Could Mary have sinned?

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:42 PM']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."
[right][snapback]777911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote]nature - n 1: the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"; "the true nature of jealousy"[/quote]

[scardella]

Geez... This would be a lot easier in person That way, I can offer clarifications without all this craziness!

[quote]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.[/quote]

Sorry, didn't mean to say born. I agree w/ this completely. When I refer to Adam and Eve for this discussion, I'm saying up to and including the point of OS. The immediate effect was fallenness, like us.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:33 PM']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]

I've never heard it. I don't have a problem with it. It's just my understanding that it's not doctrine, just theological opinion. Please show me some Church Fathers, Encyclicals, Councils, etc. that say definitively that she had the preternatural gifts. Preternatural gifts are not natural gifts, hence [i]preter[/i]natural. Therefore, they are not part of man's nature, even pre-fall man. There's nothing, then, that implies that she also had the preternatural gifts in Ineffabilis Deus or anything else I've read. Also, do you have any Scripture that supports that she had the preternatural gifts? Off-hand, I can't think of any.

[quote]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]
I'm having a real problem w/ the way you're using nature here... I think that might be the real problem. When I say nature, it is (in my mind) necessarily separate from an instance of that nature.

If you have any sort of Computer Science background, i'm thinking of it (almost literally) in terms of a Class/Instance relationship. The Class defines what things are fixed (humans have fixed number of chromosomes) and things that can change (humans naturally have a certain range of hair colors). It also defines how it works. When you say nature, I think "human nature in general." It seems to be a misnomer to me to say "Cam has a very serious, dour nature." or "Cam has a fun-loving golly-gee willigers nature." It's something specific to the Camster.

SOOOO, I'm starting to suspect that this is a semantics argument, really. We're just saying things w/ different terms and beating each other over the head w/ it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 3 2005, 11:55 AM']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.
[right][snapback]777848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

With all respect, I think you may be confusing Anselm's works. While his theology is systematic, his proofs of God are found in the [i]Monologion[/i] and the [i]Prosologion[/i], and his Ontological Argument specifically is found in the [i]Prosologion[/i] alone. Anselm's discussion of free will is found in his [i]De Libertate Arbitri[/i], and, if anything, this work is linked to his [i]De Veritate[/i] and [i]De Casu Diaboli[/i], neither of which are dependent upon the [i]Prosologion[/i] in their argumentation.

However, your comment is well taken, and I will be careful to work towards making explicit all of the logical moves involved in Anselm's discussion of free will.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 3 2005, 03:13 PM']
[quote]nature - n 1: the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"; "the true nature of jealousy"[/quote]

[right][snapback]778026[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is a fantastic definiton of nature, however, from a theological standpoint, the definition is different.

[quote]na·ture (nchr)    n.  --  Mankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.[/quote]

Also, this is closer to the meaning of the definition that is being used:

[quote] "the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions; "it is his nature to help others"[/quote]

As in Mary could not sin; it was not in her nature.

Aquinas states:

[quote name='Summa Theologica I-II:85:1']The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (Question [60], Article [1]; Question [63], Article [1]), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question [50], Article [1]). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.[/quote]

[quote name='Summa Theologica I-II:85:1' date=' Reply to Obj. 1']Dionysius is speaking of the first-mentioned good of nature, which consists in "being, living and understanding," as anyone may see who reads the context.[/quote]

That should suffice for understanding nature.

[quote name='Scardella']Please show me some Church Fathers, Encyclicals, Councils, etc. that say definitively that she had the preternatural gifts. Preternatural gifts are not natural gifts, hence preternatural. Therefore, they are not part of man's nature, even pre-fall man. There's nothing, then, that implies that she also had the preternatural gifts in Ineffabilis Deus or anything else I've read. Also, do you have any Scripture that supports that she had the preternatural gifts? Off-hand, I can't think of any.[/quote]

First off, there doesn't need to be Scriptural basis for what we are discussing here. So, what I have given as for Scriptural reference is sufficent.

Next, John Henry Cardinal Newman speaks to the pretenatural gifts. I would suggest that you look to him. Lumen Gentium speaks to this as well.....I would suggest that you look again to what I have posted as well as no.66, which speaks about [i]hyperdulia[/i]; or the reverence due the Blessed Virgin alone. ([i]Latria[/i] is for God and [i]dulia[/i] is for the rest of the heavenly host.)

