved that. I don't think you can.

[quote name='Cam42']2. It isn't a denial of free will to not sin, but rather it is the perfection of free will not to sin. That is a huge and accurate distinction.[/quote]
I didn't say that. I said it is the denial of free will to say she didn't choose, which is what you seem to be implying.

[quote name='Cam42']3. It isn't a matter of "breeding." The reason that it isn't a matter of breeding is that the parents of Mary are sinful fallen creatures. Mary was fully human insofar as she was born of two human parents. The miracle comes at the moment of conception, when God, in his infinite wisdom, excluded Original Sin from Mary.[/quote]
I meant breeding figuratively.

[quote name='Cam42']Why did he do this? He did this so that the human nature of Christ would not be corrupted when he took human form. Had Christ come through a sinful human person, then he would not be perfect. Since Christ's human nature comes from Mary alone, it must be held that Mary was perfected. If not, then Christ could not be perfect in his human nature.[/quote]
I never said Mary was not perfected. Her sinlessness makes that obvious.

[quote name='Cam42']Finally, there is another mistake that is being made. One is assuming that we must bring God to our level, in order to understand this. That most certainly is not the case. That is a Protestant error to assume that the only way that God can be understood is through human means. Not true.[/quote]
Where have I said this?


Perhaps effectively, you're correct, as I've said before. She still had the capacity to sin, until such time as she made a permanent binding decision. That binding takes place at Judgement.
[right][snapback]777124[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Scardella, I beg to differ that I have not proven that Mary was excluded from Original Sin. That is a definitive doctrine of the Church. It is called "sententia fidei proxima." That is; a teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

The issue is that Mary didn't need to sin. And she could not have sinned, because of her perfected nature. Since her will was perfected, therefore, she didn't need to sin. I don't know where the disconnect is with this. You are agreeing with me in points and disagree with me in others.

As far as the "breeding" thing goes, you are implying that it had something to do with her parents. That is not the case. The Immaculate Conception is totally outside Sts. Anne and Joachim.

You said (regarding breeding):
[quote]God's grace is not forcing her choice, per se, but her breeding, so to speak, would make any other choice ludicrous for her.[/quote]

It isn't her breeding, but rather God's perfection of her soul. There is nothing figurative in that statement. Sts. Anne and Joachim don't have anything to do with the fact that she was sinless.....had God not acted in the unique manner that He did, Sts. Anne and Joachim would have given birth to a sinful child.

The "Finally" paragraph was not aimed at you, but at anyone on the board who is trying to philosophically explain away the doctrinal and dogmatic aspects of the of the Immaculate Conception.

Let me be as clear as I can be. Mary was capable of sinning, because she was fully human and still in need of her Son's redemption. However, because Original Sin was EXCLUDED from her nature, she could not sin, because in her perfected soul, her choice was never to sin.

Mary didn't have the capacity to sin in the sense that you are speaking. Why? Because Original Sin was excluded.

Effectively, you are starting the debate all over again. I would suggest that you go back and reread the thread. We don't need to go through all of this again. The answers that you seek are in the thread.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 3 2005, 09:10 AM'] The ability to sin is not found in Free Will, it is found in one of the prerequisites for Free Will, and then only under certain conditions.[/quote]

Perhaps it is my misunderstanding, but sin is found in imperfected Free Will, but not in perfected Free Will.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 3 2005, 10:42 AM']Perhaps it is my misunderstanding, but sin is found in imperfected Free Will, but not in perfected Free Will.
[right][snapback]777788[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Can you point to a place for that? I am curious to see where that thought is coming from.

The reason: I have heard that line of reasoning before.

Thanks.

[Cam42]

Here are some thoughts of the Vatican Council II Fathers:

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #53']The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is "the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head." Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.[/quote]

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #56']The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature. Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God's command, by an angel messenger as "full of grace", and to the heavenly messenger she replies: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word". Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living," and still more often they say: "death through Eve, life through Mary."[/quote]

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #65'][b]But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues.[/b] Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men. [/quote]

