Could Mary have sinned?

[Maria]

That it was fitting that he would have as mother one who would never be without the splendor of holiness means, I strongly suspect, that it was fitting that not only should he have a mother whom he redeems and who chooses him, but one who he preserved from sin from the first moment of her life, to always have the splendor of holiness.
I think we both agree that the key word is ‘never’. The difference is that (as far as I can tell) you see it as meaning that she would have been incapable of having anything but the full splendor of holiness, whereas I see it’s purpose as being that, as everyone already knows that she didn’t sin, it was thrown in to say that God preserved her even from original sin, even at the instant of her conception.

“If Mary could sin, then Mary would not be capable of being the Mother of God. Ineffabilis Deus states that very clearly. I have underlined it. In order for Mary to be capable of being the Mother of God, she could not have sinned.”
Disagreed. If Mary had sinned or had been tainted by sin, she would not have been fit to be the mother of God.

“So it remains true that grace is not efficacious because free will consents, but conversely the free will consents because grace efficaciously premoves it to the willing and performance of a good act.”
Too tired to think very well, but I can agree with that, except that even though we can only choose to consent to grace because of a gift of grace, even if grace is given to consent to grace, we are still able to reject that grace.

Is grace efficacious because it must be so, or because we respond to it? Because we respond to it. So then, there’s the possibility that we won’t consent to it, i.e., it’s still necessary for us to consent to it. And consenting A) implies the possibility of not consenting and B) is not done once and for all in this life.

Maybe the above is what you call sufficient grace. If that is what you mean by sufficient grace, then that’s the kind God uses. He always requires man’s co-operation.

“The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.”

Agreed. She wasn’t subject to sin. She wasn’t under sin’s dominion, because of the merits of Christ’s passion.

“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.”

Agreed. Pre-fall condition, only, unlike Adam and Eve, who in the same condition (without the temporal penalties Mary suffered) rejected God, Mary consistently chose God.

Everything that you’re saying or quoting points out that Mary was pure, holy, spotless, free from sin, uninclined towards sin, and consecrated to God, and that if she were not, she would not have been a fit mother for Jesus and doubtlessly would not in fact have been His mother. All of it shows that Mary did not sin, but none of it shows that Mary was incapable of sinning (it shows that Mary was incapable of having sinned and still being the mother of the Messiah, but that’s not the topic). The closest thing that comes to it is the ‘never’, and that refers primarily to ‘even-down-to-the-instant-of-her-conception’ and secondarily could either mean that we know she never sinned OR that just as God preserved her from original sin, He prevented her from choosing to reject Him. It seems a pretty weak basis for an argument to me.


Most of your arguments only seem valid to me if you're arguing agaist someone who had as their proposed hypothetical the possibility that Mary did sin, whereas the hypothetical here is that Mary had the ability to sin.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:49 PM']See, I thought those were the same question.
[right][snapback]773694[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If I know anything about the English langauge, they are.

but I decided to let it go and let Cam win since we all agree at heart. the end.

[Maria]

Great. While I'm composing a reply people have a whole conversation without me

I guess I was kind of right that we were arguing different hypotheticals, though.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:49 PM']See, I thought those were the same question.
[right][snapback]773694[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nope. Totally different conversation, [b]from a theological point of view.[/b] If we simply were speaking about English and the use of the word, "could," then perhaps, but even that is a stretch.

The theological aspect of this lends itself to two totally different conversations. Precisely because of the characteristics of Mary. And that is the real conversation.

[Aloysius]

there are two different theological conversations, but they do not hinge around the use of the word "could".

everyone was arguing that she had the potential to sin. if you had simply admitted that as true from the beginning we could have avoided the whole semantical mess.

[Thumper]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:45 PM']It was a little bit about winning
[right][snapback]773690[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It was a little bit about winning in the same way that the ocean is a little bit wet.

For semantic clarity:

can: aux.v. Past tense could:

1a. Used to indicate physical or mental ability: I can carry both suitcases. Can you remember the war?
1b. Used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege: The President can veto congressional bills.
1c. Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill: I can tune the harpsichord as well as play it.
2a. Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen.
2b. Used to indicate that which is permitted, as by conscience or feelings: One can hardly blame you for being upset.
2.c. Used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances: They can hardly have intended to do that.

(from www.dictionary.com)

Those who were arguing against Cam were not using an incorrect definition of the word "could"; neither was Cam. He is now starting to make the differentiation clear.