The best on speaking to the gifts of what you are after is Cardinal Newman.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 3 2005, 11:14 PM']That is a fantastic definiton of nature, however, from a theological standpoint, the definition is different.
[quote]na·ture (nchr)    n.  --  Mankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.[/quote][/quote]
I got my formal def straight from Dictionary.com. See, semantics! Anyway, my background is in comp sci. The above def doesn't make too much sense in light of the conversation.

[quote]Also, this is closer to the meaning of the definition that is being used:
[quote] the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions; "it is his nature to help others"
[/quote][/quote]
Now, with that definition, what you're saying makes a lot more sense! I would tend to call that someone's character or identity. Despite that, even if it is not in someone's character or nature (as you define it) to do something, but they are capable of doing it, it seems like it's overstating it to say that she cannot sin.

[quote]Next, John Henry Cardinal Newman speaks to the pretenatural gifts.  I would suggest that you look to him.  Lumen Gentium speaks to this as well.....I would suggest that you look again to what I have posted as well as no.66, which speaks about [i]hyperdulia[/i]; or the reverence due the Blessed Virgin alone. ([i]Latria[/i] is for God and [i]dulia[/i] is for the rest of the heavenly host.)

The best on speaking to the gifts of what you are after is Cardinal Newman.
[/quote]
Perhaps we should go on clarifying...
I understood that the preternatural gifts were those that angels have normally. IE infused knowledge, superior intellect, etc. These are the sorts of powers that demons use as well as angels. (Unfortunately, the first thing I think of is the powers that demons grant to Satanists or Wiccans, etc.) This is distinct from what is proper to pre-fallen man: immortality, ordering of the passions, etc. Am I misunderstanding preternatural gifts?

This is also distinct from supernatural gifts: Sanctifying grace, miracles, etc.

And, for the sake of completeness, natural gifts are the things that are proper to human nature. For instance: talents, physical strength, normal intellect, free will.

I'm familiar w/ latria, dulia, hyperdulia. If you can sufficiently explain it (<--hard part) to non-Catholics, it helps them out a lot w/ the whole worship of Mary/saints thing.

Edited November 4, 2005 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='Scardella']I got my formal def straight from Dictionary.com. See, semantics! Anyway, my background is in comp sci. The above def doesn't make too much sense in light of the conversation.[/quote]

As it stands, we were not discussing things from a scientific point of view. We were discussing things from a theological point of view, so I assumed that the definitions would be applied in a theological sense.

I think that one of the issues with understanding this discussion is that we cannot come at it from a scientific point of view. There will never be an answer that is acceptable. We have to look at it in light of divine Faith.

To use human analogies, such as cars and computers, limit the amount of understanding, because science and human technology can only go so far. Faith on the otherhand is boundless.

To apply philsophy and theology is appropriate though, because the understanding of wisdom and God can and do make the issue at hand palatable.

[quote name='Scardella'] I'm having a real problem w/ the way you're using nature here... I think that might be the real problem. When I say nature, it is (in my mind) necessarily separate from an instance of that nature.[/quote]

No one said understanding theology was easy. It is not, take it from me. And it is sometimes not very clear to understand, if you are not used to using the proper language.

A good correlation would be this: I have been using terms in a theological sense for the entirety of the conversation. Those terms are not necessarily the same as the secular understanding. If you were to speak to me about computer programming, I would get lost in a hurry, because I don't use the language on a regular basis. (ask hot stuff, I talk to him all the time about computer questions and most of the time he has to decipher what I am talking about, because I am technologically stupid.) But I do use theological language on a regular basis, so I am quite proficient in defining the terms and speaking to it.

Since we are in a theological discussion, to apply your terms do not make for easy deciphering. Once you accept the terms of the discussion, the lightbulb will turn on. (It did for hot stuff, he was questioning my line of reasoning, until he and I discussed the terms.)

[quote name='Scardella']Despite that, even if it is not in someone's character or nature (as you define it) to do something, but they are capable of doing it, it seems like it's overstating it to say that she cannot sin.[/quote]

It is not an overstatement, it is a proper statement. One of the problems of modernity is that we want everything in the vernacular and explained as easily as possible. It just can't be done in certain circumstances. When it comes to dogmatic theology and systematics, there cannot be shortcuts, the statements need to be necessarily proper.

