Could Mary have sinned?

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 1 2005, 04:58 PM']While I have not read this discussion in its entirety, I must agree with Cam, and with many of the Saints and Doctors of the Church on this subject:

Free Will does not depend on the ability to sin. Thus, God can perfect our free will such that we are unable to sin though we remain perfectly free (like the Saints and upright angels in Heaven).

To argue that Mary must have been able to sin because "otherwise she would not have been free" evidences the influence of modern philosophy and the changing of terms. Freedom is not some kind of Lockean unfettered will: Freedom is the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake.

Thus, Mary was [i]perfected[/i] by Divine Grace at the moment of her conception, saved not just from Original Sin, but from all sin by anticipation of the Blood of Her Divine Son.

Moreover, let us simply think logically: Which is more fitting, for God to save Mary from Original Sin in such a way that she could fall into sin later, or for God to perfect her in such a way that in her free will she only exercises her will-for-justice?

[i]potuit, decuit, ergo fecit[/i]

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]776144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is actually a great point. It was where I had planned on going next with the discussion, so good on ya. This is next place that this discussion must go, in a logical manner.....

So, continue on.....I will add something tomorrow, but I would love to see your thought process continue on.....it is the exact right track.....

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 1 2005, 04:58 PM']Moreover, let us simply think logically: Which is more fitting, for God to save Mary from Original Sin in such a way that she could fall into sin later, or for God to perfect her in such a way that in her free will she only exercises her will-for-justice?
[right][snapback]776144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It would seem the former is more meritorius. Therefore, I vote the former.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 1 2005, 11:38 PM']It would seem the former is more meritorius.  Therefore, I vote the former.
[right][snapback]776464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

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

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 1 2005, 09:56 AM']So, it's doctrine, not dogma, correct? Dogma has to be explicitly declared, correct?
[right][snapback]775773[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, its not formally proclaimed dogma, but definitive docrines are dogmatic (de fide).

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 2 2005, 12:59 AM']yeah, its not formally proclaimed dogma, but definitive docrines are dogmatic (de fide).
[right][snapback]776629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are different degrees of theological certainty

1. "de fide definita." The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2. "fides ecclesiastica." Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. "sententia fidei proxima" 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.


4. "sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa" A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. "sententia communis" Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.

Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum," that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

That should help in understanding L_D.....

[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.