Edited October 30, 2005 by Thumper

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:57 PM']there are two different theological conversations, but they do not hinge around the use of the word "could".

everyone was arguing that she had the potential to sin.  if you had simply admitted that as true from the beginning we could have avoided the whole semantical mess.
[right][snapback]773702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I stated that was the case. However, that is not what was asked. The board asked one question and argued another.....I simply held the same line all the way through.

[Aloysius]

and again, congradulations and many cudos on your victory.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:17 PM']and again, congradulations and many cudos on your victory.
[right][snapback]773713[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Aren't we all winners here?

Ok mostly Camster but still..

[Era Might]

[quote]They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.[/quote]

Again, you're reading something into this which does not exist. God knew from all eternity what Our Lady's choice would be, throughout her life. Of course he knew that the mother of Our Lord "would never be without the splendor of holiness"; he is omniscient.

This has nothing to do with a fundamental element of humanity, which is a free will throughout one's earthly life, something Mary was never deprived of. She chose her portion every day she lived.

Edited October 30, 2005 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

in a thomistic way, she necessarily chose, and as such Cam is "right" in a certain sense she couldn't have sinned. but of course also she COULD have sinned because she held the potential to sin and he was just exploiting the nuance without explaining his reason

mollinistically (lol that can't be a word), she chose what God foreknew she would choose like you say, but since it was forknown, in the light of eternity she couldn't have chosen against the way God foreknew of her.

either way there is the sense in the light of eternity that she 'couldn't' have chosen by which was can let cam win the academic debate on semantics that he caused on something we all agreed on in the first place.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 29 2005, 08:54 PM']Nope.  Totally different conversation, [b]from a theological point of view.[/b]  If we simply were speaking about English and the use of the word, "could," then perhaps, but even that is a stretch.

The theological aspect of this lends itself to two totally different conversations.  Precisely because of the characteristics of Mary.  And that is the real conversation.
[right][snapback]773701[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Very well, we'll use the Latin.

Maria posuit peccare, sed, in voluntate immaculata, numquam elegit peccare. Deus Omnipotens videt Mariam numquam eligere peccare. Ergo, Deus eliget Mariam ab aeternitate esse Matrem Christi.

Agreed?

The problem I'm still having is that you seem to be saying that it was the grace which preserved her from sin [b]apart from her cooperation with it.[/b] That cooperation itself is a choice and therefore she was able to choose against it. Grace could not make her act without her cooperation with grace...and grace could not force her to act in cooperation with it. It still ultimately comes down to her choice to accept the grace throughout her life.

[Aloysius]

no, I believe he was saying that she did of course have the potential to choose against it but ((thomistically)) she necessarily chose for it thus in the light of eternity she couldn't have chosen against it

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 10:16 PM']no, I believe he was saying that she did of course have the potential to choose against it but ((thomistically)) she necessarily chose for it thus in the light of eternity she couldn't have chosen against it
[right][snapback]773737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't believe that the final use of the word "could" is correct. Could implies some uncertainty. To say "necessarily...couldn't" is to make a certain statement and therefore leads one to conclude that "couldn't" in that sense is a reference to potestas, not to a subjunctive meaning (since "necessarily" is certain and would contradict "couldn't" in its subjunctive sense).

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 29 2005, 10:11 PM']Very well, we'll use the Latin.

Maria posuit peccare, sed, in voluntate immaculata, numquam elegit peccare.  Deus Omnipotens videt Mariam numquam eligere peccare.  Ergo, Deus eliget Mariam ab aeternitate esse Mater Christi.

Agreed?

The problem I'm still having is that you seem to be saying that it was the grace which preserved her from sin [b]apart from her cooperation with it.[/b]  That cooperation itself is a choice and therefore she was able to choose against it.  Grace could not make her act without her cooperation with grace...and grace could not force her to act in cooperation with it.  It still ultimately comes down to her choice to accept the grace throughout her life.
[right][snapback]773735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are still agreeing with me. She did choose, at the moment of her conception. Remember we are not speaking of conception in the carnal view, but rather in the theological view.

The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

She could do nothing but cooperate. Whereas we can change our view, she could not. She was capable, because she was human, but she could not, PRECISELY because it would change her character as a person.

For as Jacob of Sarug says:
[quote]....the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, [b]if any other virgin had been purer and holier,[/b] God would have selected her and rejected Mary.[/quote]

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.

Her cooperation was from the moment of conception, therefore she could do nothing other than follow what her character was. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom.

We still agree. There is nothing stated that is at odds.