Could Mary have sinned?

[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.

[scardella]

To clarify the "breeding" thing. I didn't choose a good wording...
I meant that her character just wouldn't consider it even if brought up to her as a possibility. That makes it an effectively, but not necessarily impossibility.

By using nature, you are apparently saying, effectively, that a human w/out original sin cannot sin, which is obviously false. Adam and Eve sinned, even though they were born without Original Sin. Where are you getting this idea that being without Original Sin makes one unable to sin?????

You and I share fallen human nature. Someone's nature cannot be individualized unless they are the only representative of that nature. Mary's unfallen nature is shared by Adam and Eve, pre-Original Sin. You haven't shown me anything that would make it otherwise.

Here is precisely where y'all are losing me:
[quote name='Cam42']However, because Original Sin was EXCLUDED from her nature, she could not sin, because in her perfected soul, her choice was never to sin.[/quote]
This logic doesn't make any sense to me.

Here is the promulgation from [i]Ineffabilis Deus[/i]:
[quote]"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[/quote]
It says that she is preserved from the stain of Original Sin. It says nothing about her being unable to sin afterwards. It does not even declare that she had the preternatural gifts, although that is common speculation. [b]All this says is that she does not have Original Sin, and never did.[/b]

Let's go back to the other statement in the introduction which is interesting for our argument:
[quote]Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.[/quote]
This says that she is "all fair and perfect" and has "that fullness of holy innocence." Does this say that her NATURE is any different than Eve's? NO. It says that she has been graced over and above nature to provide that perfection. She was more free than us. Although she could see that she could do something sinful, she could also see how terrible that would be. That is why I have concluded that it is not a question of nature.

Oh, and one last tidbit. I have never denied that she was excluded from Original Sin. I have disagreed on the implications of that exclusion, though, in light of Adam and Eve.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 3 2005, 11:36 AM']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.
[right][snapback]777828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

BINGO!

That's exactly why I cannot say that she could not have sinned. If Eve and Mary share the same nature, then you cannot say that because of her nature, Mary cannot sin.

[Paphnutius]

So Jeff, you hold that people sin because they are not able to maintain their free will? This would seem to be align with St. Paul who uses the terms of slavery to death, slave of sin and waht not.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Scardella']By using nature, you are apparently saying, effectively, that a human w/out original sin cannot sin, which is obviously false. Adam and Eve sinned, even though they were born without Original Sin. Where are you getting this idea that being without Original Sin makes one unable to sin?????[/quote]

Not cannot, will not. Adam and Eve were not born. They were created. They were the originators of Original Sin. That is an enormous distinction. Once Original Sin entered into the world, through deception, Adam and Eve were just like us.

However Mary, was excluded from this. Why? Because of the multitude of things that I have said before, but this may be the ultimate distinction;

[quote]And it fittingly allowed Mary to give Jesus an immaculate human nature, identical to her own, which respects the law of motherhood. For we know that God the Son could not 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.[/quote]

[quote name='Scardella']Someone's nature cannot be individualized unless they are the only representative of that nature.[/quote]

Where do you get that? That is not supported by any teaching or teacher of the Church. Actually, I have shown that the contrary view is quite correct, in numerous places, regarding Mary. Her Immaculate Conception is unique.

[quote name='Scardella']It does not even declare that she had the preternatural gifts, although that is common speculation.[/quote]

It is far more than "common speculation." It is, as I have stated before, doctrine that is held to be true Revelation, without being defined as dogma.

[quote name='Scardella']Although she could see that she could do something sinful, she could also see how terrible that would be. That is why I have concluded that it is not a question of nature.[/quote]

I would love to see the proof that it is not of her nature. You are at odds with Popes, Councils, Church Fathers and Theologians. I have shown through an abundance of evidence and proofs, that the view is that her nature is perfected. And insofar as her nature is perfected, she could not have sinned. To sin, would have lessened her nature and she would not have been able to bear Christ.

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #65']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.[/quote]
and
[quote name='Lumen Gentium #56']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]

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:15 PM']BINGO!

That's exactly why I cannot say that she could not have sinned.  If Eve and Mary share the same nature, then you cannot say that because of her nature, Mary cannot sin.
[right][snapback]777863[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nope. Wrong view. Mary can have the same nature, but because she is a different person and did not fall to the deception of Sin, her nature is more perfect than Eve's. Mary did not fall, she PERFECTED it, she is the New Eve, as many of the fathers of the Church teach.

You still need to show proof that "someone's nature cannot be individualized unless they are the only representative of that nature."