Could Mary have sinned?

[Paphnutius]

Just curious if what I said about the tendency to sin being an absence of something rather than something inherent in our nature jived with you Cam because I really do value your input.

For if we expressed it this way, then you can say that it was not in Mary's nature for hers was a perfected one through grace, but it also allows you to say that we do not have a sinful nature, but rather are lacking what once was there.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:22 AM']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...
[right][snapback]782526[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Let's not forget that I already have my degree in Philosophy. I am not exactly opposed to the use of philosophy.

However, you are essentially saying the same thing that I am...if one stops with only philosophy, then one will not have the fullness of Truth. They will only have pursuit of wisdom.

Again, philosophy is the precursor and the start of theology. Philosophy has it's end in theology. This has been accepted for centuries.

While it is a discipline of it's own, it is ultimately incomplete without theology.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 8 2005, 12:22 PM']Just curious if what I said about the tendency to sin being an absence of something rather than something inherent in our nature jived with you Cam because I really do value your input.

For if we expressed it this way, then you can say that it was not in Mary's nature for hers was a perfected one through grace, but it also allows you to say that we do not have a sinful nature, but rather are lacking what once was there.
[right][snapback]782589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Give me some time to reflect and research what you're getting at.....perhaps another thread.....that way we can discuss this with a fresh view.....it is a great thought, at first look.

[scardella]

BTW, I'm still alive!

I think at this time it might do me some good to read up on free will. I think Paph has highlighted some of my question better than I could...

What's some good resources?

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 8 2005, 02:20 PM']BTW, I'm still alive!

I think at this time it might do me some good to read up on free will.  I think Paph has highlighted some of my question better than I could...

What's some good resources?
[right][snapback]782709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Steve,

I would think that starting with the Summa would be a good place.

[Cam42]

I just reread the whole of the thread....

Amazing....nobody has given a theological argument that even comes close. Everyone has decided that it is best to argue English.

How about we discuss the theological aspect of this. What I have said is in line with and is supported by the dogma of Immaculate Conception. I have given proofs, I have given support.

I would love to see a theological position that is different, which can stand up to the position which I have taken.

In other words, I am aruging a theolgoical point, and everyone else has decided that it is best to argue English semantics. My point.....

Everyone has spoken around my point, but nobody has addressed it. In all reality, I am supporting Jimmy Akin. In all reality, what Jimmy and I are saying is in line with traditional Church teaching. I believe that I have spoken to this coherently, and I believe that Jimmy and I are on the same footing in our belief. We are supported by Church teaching and can assert our position "sententia fidei proxima."

[Aloysius]

in reality, those who were saying Mary "could have" sinned are saying that mary had the human capacity for sin, something you have admitted. that is a correct use of "could have sinned" in English.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 8 2005, 09:32 PM']in reality, those who were saying Mary "could have" sinned are saying that mary had the human capacity for sin, something you have admitted.  that is a correct use of "could have sinned" in English.
[right][snapback]783220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have spken to my point exactly....where is the theology? Rather than discuss the theological implications of this discussion, you would rather wallow in the English semantics.

Mary could not have sinned. The theology stands up.....

[Paphnutius]

Wow that is awfuly bold of you Cam...to say that no one has even comes close. I am glad that you hold your ability to argue so high above everyone else's. Would you like your wreath now or later?

Here is where I take issue with the way that you express it (as I have said earlier I agree with the outcome, but not in the language being used. I never said thatthe concept was wrong, but said that we
should strive for better clairity so dont give me that "you are only arguing English not theology, because I never proposed to argue the validity of the statement, but only the terms being used)

You say that Mary could not have sinned for she cannot do what is not in her nature. Correct?

My question is then this: If I sin is it because it is
in my nature to sin?

Mary could not sin for it was not in her nature, so is it in my nature to sin? I would say no it is not in my nature to sin for would if then be a sin to act in accord with my human nature? I instead say that Mary could not sin because her nature was perfected through the grace won for her by Her son (by this we mean the preservation from Original Sin, which consequently she was born in Original Jusitce. That means that she did
not have the tendency to sin that we have). She had the same nature as everyone else, except hers was perfected. Please compare with CCC 732 I believe it is. She had her willdefinitvly bound to God, thus removing the possiblityof choice between good and evil.