Notes and proofs:
[i]Cfr. S. Irenaeus, adv. Haer, 111 24, 1: PG 7, 966 B; Harvey 2, 13i, ed. Sagnard, Sources Chr., p 398.
Cfr. Origenes, In Matth. 16, 21: PG 13, 1443 C, Tertullianus Adv. Marc. 3, 7: PL 2, 357 C, CSEL 47, 3 p. 386. Pro documentis liturgicis, cfr. Sacramentarium Gregorianum: PL 78, 160 B.Vel C. Mohlberg, Liber Sactamentorum romanae ecclesiae, Romao 195O, p. 111, XC:.Deus, qui ex omni coaptacione sanctorum aeternum tibi condis habitaculum..... Hymnus Urbs Ierusalem beata in Breviario monastico, et Coclest urbs Ierusalem in Breviario Romano.
Cfr. S. Thomas, Sumtna Theol. III, q. 62, a. 5, ad 1.
Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl Mystici Corporis, 29 iun. 1943 AAS 35 (1943), p. 208.
Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl Divinum illud, 9 maii 1897: AAS 29 (1896-97) p. 6S0. Pius XII, Litt Encyl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., pp 219-220; Denz. 2288 (3808).S. Augustinus, Serm. 268, 2: PL 38 232, ct alibi. S. Io. Chrysostomus n Eph. Hom. 9, 3: PG 62, 72. idymus Alex., Trin. 2, 1: PG 39 49 s. S. Thomas, In Col. 1, 18 cet. 5 ed. Marietti, II, n. 46-Sieut constituitur unum eorpus ex nitate animae, ita Ecelesia ex unil atc Spiritus.....
Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Sapientiae christianae, 10 ian. 1890 AAS 22 (1889-90) p. 392. Id., Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitium, 29 iun. 1896; AAS 28 (1895-96) pp. 710 ct 724 ss. Pius XII, Litt. Eneyel. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., pp. 199-200.

Cf. Lk. 1, 28.
Lk. 1 , 38.

Cf. Eph 5, 27.[/i]

[Cam42]

Continuing on, because I have WAY too much time on my hands.....

Expounding on Al's statement of a few days ago....In the Greek text of Luke 1:28, we have an additional implicit reference to Mary's Immaculate Conception taking place before the announcement of the Angel. The Greek word "kekaritomene," is a perfect participle, and so we translate Luke 1:28 most accurately in this way, "Hail, you who have been graced." The Greek translation of the angel's greeting refers to an event of profound grace experienced by Mary that was already completed in the past.

Speaking a little more to the idea of Eve and Mary (Incidentally Eva, spelled backward is Ave. The first is a form of the name Eve and the second is the tradtional salutation of Mary.)

The early Church Fathers compared Mary's sinless state as being identical to Eve's state [b]before the participation of Eve in Original Sin.[/b] Mary as the "New Eve" was seen to be in the same state of original grace and justice that Eve was in when she was created by God. Since Eve was obviously conceived in grace, without the fallen nature that we receive due to Original Sin, the parallel made by the Church Fathers between Mary and Eve before the fall illustrates their understanding of Mary's likewise immaculate nature.

Speaking directly to Scardella, In the concise ex cathedra definition, Pope Pius IX summarizes several foundational elements regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception. First, it states that Mary, from the moment her soul was created and infused into her body (which is known theologically as "passive conception"), was preserved from the effects of Original Sin and, thereby, entered human existence in the state of sanctifying grace.

[quote name='Ineffiablis Deus']We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, was preserved immune from all stain of sin, by a singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was revealed by God and must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.[/quote]

Due to the sin of our first human parents, all human beings are conceived in a deprived state without the sanctifying grace in their souls that God had originally intended. Hence, there is the need for sacramental Baptism which restores the life of grace in the soul.

Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception is not difficult, if we remember that it was God's original intention that all humans be conceived in sanctifying grace. God's original plan was for all humans to begin their existence in the family of God in the state of sanctifying grace. It was only as a result of Original Sin that we are now conceived in a state deprived of sanctifying grace. Mary, rather than being the exception, fulfills in a real sense the original intention of what God wanted for all His human children: to be members of His family from the first moment of their existence.

This preservation from Original Sin for Mary was nonetheless "a singular privilege." The definition testifies that the Immaculate Conception was a unique privilege given by the all powerful God to Mary alone. This free gift from God prepared Mary to be the stainless Mother of God-made-man. [i]And it fittingly [u]allowed Mary to give Jesus an immaculate human nature, identical to her own,[/u] which respects the law of motherhood.[/i] [b]For we know that God the Son [i][u]could not[/u][/i] be united to a stained fallen nature when he became man. How appropriate it is that Mary could give Jesus an immaculate nature as a mother rightly passes on to her offspring her identical nature.[/b]

There is the ultimate move.

That Mary's soul was preserved from Original Sin at the moment of conception does not mean that Mary had no need of the redemption of Jesus; rather, Mary owed more to the redemption of Jesus than anyone else. In fact, Mary received from her Son a higher form of redemption.

Why is Mary's Immaculate Conception a higher form of redemption? Because all other human beings are redeemed after they have received a fallen nature through sacramental Baptism. Mary, on the contrary, was redeemed by the grace of Jesus at conception, the grace which prevented Mary from ever receiving a fallen nature. Hence, the grace of Jesus redeemed Mary at conception before her nature was affected by sin. And so, we rightly say that Mary owed more to Christ than anyone else. Through the graces of Jesus at Calvary, Mary never received a fallen nature but was sanctified and thereby redeemed from the first instance of her existence.

