Could Mary have sinned?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the confusion and contention lies in the ambiguous wording of the question, could mary have sinned. 

to think the question means, did mary have the choice to sin, it's clearly yes. 

to think the question means, was there a real possibility that she would sin? it's pretty clearly no. that is, she has the choice but it's still effectively not gonna happen, so it's pretty clearly no. i only say 'pretty clear' instead of 'clear' because her choice in the matter can still cause confusion even with the question worded this way. 

[little2add]

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

 

But God has free will. He is unable to sin though. Jesus is still a Divine Person, - a Divine Person with a human nature and a divine nature. He continued to be unable to sin after the Incarnation. 

 Jesus was tempted by the devil 

  He had to make a choice.    Is that not the reason he became man in the first place ? 

 He was able,  on earth 

Edited November 30, 2015 by little2add

[Peace]

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

With God of course He is free but He is unable to sin as that is against His very nature.

Hmm. It seems to me that any action by God (however moral or immoral by human standards) must be by definition "good". If I go out and kill 1000 babies on a whim I am going to Hell (probably). If God does does so it is nevertheless "good."

Is that what you mean by "unable to sin"? Or do you mean something more along the lines of "God cannot murder 1000 babies on a whim because that would be immoral"? It kind of seems to me that God may do what for us would be considered unlawful or immoral, but that would still be "good" as we define it.

Is that right? Not that I am saying that God is inclined to do such things on a whim, of course.

[MarysLittleFlower]

30 minutes ago, little2add said:

 Jesus was tempted by the devil 

  He had to make a choice.    Is that not the reason he became man in the first place ? 

 He was able,  on earth 

No He was unable to sin. I'm pretty sure about that. He was externally tempted by the devil and the enemy didn't for sure know that He's God. He was trying to figure out who He is. The reason He became Man was to redeem us, not to "make a choice", - His choice was always to follow the Divine Will.

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. It seems to me that any action by God (however moral or immoral by human standards) must be by definition "good". If I go out and kill 1000 babies on a whim I am going to Hell (probably). If God does does so it is nevertheless "good."

Is that what you mean by "unable to sin"? Or do you mean something more along the lines of "God cannot murder 1000 babies on a whim because that would be immoral"? It kind of seems to me that God may do what for us would be considered unlawful or immoral, but that would still be "good" as we define it.

Is that right? Not that I am saying that God is inclined to do such things on a whim, of course.

I don't think this question makes sense theologically.. sorry lol. I mean - everything that God does is good, but it doesn't mean that He can do "anything" in this sense. He is all powerful to do anything He wants, but there are some things He can't do - which are go against His nature, or do something inherently illogical or wrong. For example, He doesn't put the wicked souls in hell out of existence because He decided to create eternal souls, and His Will doesn't change. Annihilating them would mean going against His Will before, which makes no sense, because to God every moment is "now", and His Will doesn't change.

In addition, God can't do something that is evil, - which is not an arbitrary thing, because we have a definition of what charity is, and God would never do anything against charity, because He is Love. Do you see what I mean? God ultimately is free and isn't bound to anything, but He doesn't contradict His Nature, and since He is Love, He knows what love is and would never do something unloving. If an action is unloving, in actuality, it is also unloving to Him, because there is only truth in Him, not falsehood. What we know to be true is true because it is true to Him, and it can't be another way. It would be a contradiction of His nature, because our idea of good and evil is based on His idea of good and evil, which is based on truth and not falsehood. He would not pretend that evil is good because that would not be true, and He is Truth.

I'm taking a catechism class with my parish and the priest said that God can't do something inherently illogical or against His own nature, so it's absolutely impossible for Him to sin. If we are in Heaven, we can't sin because we are united to Him.

[little2add]

 Jesus is inherited all the frailties of man.  

 Why else would he have done this?  

 If not to show the way 

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by little2add

[MarysLittleFlower]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

 Jesus is inherited all the frailties of man.  

 Why else would he have done this?  

 If not to show the way 

 

All frailties *except* concupiscence. He didn't cease to be God so He couldn't sin. The frailties He took on are effects of our human condition  such as death and suffering... But not those that have to do with sinning like concupiscence, moral weaknesses, etc. This is what I was told in my catechism class. As God and Man, He couldn't sin, rather He could suffer and die. 