In CCC 404, it says that our nature was affected, resulting in a fallen STATE. Not in a fallen NATURE as you have said I believe in page 5 or 6. One of the consequences of the Fall was the tendency to sin. This is not in our nature, however, but instead is a defect, a deprivation as stated. It is the deprivation of Oringial Holiness that results in this concupisence. That is why we have a tendency to sin. Aquinas if called it a "good" of nature (the 2nd of the three). Not calling it nature in itself, but a good of it. I read that as something that our nature makes possible, but is not neccesarily attached to it. We sin because we have imperfected natures, that does not mean that it is in our nature to sin (I think you agree with that), Mary had a perfected nature, but a human nature nonetheless. So if our natures are in [b]essence [/b] *please not the use of the term essence instead of glossing over the distinction I make using the words "in itself" and "per se", then what is the cause for this? I have said before, it is because of her perfected state.

I have shown the three basic characteristics of human nature as shown through Moral Theology. You have given me your own definition of nature and have not supplied me with a source as I have asked you, although I had given you two sources for mine.

That appears to be the flip side of your coin when you say the aforementioned. I have made attempts to reconcile that with different terms; never have I made an attempt to prove that Mary could have sinned.

[Aloysius]

and there's no correct theology in saying that Mary had the capacity to sin? that is correct theology, she held the capacity during her life to sin. in that sense, it is true that she "could have sinned", all your theology as to why she "couldn't have sinned" also stands, but both are correct uses of the phrase "could have sinned" and since English, not theology, defines "could" both are correct statements.

[Paphnutius]

Quick correction...It was CCC 1732 that I was referring to. I apologize for the typo.

[Cam42]

[quote]My question is then this: If I sin is it because it is
in my nature to sin? [/quote]

Not totally.

[quote name='CCC #405']Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. [b]It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but [u]human nature has not been totally corrupted[/u]: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".[/b] Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[/quote]

Baptism cleanses one's nature, at least according to the catechetical view.

Ummm.....

[quote name='CCC #404']How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. [b]But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, [u]but for all human nature.[/u] By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but [u]this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[/u] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a [i][u]human nature[/u] deprived of original holiness and justice.[/i][/b] And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.[/quote]

It is human nature. It has always been about human nature, thanks for showing everyone my point. Adam and Eve corrupted all human nature through original sin. Mary was excluded from that, by virtue of the Immaculate Conception. Could Mary have sinned? No, because she was excluded from sin. As I have said before,

[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]

As for my definiton, I have shown you how I have postulated it. The definition is accurate, from a theological standpoint. It is Thomistic and it is proper.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 8 2005, 10:00 PM']and there's no correct theology in saying that Mary had the capacity to sin?  that is correct theology, she held the capacity during her life to sin.  in that sense, it is true that she "could have sinned",  all your theology as to why she "couldn't have sinned" also stands, but both are correct uses of the phrase "could have sinned" and since English, not theology, defines "could" both are correct statements.
[right][snapback]783240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever....if you don't want to talk about the theological aspect, that is fine.

[Paphnutius]

Pay attention to the words being used: Fallen [b]state[/b] and also [b]wounded[/b], but most importantly that it is a [b]deprivation[/b]. Can a nautre be deprived of something within itself? No for then it would cease to be that nature for a nature is a whole. I have explained earlier how I believe the deprivation is to be understood: just like the rest of all evil. It is an absence of something, not something inherent in nature. Please pay attentention to the word inherent. You have your degree in pholosophy so you should now the difference between inherent and lacking. Our nature was WOUNDED by the deprivation of holiniess.

Is our nature in itself inclined to sin? You say not not totally. My response to that is, no at all. Nature [i]per se[/i] is not inclined to sin, but our nature suffers the wound of loss of, loss of state, deprivation, of original justice.

As for you definition, I have explained that there is a difference between "a good of" and "something in itself"

We are going in circles however. I simply meant to show you that I did not at all mean, nor ever post, a theological discussion, but exactly a semantics because I think you are misusing the word nature and its relation to concupisence.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

How about I quote this:

[quote name='CCC #1714']Man, [b][i]having been wounded in [u]his nature[/u] by original sin[/i][/b], is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedom.[/quote]

HIS NATURE.....want more?

[quote name='CCC #418'][b]As a result of original sin, [u]human nature[/u] is weakened[/b] in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #1872'][b]Sin is an act contrary to reason. [u]It wounds man's nature[/u][/b] and injures human solidarity.[/quote]

Mary was free from all of this. She could not sin, because grace freed her from this action.

I can keep going, if you like.