A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature. When God created man, He was not content with bestowing upon him the essential endowments required by man's nature. He raised him to a higher state, adding certain gifts to which his nature had no claim. They comprise qualities and perfections, forces and energies, dignities and rights, destination to final objects, of which the essential constitution of man is not the principle; which are not required for the attainment of the final perfection of the natural order of man; and which can only be communicated by the free operation of God's goodness and power.

Some of these are absolutely supernatural, i.e. beyond the reach of all created nature (even of the angels), and elevate the creature to a dignity and perfection natural to God alone; others are only relatively supernatural (preternatural), i.e. above human nature only and elevate human nature to that state of higher perfection which is natural to the angels. The original state of man comprised both of these, and when he fell he lost both. [b]Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored.[/b]

Mary was given supernatural gifts. Because this happened before the Redemption, thus making Mary more participatory in the Redeeming act, her the supernatural gifts could be afforded to her. The Supernatural Order is the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny. Catholic theologians sometimes call supernatural the miraculous way in which certain effects, in themselves natural, are produced, or certain endowments (like man's immunity from death, suffering, passion, and ignorance) that bring the lower class up to the higher though always within the limits of the created, but they are careful in qualifying the former as accidentally supernatural (supernaturale per accidens) and the latter as relatively supernatural (praeternaturale). The supernatural order is then more than a miraculous way of producing natural effects, or a notion of relative superiority within the created world, or the necessary concurrence of God in the universe; it is an effect or series of effects substantially and absolutely above all nature and, as such, calls for an exceptional intervention and gratuitous bestowal of God and rises in a manner to the Divine order, the only one that transcends the whole created world.

Not being an a priori conception but a positive fact, the supernatural order can only be known through Divine revelation properly supported by such Divine evidences as miracle, prophecy, etc. Revelation and its evidences are called extrinsic and auxiliary supernatural, the elevation itself retaining the name of intrinsic or, according to some, theological supernatural.

Through their own fault, our first parents forfeited for themselves and their race both the God-like life and destiny and the angel-like endowments. In His mercy God promised a Redeemer who, heralded by ages of prophecy, came in the fulness of time in the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. If this stands to reason as being true, then Mary had to participate in this supernatural as well, because in order to give the Redeemer his perfect human nature, she had to be perfect as well. This is action is of the Divine order and is a pre-cursor for an action that does in fact transcend the whole created world (ie. the Incarnation).

While Mary was born of human parents, her Immaculate Conception was of the Divine order. Grace, both actual and habitual, is the source of that meriting power: while habitual grace, with its train of infused virtues or faculties raises our mode of being and operating to a sphere which is God's own, actual grace spurs us on to justification and, once we stand justified, sets in motion our supernatural powers causing them to yield good and meritorious works. In the supernatural order, as in all others, there are also specific laws. The work of man's sanctification depends in a manner on the general laws of the universe and most certainly upon the carrying out of all the moral precepts written in our hearts. This action of God is the destination of man; to see God face to face and to love Him correspondingly.

Ultimately, Mary was given a gift of God that was supernatural. It wasn't preternatural, per se, because it has not been restored, but it is supernatural, because of the Divine Order.

However, I think that this is a move away from the poll and topic. All of this does go to show that because of her nature, Mary could not sin, becuase of her fiat to God, Motherhood of Christ and Relationship with the Holy Spirit. She participated in a way that would not allow for sin, therefore she could not sin, otherwise she would have compromised this unique and supernatural relationship with the Trinity.

[scardella]

I never assumed it was easy. The only thing I got less than an "A" in at FUS were Theology classes. CS bends my mind much less than this stuff. I'd rather understand something correctly in wrong terminology rather than not understand in correct terminology. Which is greater, the thing signified or the sign? I believe I have a firm and correct understanding of the teaching, and, quite frankly, I don't care whether we have a different understanding of the definitions of words, so long as the meaning doesn't get screwed up in the process. That being the case, thanks for the diatribe and info.

Here's all I'm going to say, and I'm going to say it in my terminology:
Mary was human, so she had the capacity to (could) sin. However, her character (nature, as you would say) was so perfectly graced that she continually chose the good. Does that mean she is necessarily perfect? Not in my book. I just acknowledged the first statement, which was why Jimmy Aiken's (how do you spell it?) statement didn't and still doesn't sit well with me.

