Could Mary have sinned?

[Cam42]

Mary is, of course, the one who shows forth the goodness of God more than any other human being, except Jesus. Jesus is truly God, and is uniquely holy. Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is truly God, and she is holy by the grace and merits of her Son. We believe that Jesus is free of original sin because he is God, and we believe that Mary was free of original sin, the gift of her "Immaculate Conception," by the merits of Jesus, the Son of God.

In fact, theologians say it's impossible that Mary could have sinned (because sin is saying no to God, and she couldn't say no to God!)

Mary was certainly tempted as we are, and I believe that she could not have sinned. Our Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception means that she was preserved from the effects of original sin (theologians would argue about how this was done), but she did fully cooperate with God's grace (gratia efficax). As she grew up, she could not have sinned even though she was tempted, because of this full cooperation with God's grace (gratia efficax).

The misunderstanding is here: [b]Grace and sinlessness do not undermine freewill, rather they allow for a more perfect exercise of it.[/b] We who have been baptized are regenerated but still have a tendency to sin. We also have free will, but our free will is always still effected by our tendency to sin. That is why we are so quick to fall over and over again. And that is why Mary couldn't. Precisely, because she was full of grace and sinless. She could not do that which was not in her nature. Since she was excluded from Original sin, she was not effected by any tendency to sin.

Mary had perfect free will, so she was never a slave to sin. In a sense God gave Mary the same opportunity to say Yes to Him and No to Satan as Eve had. Both Eve and Mary were sinless, both Eve and Mary were tempted. But the Catechism goes on to tell us:

[quote name='CCC #511'] The Virgin Mary "co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.[/quote]

The Early Church Fathers often said that Mary's Yes to God undid Eve's Yes to Satan . She was also called the 2nd Eve by many of the same Fathers of the Church.

This part of the Catechism consistent with everything I have said to this point.

[Paphnutius]

Cam42,

I am not sure if your last post was aimed directly at my reply, for which I would like to apologize for all of the typos in it, but I want to say that I agree with your conclusion and your line of reasoning up to a certain point. The part that I differ on you is specifically this point

[quote]We also have free will, but our free will is always still effected by our tendency to sin. That is why we are so quick to fall over and over again. And that is why Mary couldn't. Precisely, because she was full of grace and sinless. She could not do that which was [b]not in her nature[/b]. Since she was excluded from Original sin, she was not effected by any tendency to sin.[/quote]The emphasis is mine.

I believe that this divergance (sp?) comes from a different understanding of the word nature. You offered an alternative definition, one I had never heard, and I would like to know where you got it from. I have looked at other definitions and most of them are in line with these two:

[b]New Catholic Dictionary[/b]
A substance not merely existing by itself (per se), but as containing a principle of action or motion. The terms nature and substance are frequently used as synonyms. In the concrete a natural unitary whole may be regarded first as an entity existing by itself, not merely as a modification inhering in some other being, in which case it is called a substance; or we may regard the unit as belonging to some specific kind of reality, i.e., as being the kind of thing it is, in which case it is called an essence; or we may consider it as the ultimate complete principle from which all the activities of the unit proceed, and in this sense it is called a nature. The nature, then, of a thing is the substance or essence regarded as the complete ultimate principle of the activities of a natural unit.

[b]Pocket Catholic Dictionary[/b]
NATURE. The essence of a being considered as the principle of activity. Also the substance of a thing as distinguished from its properties, considered as the source of its operations.

Those two are just samples, but I could not find your definition anywhere. It is quite possible that I have looked in the wrong places. The reason why I keep hammering this point is this: Mary had the same nature that Eve did, and that you and I have. The only (not to undermine it by the use of the word "only") difference is that her nature did not bear the [i]wound[/i] that ours does. You continue to say that it was not in her nature to sin, which would then, at least implicitly I believe, mean that it was in Eve's nature, and in our nature to sin. If we look at the definition of nature it relies on the "whatness" or essence of a thing. Our nature was not corrupted by the Fall, and I believe you would agree with this. It was affected, however, by a wounding, particurally the deprivation of original justice and the lose of original holiness (including grace).

If we take an anology I believe that will help for the Fathers chose the word "wounded" deliberatly. If I sustain a gash on my arm, my arm is indeed wounded; it has been affected and changed in some way. It has not, however, ceased to be the same arm in itself. It may have the appearance of a scar and may inhibit certain functions depending on the depth of the wound, but it is still the same arm I had before.

