Could Mary have sinned?

[Paphnutius]

Once again thank you for citing your source on that. I am not attacking it, but do wonder why you used that dictionary over Catholic ones and what not? I have never heard of it before so I am interested in seeing why someone chooses to use it.

Also the definition: Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace. Does that really tell us what it means to be human? It uses the word "natural" in the definition of nature...I just found that interesting. It is more a defiintion of distinction rather than description and that is why I have a hard time accepting its use in such discussions. I can understand its uses and where it can come from, but I do not see it having much merit.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:51 AM']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?
[right][snapback]783759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Oh come on now Cam, that is not fair.

He meant that he is not that familiar with Thomistic philosophy and theology. He very well could be an Anselmnian, Augustinian, Ambrosian, Cartesian, follow Bonaventure, Von Balthasaar, etc...Granted they are all related, but there are other approaches than simply Thomism to Catholicism.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:54 AM']Once again thank you for citing your source on that. I am not attacking it, but do wonder why you used that dictionary over Catholic ones and what not? I have never heard of it before so I am interested in seeing why someone chooses to use it.

Also the definition: Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace. Does that really tell us what it means to be human? It uses the word "natural" in the definition of nature...I just found that interesting. It is more a defiintion of distinction rather than description and that is why I have a hard time accepting its use in such discussions. I can understand its uses and where it can come from, but I do not see it having much merit.
[right][snapback]783761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I used it to prove a point. The previous definiton given from dictionary.com, so I simply used another secular source and expounded upon it from a Catholic viewpoint.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:57 AM']I used it to prove a point.  The previous definiton given from dictionary.com, so I simply used another secular source and expounded upon it from a Catholic viewpoint.
[right][snapback]783765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Fair enough. Thank you for introducing me to it. I am sure it will be useful later on.

Yeah I am with you on dictionary.com.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:51 AM']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?
[right][snapback]783759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You overestimate me (and I do mean over, not under)...wasn't JPII a phenomenologist? Since when was Existentialism == Phenomenology? I'd have to have studied them to ascribe to them.

[Cam42]

[quote]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. [/quote]

Your move is incoherent from your first premise to the conclusion.

[quote]Human nature has the tendency to sin (we both agree).......So...the tendency to sin is not IN human nature per se, but is an effect of the absence of that original holiness.[/quote]

However, it is the last part of this that is not compatible with any of the catechetical statements that I have listed.

[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, but for all human nature.  By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[/b] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, [b]by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.[/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]

The sin does affect human nature [i]per se[/i]. The transmission is in a fallen state, but it is the nature of mankind that is affected.

Man can be freed from the bonds of sin. He is cleansed by gratia efficax, given at baptism. The problem is that he doesn't participate in it. He will only participate in gratia sufficens. He falls, that is the lingering effect of Original sin. Death, pain during child birth, these are all things linked to Original Sin that linger after the cleansing.....these are the things that show that even though we are God's creatures, we are in fact inclined to sin.

How can I say this? Look here:

[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. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: 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, [u]weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man[/u] and summon him to spiritual battle.[/b][/quote]

If sin were not inherent, then the overcoming of sin would not be difficult. There would be no summons to spiritual battle. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we cannot overcome this, quite the contrary, we can. We simply look to Mary to see this. She is the proof that we can overcome this consequence and affection of human nature.

[quote name='Council of Trent (1546)' date=' 5:3']If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ....[/quote]

[quote name='Council of Trent (1546)' date=' 5:5']This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, [b]but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[/b][/quote]

[quote name='Council of Trent (1546)' date=' 5:5']This holy council declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.[/quote]

Finally,

[quote name='CCC #407']The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil." Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature [b]inclined to evil[/b] gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action,[/quote] and morals.

Yep, man is inclined to sin. But because of the redemptive action of Christ we can overcome this......gratia efficax.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 9 2005, 11:01 AM']You overestimate me (and I do mean over, not under)...wasn't JPII a phenomenologist?  Since when was Existentialism == Phenomenology? I'd have to have studied them to ascribe to them.
[right][snapback]783769[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, he was not a phenomonolgist, he was influenced by Max Scheler. That is all. It is a misconception to say that is the philosophy that John Paul II ascribed. He was most certainly Thomistic. His greatest theological/philosophical work (In my estimation) pays tribute to that, Fides et Ratio.