I cannot shake the idea that God allowed the fate of all Creation to hang in that moment between Gabriel's announcement and her fiat. To make it a non-choice seems to spoil it, somehow. I also do not see how someone without supernatural or preternatural gifts can make a single decision binding on himself perpetually, as did all the angels, good and evil. So, really, the question must be whether God gave her that gift or did she have to continually re-choose God? Which is more meritorius? Maybe I'm misunderstanding all of this, anyway.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 4 2005, 03:20 PM']I never assumed it was easy.  The only thing I got less than an "A" in at FUS were Theology classes.  CS bends my mind much less than this stuff.  I'd rather understand something correctly in wrong terminology rather than not understand in correct terminology.  Which is greater, the thing signified or the sign?  I believe I have a firm and correct understanding of the teaching, and, quite frankly, I don't care whether we have a different understanding of the definitions of words, so long as the meaning doesn't get screwed up in the process.  That being the case, thanks for the diatribe and info.

Here's all I'm going to say, and I'm going to say it in my terminology:
Mary was human, so she had the capacity to (could) sin.  However, her character (nature, as you would say) was so perfectly graced that she continually chose the good.  Does that mean she is necessarily perfect? Not in my book. I just acknowledged the first statement, which was why Jimmy Aiken's (how do you spell it?) statement didn't and still doesn't sit well with me.

I cannot shake the idea that God allowed the fate of all Creation to hang in that moment between Gabriel's announcement and her fiat.  To make it a non-choice seems to spoil it, somehow.  I also do not see how someone without supernatural or preternatural gifts can make a single decision binding on himself perpetually, as did all the angels, good and evil.  So, really, the question must be whether God gave her that gift or did she have to continually re-choose God?  Which is more meritorius? Maybe I'm misunderstanding all of this, anyway.
[right][snapback]778969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, that is fine, however, this is a telling statement:

[quote]I believe I have a firm and correct understanding of the teaching, and, quite frankly, I don't care whether we have a different understanding of the definitions of words, so long as the meaning doesn't get screwed up in the process.[/quote]

Unless you have proper and uniform definitons of the terms, then the meaning will get screwed up in the process.

(So, what you are saying is, as long as I think that Linux is the same as Windows and we both speak to that using our own languages, it's all good? Is that what you are getting at?)

That is neither logical nor is it accurate.

[quote]Mary was human, so she had the capacity to (could) sin.  However, her character (nature, as you would say) was so perfectly graced that she continually chose the good.[/quote]

Try it this way.....

Mary was human, so she was cabable of sin. However, her nature was so full of gratia efficax (effacious grace) that she continually ([b][u]and could do nothing but[/u][/b]) chose the good.

[quote]To make it a non-choice seems to spoil it, somehow......So, really, the question must be whether God gave her that gift or did she have to continually re-choose God?  Which is more meritorius?[/quote]

It wasn't a non-choice. It was a free choice. It was her Fiat, her Magnificat that summed up the whole of her nature. God did give her the gift (gratia efficax), and she participated in that efficacious grace fully and completely, so there was no need to re-choose. Because she never chose anything otherwise. She always chose good.

That is closer, although you won't accept parts of the terms, so the conversation effectively has ended, at least until you can accept the terms as defined in a theological sense.

N.B. I never thought, for one minute that you were not smart. I simply stated that it is hard to understand theology, because it is. It is very hard for me, especially. I have to keep my mind going on this stuff all the time. If that makes me a dork ( ) then sobeit.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 4 2005, 04:53 PM']Ok, that is fine, however, this is a telling statement:
Unless you have proper and uniform definitons of the terms, then the meaning will get screwed up in the process.

(So, what you are saying is, as long as I think that Linux is the same as Windows and we both speak to that using our own languages, it's all good?  Is that what you are getting at?)

That is neither logical nor is it accurate.
Try it this way.....

Mary was human, so she was cabable of sin.  However, her nature was so full of gratia efficax (effacious grace) that she continually ([b][u]and could do nothing but[/u][/b]) chose the good.
It wasn't a non-choice.  It was a free choice.  It was her Fiat, her Magnificat that summed up the whole of her nature.  God did give her the gift (gratia efficax), and she participated in that efficacious grace fully and completely, so there was no need to re-choose.  Because she never chose anything otherwise.  She always chose good.