This is the point that I am making. They way that I am understanding you is that Mary could not sin for her nature was different. In the strictest sense I do not believe this to be true. Her nature was [i]clean [/i]and [i]immaculate[/i], obviously, but it was not a different nature than Eve's. She had the same arm in the basic and strict sense that we do, save it was not wounded.

In moral theology there are three main characterisitcs of human nature
1) Man is rational being-has the faculties of will and reason, etc...(duty to self)
2) Man is social being-man ineracts with other men and so has a duty to other
3) Man is a created being-created by God and has a certain duty to God

These are the three things that primarily shape man's actions. Mary retained those same three characteristics of nature, but was aided with effacious grace by the merits of Christ so that her nature was un-wounded if you will. Her nature was the same as ours, save that she did not bear the mark of the fall.

Furthermore, the wording I belive is fallen state, not fallen nature. This is important for we can see the resembalance between the state of grace and state of sin. Our nature was not changed per se, but we were deprived of that original justice and holiness.

On your Xanga site you used the word "character." This is a for more appropriate term, and is indeed related to the word nature. Character, as seen by many anciencts, was a type of second nature. It is not your human nature, but your human nature specifically defined and lived out as by you. I think this is the word you are looking for, and it would be coherent with the rest of you line of reasoning. It was not in Mary's charcter to sin because she was preserved from Original Sin by the effacious grace merited for her by Christ.

I hope I have made myself clearer, and indeed without so many typos.

[Cam42]

[quote]On your Xanga site you used the word "character." This is a for more appropriate term, and is indeed related to the word nature. Character, as seen by many anciencts, was a type of second nature. It is not your human nature, but your human nature specifically defined and lived out as by you. I think this is the word you are looking for, and it would be coherent with the rest of you line of reasoning. It was not in Mary's charcter to sin because she was preserved from Original Sin by the effacious grace merited for her by Christ.[/quote]

I use the terms synonomously, character and nature.

Look at what I defined nature as being:

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

Look at what you say about character.....Character, as seen by many anciencts, was a type of second nature.

The view I offer is Thomistic (Summa I-II:85:1). I qualified it directly after I quoted it.

[quote]You continue to say that it was not in her nature to sin, which would then, at least implicitly I believe, mean that it was in Eve's nature, and in our nature to sin.[/quote]

Nowhere have I said that. However, Eve was faced with a choice. She could have said Yes, but she didn't. Look to what I said:

[quote]Mary had perfect free will, so she was never a slave to sin. In a sense God gave Mary the same opportunity to say Yes to Him and No to Satan as Eve had. Both Eve and Mary were sinless, both Eve and Mary were tempted.[/quote]

Then I quoted the Catechism #511:

[quote]The Virgin Mary "co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.[/quote]

I have never said nor have I implied that it was in Eve's nature to sin. She had the capacity, as did Mary, but when faced with the choice, Mary said Yes to God. Eve, said Yes to Satan. Notice what Aquinas said..... That is where I am getting my understanding of nature. I hope this clears things up for you.

[Paphnutius]

I believe the disagreement falls on our different definitions of nature.

Also to clarify, charatcer is something that is built on your nature. The two are not interchangeble. They are indeed connected, but distinct.

[Paphnutius]

Now that I have re-read your quoting of Aquinas I understand your use of nature more clearly. I am speaking about nature in the first sense that Aquinas uses's and that is how most people use it. You, however, were speaking about the totality of three goods. I think it is important, though, to note that Aquinas was speaking about the "goods" of human nature

[quote]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.
[/quote]Here he points out that it is conferred on human nature, it is not human nature itself. It was a good of human nature, but it is not our essence. I understand your position more clearly now. Thank you for your paitence with this slow and stubborn learner.

[Cam42]

I simply was using character and nature interchangibly to try and simplify things.....I am glad that you caught onto the nuance of what is going on.

This stuff gets pretty high-browed for those who don't stick their heads into a theology book all the time.

If there was confusion, I apologize, but it was simply from a Thomistic point of view that I was speaking.....

[Paphnutius]

Yeah...I am simply not used to the term nature being used as brodley as it was being used. I am more of a philosphy major and so hearing the term "nature" used as it was made me twitch a little. I could learn to appreciate the "goods" of nature as Aquinas puts it as something distinct from, yet connected to, nature per se.