And since when was Existentialism equal to Phenomenology? Well, let's see....who are considered the fathers of Phenomonology? Husserl and Heidegger.

I would suggest that you look at their works, also, I would look to Satre, Kierkegaard, and Scheler. You'll start to see the similarities. It stems from the School of Brentano and was mostly based on the work of the 20th century philosopher Edmund Husserl, and was developed further by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler and Michel Henry. As such, phenomenological thought influenced the development of existential phenomenology and existentialism in France, as is clear from the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, and Munich phenomenology.

An important element of phenomenology that Husserl borrowed from Brentano was intentionality, the notion that the main characteristic of consciousness is that it is always intentional. Intentionality, which could be summarised as "aboutness", describes the relationship between mental acts and the external world. Every mental phenomenon or psychological act is directed at an object — the intentional object. Every belief, desire, etc. has an object to which it refers: the believed, the desired. The property of being intentional, of having an intentional object, is the key feature which distinguishes mental/psychical phenomena from physical phenomena (objects), because physical phenomena lack intentionality altogether.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 10:42 AM']In other words, she couldn't have sinned.
[right][snapback]783747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Still the case.

[Brother Adam]

I'm sure you've already posted this, so if you could repost your post for me (once again I'd imagine), the only question I'm looking to see an answer to is why did Mary not have the same capability to sin that Adam and Eve had in their original holiness?

[Brother Adam]

This is an interesting question though. Dr. Miravelle the man numero uno here on Mariology is in a debate tonight with a female priest of the Anglican church and there will be time for Q&A. I'll ask him.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 9 2005, 11:42 AM']In other words, she couldn't have sinned.
[right][snapback]783747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And in other words,like I said, Mary could have sinned. depends on how you're defining 'could'. Mary had the human capacity for sin.

[scardella]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 9 2005, 11:51 AM']This is an interesting question though. Dr. Miravelle the man numero uno here on Mariology is in a debate tonight with a female priest of the Anglican church and there will be time for Q&A. I'll ask him.
[right][snapback]783838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please do and post his answer! I loved his class! It was a shame I didn't have room for the Mariology II he taught my last semester there... I'd love to hear what he has to say.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='scardella' date='Nov 9 2005, 12:55 PM']Please do and post his answer!  I loved his class!  It was a shame I didn't have room for the Mariology II he taught my last semester there...  I'd love to hear what he has to say.
[right][snapback]783845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I also emailed him at his office email address. Perhaps if I can't get the question in tonight he will answer through email.

[scardella]

Hrm...
I'm so confused, now...what i've read about the different "schools" is just more confusing

Isn't it something like there's 2 ways to approach philosophy:
-From what we experience, see, hear, feel, etc.
-From a logical premise/proof and extrapolation.

I had gleaned from people much more learned in Philosophy than I that the former is a phenomenological approach while the latter is a Thomistic approach. Is this incorrect? If so, I've always thought in the former, and that is what I meant by phenomenological...

[Paphnutius]

1) I stated that man is inclined to sin
2) I said that the fall did affect human nature
3) Notice that the CCC 404 even states by the transmission of a human nature [b]deprived [/b]of original holiness and justice.

As for the quoting of Trent: I never said that the effects were removed by anything other than by the merits of Christ. I know that Mary was not included in Original Sin.

How can I say this? CCC 404:[quote]It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature [u][b]deprived [/b][/u]of original holiness and justice.[/quote]You have it right here. We are inclined to sin because of a deprivation.

[quote]Yep, man is inclined to sin.[/quote]Yeah I had that as permise one....I know that man's nature is wounded...do we forget my analogy with the wounded arm? It is still the same arm as before, but the effects linger...

Let us look at that again shall we? The point of it was to clear up why we seem to have this tendency to sin.

1)Human nature has the tendency/inclination to sin (CCC 405,407)
2)All tendency to sin is an evil (empirical observation. all things that lead away from God are evil)
3)All evil is the absence of the Good (privation theory)
4) The effectof Original Sin here it is the absence Original justice/holiness (CCC 404)
5)So human nature has the tendency to sin becuse of the deprivation of Original Holiness.

I think you are glossing over the hinge on the privation theory. Man's nature is indeed wounded exactly because of the withdrawl of Original Holiness due to Original Sin.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Paphnutius