That is closer, although you won't accept parts of the terms, so the conversation effectively has ended, at least until you can accept the terms as defined in a theological sense.

N.B.  I never thought, for one minute that you were not smart.  I simply stated that it is hard to understand theology, because it is.  It is very hard for me, especially.  I have to keep my mind going on this stuff all the time.  If that makes me a dork ( ) then sobeit.
[right][snapback]779054[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well, if we're saying the same thing w/ different words and we just don't like the way each other says it, then who cares as long as we agree in what is actually signified by the words? To answer in the scenario, it would be like both of us talking about Linux, but one of us is using Windows terminology. It seems to be kinda like that to me. (And it doesn't bother me in the least if I'm the one using Windows terminology)

I wasn't accusing you of saying I was not smart. GAAH! This is getting pretty funny, actually! (by the grace of God; and after getting me frustrated a bit) I have to admit I'm getting pretty tired of the discussion anyway. It seems to have devolved fairly steadily...

Brain is full... until next time! (I won't really be back on until Tues. I think...)

Why does it seem apropos that I just finished reading The Man Who Was Thursday by that crazy Quotesmith whom you know as GK Chesterton?

Edited November 4, 2005 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 4 2005, 05:41 PM']I wasn't accusing you of saying I was not smart. GAAH!  This is getting pretty funny, actually! (by the grace of God; and after getting me frustrated a bit)  I have to admit I'm getting pretty tired of the discussion anyway.  It seems to have devolved fairly steadily...
[right][snapback]779072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why be frustrated? The point is this....when we speak from "common ground," there can be a fruitful and provoking discussion.

As it stands, from a secular point of view, we are talking about the unprovable; from a theological point of view it is provable. I have shown how. But what it takes to understand is this: Faith. It is an article of faith; perhaps not formally defined, but it is understood "sententia fidei proxima."

[Paphnutius]

Cam I have a quick question for you.

Are you saying that Eve and Mary had different natures because of the effects of original sin?

Are you stating that Original Sin altered Eve's nature where as it did not alter Mary's nature because she did not have it?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 5 2005, 12:02 PM']Cam I have a quick question for you.

Are you saying that Eve and Mary had different natures because of the effects of original sin?

Are you stating that Original Sin altered Eve's nature where as it did not alter Mary's nature because she did not have it?
[right][snapback]779542[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, not exactly. There was no such thing as Original Sin for Adam and Eve. Properly speaking, Original Sin is the consequence of the first sin of Adam.

Mary was excluded from that consequence. Original Sin can be looked at in two ways, (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

With that being the case, the first understanding can apply to no one other than Adam and Eve. The second however, is what Mary was excluded from, altogether. In that sense, Mary is unique.

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

That may or may not answer your question, but it is what I have for you....there are funadmental differences between Mary and Eve, however, I think that I have addressed them in previous posts.

[Paphnutius]

Why did I expect a simple yes or nor from you? LOL.

okay I was just curious. I realize that Original Sin technically is a conesquence of the sin of Adam. You just kept using the term nature in this context and it was thouroughly confusing me because it was to my understanding that our nature was stained, not changed, as a consequence. Speaking of which I would like to know where you got your definition of nature for I have never heard of it as such. Even in my theology classes I have always heard it defined as: the quiditty ("whatness" or essence) as it shapes our behavior. Also where you got the definition of the Immaculate Conception for it uses the word nature several times but it was to my understanding that Mary did not have a different nature (for Christ took on human nature, making recapitualation possible), but had a radically different state of grace than we do.

So....it was not her nature that prevented Mary from sinning, but her "uber" state of grace.

[Winchester]

Mary could have sinned. Without original sin, we lack the disposition toward sin. Mary still ahd free will.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Nov 6 2005, 08:03 AM']Mary could have sinned. Without original sin, we lack the disposition toward sin. Mary still had free will.
[right][snapback]780142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
read the thread, depends on how you define "could"



but you are right by what you clearly intend to say (and say correctly in our little imprecise language of english). Mary had the capacity for sin, not the disposition towards it, but the capacity to do it nonetheless.