Pope Pius XII speaks this in his infallible document:

[quote name='Munificentissimus Deus' date=' #4-5']These two privileges (i.e., the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception) are most closely bound to one another. Indeed, Christ overcame sin and death by His own death, and the man who, through baptism, is supernaturally regenerated, has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. However, as a general rule, God does not wish to grant to the just the full effect of their victory over death until the end of time shall have come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and that only on the last day will they be joined, each to his own glorified soul. Nevertheless, God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general law. [b]By an entirely unique privilege she completely overcame sin through her Immaculate Conception, and therefore was not subject to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, nor did she have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.[/b][/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 3 2005, 10:42 AM']Perhaps it is my misunderstanding, but sin is found in imperfected Free Will, but not in perfected Free Will.
[right][snapback]777788[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It would be much easier to discuss this subtlety if you were familiar with [i]De Libiertate Arbitri[/i] by St. Anselm, but I hope I can give you a sufficiently clear short reply:

Sin is when a person chooses his will-for-happiness above his will-for-justice and the two are opposed.

Free Will is the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake.

[i]for its own sake[/i] implies that a person does not do it on account of a necessity in his nature or external coercion (For example, a horse is not free because a horse only has a will for pleasure, and therefore does not keep uprightness of will [i]for its own sake[/i], but rather, for the sake of the fact that he can only will according to his will-for-happiness; similarly, if we imagine a man who is forced to keep uprightness of will for its own sake by someone else, then he is doing it not [i]for its own sake[/i], but for the sake of the other).

Self-Initiated action is therefore necessary or one to keep uprightness of will for its own sake. This is why humans have both the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice: We can will according to either, which is determined by our own choosing.

Now, what you call a "perfected" will is a person whose will-for-happiness is fully satisfied by the Grace of God. In this case, there is no conceivable object of desire that could bring the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice into conflict.

Thus, whether a person in this state wills via his will-for-happiness or his will-for-justice, the object/action of the willing will always be the same, and will never be sin. Thus, a person can be free and unable to sin at the same time.

Now, this having been established, it does [i]not[/i] follow that when a person with an "imperfect" will sins, it is because of his or her free will. This is because free will is nothing more or less than the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake. Sin is nowhere to be found in that ability. Rather, sin is found as a possibility within a prerequisite of that ability, namely, as a possibility of the having of both the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice.

Therefore, when we say that Adam and Satan sinned "by their free will" this is correct, because what we mean is that the sin occurred on account of a particular act of willing, and the will acting in the case in question was a free will.

This does not allow us to conclude, however, that "sin is found in imperfected free will."

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

Ahh yes.. I forgot you were an Anselmnian. Thank you for the clarification.

I should have added the qualifier "ability" to the statement. The ability to sin is found in an imperfected free will?

I am getting this from CCC 1732.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 3 2005, 11:49 AM']It would be much easier to discuss this subtlety if you were familiar with [i]De Libiertate Arbitri[/i] by St. Anselm, but I hope I can give you a sufficiently clear short reply:

Sin is when a person chooses his will-for-happiness above his will-for-justice and the two are opposed.

Free Will is the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake.

[i]for its own sake[/i] implies that a person does not do it on account of a necessity in his nature or external coercion (For example, a horse is not free because a horse only has a will for pleasure, and therefore does not keep uprightness of will [i]for its own sake[/i], but rather, for the sake of the fact that he can only will according to his will-for-happiness; similarly, if we imagine a man who is forced to keep uprightness of will for its own sake by someone else, then he is doing it not [i]for its own sake[/i], but for the sake of the other).

Self-Initiated action is therefore necessary or one to keep uprightness of will for its own sake. This is why humans have both the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice: We can will according to either, which is determined by our own choosing.

Now, what you call a "perfected" will is a person whose will-for-happiness is fully satisfied by the Grace of God. In this case, there is no conceivable object of desire that could bring the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice into conflict.

Thus, whether a person in this state wills via his will-for-happiness or his will-for-justice, the object/action of the willing will always be the same, and will never be sin. Thus, a person can be free and unable to sin at the same time.

Now, this having been established, it does [i]not[/i] follow that when a person with an "imperfect" will sins, it is because of his or her free will. This is because free will is nothing more or less than the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake. Sin is nowhere to be found in that ability. Rather, sin is found as a possibility within a prerequisite of that ability, namely, as a possibility of the having of both the will-for-happiness and the will-for-justice.

Therefore, when we say that Adam and Satan sinned "by their free will" this is correct, because what we mean is that the sin occurred on account of a particular act of willing, and the will acting in the case in question was a free will.

This does not allow us to conclude, however, that "sin is found in imperfected free will."

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]777839[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Careful Jeff. The explaination is clear and concise, however, if one doesn't accept the Ontological Argumentation of St. Anselm, there will be a huge issue with this line of reasoning.

While I understand what the move is, there must be even clearer understanding of what St. Anselm was trying to accomplish. So, be careful when using this line of reasoning.