Could Mary have sinned?

[Paphnutius]

Let me quickly attempt to put this a little clearer:

1)Human nature has the tendency to sin (we both agree)
2)The tendency to sin is an evil (agreed?)
3)If we apply the privation theory all evil is an absence of some good, it is not a reality in itself
4) So human nature is lacking something (here Original justice/holiness/grace) that it had before
5)So...the tendency to sin is not IN human nature per se, but is an effect of the absence of that original holiness.

Do you agree with the above? I am not stating that humans are not inclined to sin, but rather that they inclined to sin because they have imperfect natures (the deprivation), not that it is their nature to sin (which I know you are not saying but needs to be cleared up). And if this does not help then I suggest we start over with Aquinas.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 9 2005, 08:08 AM']Let me quickly attempt to put this a little clearer:

1)Human nature has the tendency to sin (we both agree)
2)The tendency to sin is an evil (agreed?)
3)If we apply the privation theory all evil is an absence of some good, it is not a reality in itself
4) So human nature is lacking something (here Original justice/holiness/grace) that it had before
5)So...the tendency to sin is not IN human nature per se, but is an effect of the absence of that original holiness.

Do you agree with the above? I am not stating that humans are not inclined to sin, but rather that they inclined to sin because they have imperfect natures (the deprivation), not that it is their nature to sin (which I know you are not saying but needs to be cleared up). And if this does not help then I suggest we start over with Aquinas.
[right][snapback]783595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No. your conclusion doesn't follow. It also is not in line with catechetical teaching. We don't need to start over with Aquinas, because it is Aquinas that we have been using all along.

[Paphnutius]

Please show me where it does not follow. If the tendency to sin is an evil, and evil is an absence, then there is an absence in human nature. Not something inherent in it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 8 2005, 11:48 PM']earlier on the thread Cam admitted Mary had the capacity for sin.  that as well as his susequent explanations have led me to believe he is more saying that "Mary wouldn't have sinned".. and that in the light of eternity it's impossible that she "could" have sinned.  but she held the human capacity for sin (and that's what everyone else means when they say she could have sinned)
[right][snapback]783363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wrong. She could not have sinned. Under any circumstance. Insofar as she was born of two human parents, she had the capacity to to sin, but she could not, because she was fully participating in gratia efficax. It is precisely that which separates her from all other human persons.

We don't say that Christ could have sinned. But we do say that he was tempted. It is possible that Mary, because she was participating in the gratia efficax, had the same human nature as Christ.

If Christ could not have sinned, neither could Mary have sinned, they had the same human nature.

Temptation is not capacity. Again, for the 3rd time:

[quote name='Cam42']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]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:11 AM']Wrong.  She could not have sinned. Under any circumstance.  Insofar as she was born of two human parents, she had the capacity to to sin, but she could not, [b]because she was fully participating in gratia efficax[/b].  It is precisely that which separates her from all other human persons.

We don't say that Christ could have sinned.  But we do say that he was tempted.  It is possible that Mary, because [b]she was participating in the gratia efficax[/b], had the same human nature as Christ.

If Christ could not have sinned, neither could Mary have sinned,  they had the same human nature.
[/quote]That is what I am trying to emphasize here. It is the grace that preserved her from Original Sin (from the deprivation) and so there was no absence, no imperfection in her. Her human nature was perfected, but it was still a human nature. Also if we look up the definition of nature int he back of the CCC, it will say that Christ took on our human nature I believe.

[Cam42]

Psst.....read what I said in the post directly above. You highlighted the wrong part.

[Paphnutius]

You lost me there...what do you mean to point out?

[Cam42]

[quote]If Christ could not have sinned, neither could Mary have sinned,  they had the same human nature.[/quote]

That is the important thing to distinguish in the last post. While her participation in gratia efficax excluded her from Original Sin, it is the same human nature that Mary and Christ share, which makes it impossible for her to sin. She could not sin, because she had no proclivity to sin.

Temptation is not a defining part of this.....one who is sinless can still be tempted, but the inability to sin, assures that the right choice would always be made. Mary could not sin, because she would undermine Christ's human nature, if she had.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:03 AM']No. your conclusion doesn't follow.  It also is not in line with catechetical teaching.  We don't need to start over with Aquinas, because it is Aquinas that we have been using all along.
[right][snapback]783636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

BTW, who assumed that I was using Aquinas? I never claimed to be Thomistic. If I had to guess I'd probably guess I'm a phenomenologist...