It is interesting because the first good as he understands it is nature as it is in itself expressed through behavior. The second is the inclination of those behaviors due to nature, and the third is the good of our nature being able to accept grace. I have never really reflected on human nature's uniqueness for recieving grace as contrasted to other created beings (non-rational ones that is). The Original justice was a good of nature per se because our nature is able to accept and cooperate with it. No other nature (perhaps the angels) has this good inherent in it. In this broader sense I now see how you can see it was not in her nature, but I think we still need to be careful and point out that there was a good fulfilled in her nature that we are still waiting for, not her nature itself. I am sure you pointed this out somewhere, but this has been a long thread.

[Cam42]

I did about five pages ago....but now that you see the nuance, and the difference between theology and philosophy, while closely related, there are nuances that can be confusing.

I do understand about being careful though.....I was being too careful.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 7 2005, 06:30 PM']I did about five pages ago
[/quote]

Oh yeah...I have just always understood the difference using different terms. Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but I have understood that it was not her [i]nature per se [/i]that she could not sin, but rather her [i]state of grace/perfection [/i](being in the state of original justice and what not) that caused this, of course due to the grace won for her by the merits of Christ. I will be able to rest easier tonight knowing that we mean the same thing for I seriously was like, "Is Cam really saying what I think he is? Surely not!"

As was mentioned earlier...do not use Linux when speaking to a Windows user!

Edited November 8, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

It is not in her nature to sin. Why? Because the dead horse is getting another whipping.....

Mary was certainly tempted as we are, and I believe that she could not have sinned. Our Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception means that she was preserved from the effects of original sin (theologians would argue about how this was done), but she did fully cooperate with God's grace (gratia efficax). As she grew up, she could not have sinned even though she was tempted, because of this full cooperation with God's grace (gratia efficax).

Grace and sinlessness do not undermine freewill, rather they allow for a more perfect exercise of it. We who have been baptized are regenerated but still have a tendency to sin. We also have free will, but our free will is always still effected by our tendency to sin. That is why we are so quick to fall over and over again. And that is why Mary couldn't. Precisely, because she was full of grace and sinless. She could not do that which was not in her nature. Since she was excluded from Original sin, she was not effected by any tendency to sin.

Mary had perfect free will, so she was never a slave to sin. In a sense God gave Mary the same opportunity to say Yes to Him and No to Satan as Eve had. Both Eve and Mary were sinless, both Eve and Mary were tempted.

Clear? Good.

[Paphnutius]

[quote] but our free will is always still effected by our tendency to sin. That is why we are so quick to fall over and over again. And that is why Mary couldn't. Precisely, because she was full of grace and sinless. She could not do that which was not in her nature.[/quote]

As long as we understand the tendency to sin is a result of the deprivation of grace and not something that is inherent in our nature, I believe this would work. For if the tendency to sin was something inherent in our nature, then how could someone be just for punishing us in accord with our nature? As said, if we see the tendency as an affect conferred upon our nature (as Aquinas says that original justice was conferred upon our nature) then all is good. For the tendency is an absence of something that was there, not a thing in itself.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Paphnutius

[qfnol31]

[quote]Grace and sinlessness do not undermine freewill, rather they allow for a more perfect exercise of it. We who have been baptized are regenerated but still have a tendency to sin. We also have free will, but our free will is always still effected by our tendency to sin. That is why we are so quick to fall over and over again. And that is why Mary couldn't. Precisely, because she was full of grace and sinless. She could not do that which was not in her nature. Since she was excluded from Original sin, she was not effected by any tendency to sin[/quote]

I believe Pope John Paul II uses [i]authentic freedom[/i] or something along those lines. I think that using the term "could" still makes things confusing in this sense, but I think that's been addressed multiple times.

[qfnol31]

[quote]...the difference between theology and philosophy, while closely related, there are nuances that can be confusing.[/quote]

What do you mean by this?

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:11 AM']What do you mean by this?
[right][snapback]782511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

One is not dependant upon the other......while philosphy is the study of wisdom, theology is the study of God.

While philosophy can be the start, ultimately, it is void, unless it is enlightened by faith.

That is why a priest must study philsophy first and theology second. Philosophy is only a means, while theology is the end. One fulfills the other.

Arguably the greatest work of philosophy is merely the basis for theology. The Summa Theologica is most often used in philosophy, however, it's title is: The Summary of Theology."

Go figure.....there is more than one meaning when dealing in theology and philosophy, the terms while related can and do have different nuances.

[qfnol31]

I wouldn't say they're seperate though, just that the perfection of philosophy is to be had in theology.

It may just be my tendencies as a philosophy major, but I'm sad at how little emphasis is put on philosophy in everything...