Edit.... Never mind. Found it..

Edited November 9, 2005 by scardella

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:11 AM']Wrong.  She could not have sinned. Under any circumstance.  Insofar as she was born of two human parents, she had the capacity to to sin, but she could not, because she was fully participating in gratia efficax.  It is precisely that which separates her from all other human persons.

We don't say that Christ could have sinned.  But we do say that he was tempted.  It is possible that Mary, because she was participating in the gratia efficax, had the same human nature as Christ.

If Christ could not have sinned, neither could Mary have sinned,  they had the same human nature.

Temptation is not capacity.  Again, for the 3rd time:

[quote name='Cam42']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]
[right][snapback]783643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
from the way you have been describing "could have sinned" we have no disagreement. anyone talking about someone have capacity to sin would say, correctly so, that they could sin. "could" sin by definition means having the capacity for sin. what you have more been describing could perhaps more adequately be described as she "wouldn't have" sinned. her perfected nature by grace from the moment of conception, her predestination (in a Catholic understanding that doesn't undermine free will) to be the Mother of God, the fact that in the light of eternity this is how the eternal second person of the Trinity entered the world, all of those factors apply to why she WOULDNT have sinned, why she DIDNT sin, and I suppose you could also say why she COULDNT have sinned.

alot of your logic has been "she didn't sin, she didn't have a tendency towards sin, so she couldn't have sinned"

[Cam42]

In other words, she couldn't have sinned.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:49 AM']That is the important thing to distinguish in the last post.  While her participation in gratia efficax excluded her from Original Sin, it is the same human nature that Mary and Christ share, which makes it impossible for her to sin.  She could not sin, because she had no proclivity to sin. 

Temptation is not a defining part of this.....one who is sinless can still be tempted, but the inability to sin, assures that the right choice would always be made.  Mary could not sin, because she would undermine Christ's human nature, if she had.
[right][snapback]783701[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You know that Christ shares in our nature (see definition of nature in back of CCC) I never brought in temptation...Mary, Christ, and all of us share the same nature so far that we are human. They had a [b]perfected[/b] nature because of grace. We lack, have an [i]absence[/i] of, are deprived of that grace because of Original Sin. That is what I am saying. We do not have a perfected nature so we have the tendency to sin. It is not simply our nature to sin, but something that is lacking in our nature. Why is our nature not perfected? Because of Original Sin...it is not inherent human nature.

Not to troll...but that definition that I quoted earlier. Did you get that from somewhere (ohter source) or did you come up with it? I honestly want to know.

How was my syllogism for the tendency to sin being an abesnece and not a real thin in human nature not valid or sound? Please show me that. I believe that the conclusion follows and it is indeed correspondent. You said that it did not follow catechetical teaching...Where? I said that human nature is inclined to sin, but not because of some inherent trait, but rather because of the absence or deprivation caused by original sin. Why do you wish to defend that human nature is inherently inclined to sin? To me, at least, that is what you are saying when you say that I am wrong that the inclination to sin is not inherent, by an effect of the deprivation of Original Justice.

[Cam42]

I have shown where the definiton was postulated from, however, the actual definiton is from the American Heritage Dictionary....

But it can be postulated from Aquinas' view.

[Paphnutius]

Thank you for citing your source on that. I really do appreciate it. I understand how it can come from Aquinas's view, but I think it is a stretch for I understand the " a good of" and "inherent" as seperate things.

The first good is human nature in itself. It's powers and faculties and what not.

The second good is a good of nature for human nature uses virtues and love of good in conjunction with it's inherent nature.

The third good of nature is a good, as I have said a few pages ago, because of our nature in what it is, made it possible for us to be made in the original state of holiness. One cannot say that about other things in the world, but human nature made it possible to share and be destined to God.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:52 AM']BTW, who assumed that I was using Aquinas?  I never claimed to be Thomistic.  If I had to guess I'd probably guess I'm a phenomenologist...

Edit.... Never mind. Found it..
[right][snapback]783709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So, you accept Existentialism? Phenomonology has many problems inherent to it.

So, whose phenomonology do you ascribe most too? Heidegger? Satre? Husserl? Ponty? Scheler? Ingarden?

Perhaps it is the work of Kant or Kierkegaard?