[little2add]

1 hour ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

All frailties *except* concupiscence. He didn't cease to be God so He couldn't sin. The frailties He took on are effects of our human condition  such as death and suffering... But not those that have to do with sinning like concupiscence, moral weaknesses, etc. This is what I was told in my catechism class. As God and Man, He couldn't sin, rather He could suffer and die. 

then he wasn't truly a man, by your thinking   

[MarysLittleFlower]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

then he wasn't truly a man, by your thinking   

What defines man is not sin. What I'm saying isn't just my opinion. Its what we were taught in catechism by a very orthodox priest. Jesus took on our frailties *except* concupiscence and weakness leading to sin. He had no interior inclination to sin. That certainly isn't what makes us human! That us not how God created us. He didn't make us fallen.

Yes we fell.. But Jesus can't fall because He is God. He has to keep His Divinity as well as take on our humanity. He has no concupiscence and no possibility of sin. He also had the beatific vision at every moment of His life but He also suffered continually from His conception to death. He is more sensitive to pain being perfect, not less sensitive. 

I'm lookingup my catechism notes... 

"Did Jesus take on human defects due to original sin? (Defects of a spiritual order)."

Answer: no.Death and suffering: yes. Concupiscence etc: no.

(My thoughts) - These things dont make us human because God didnt create us with them. So Jesus didnt have them, and as God, He couldnt.

Another related question: "what is freedom?" Answer: freedom is acting in God's image.

Not sin or "doing what we want", that is called license, not freedom. We are all slaves to something - to sin or to obedience. But obedience makes us free. When we sin we are not free. 

[Peace]

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I don't think this question makes sense theologically.. sorry lol.

Well. I am pontificating. I will definitely grant you that.

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I mean - everything that God does is good, but it doesn't mean that He can do "anything" in this sense. He is all powerful to do anything He wants, but there are some things He can't do - which are go against His nature, or do something inherently illogical or wrong.

I would like to leave the "illogical" aspect aside for the moment.

I think that anything that God does is inherently right (even if it would be wrong for us to do so). Could you give me an example of something that is immoral or "wrong" (by our normal human standards) that God cannot do? Let's take the book of Exodus as an example. I think that you would agree that if you or I were to become a dictator and kill all the first-born males of New York City or Chicago (innocent babies included) most people would consider us to be a morally suspect. But more or less (and yes I am glossing over a few specifics) that is what God did to the first-born of Egypt. What can you think of that would be worse than killing a whole city of innocent babies?

But there is a lot of dark stuff like that in the Bible. If a human were to do it, we would decry it as an outrage. If God does it, it is good. How do we reach that conclusion? It seems to me that we must define "good" as whatever God does or whatever is consistent with the will of God. I don't think we can impose our own sense of morality on God and suggest that he is limited by it. . .

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

For example, He doesn't put the wicked souls in hell out of existence because He decided to create eternal souls, and His Will doesn't change. Annihilating them would mean going against His Will before, which makes no sense, because to God every moment is "now", and His Will doesn't change.

I agree that God's will does not change. That is about as far as I would take it though. I would not say that God cannot do any specific action. Perhaps you can infer or guess that God would not do certain things from the Bible, but unless the Church or Scripture has specifically stated that God cannot or will not do a specific action, I would be a bit reluctant to say that He cannot . . .

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

In addition, God can't do something that is evil, - which is not an arbitrary thing, because we have a definition of what charity is, and God would never do anything against charity, because He is Love. Do you see what I mean? God ultimately is free and isn't bound to anything, but He doesn't contradict His Nature, and since He is Love, He knows what love is and would never do something unloving. If an action is unloving, in actuality, it is also unloving to Him, because there is only truth in Him, not falsehood. What we know to be true is true because it is true to Him, and it can't be another way. It would be a contradiction of His nature, because our idea of good and evil is based on His idea of good and evil, which is based on truth and not falsehood. He would not pretend that evil is good because that would not be true, and He is Truth.

I think I get what you mean. All of God's actions are charitable. But I don't think that leads to any concrete limitations on what God can or cannot do. If God kills all the first-born males of Egypt, for example, that is a charitable action (but I think that concerning some of the more difficult parts of the Bible we do not understand how certain actions charitable - we must accept them as charitable as a matter of faith given our limited understanding).

5 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I'm taking a catechism class with my parish and the priest said that God can't do something inherently illogical or against His own nature, so it's absolutely impossible for Him to sin. If we are in Heaven, we can't sin because we are united to Him.

Well. I don't think it is possible for God to sin because whatever God does is by definition good (even if that means killing babies or other things you see in the OT).

If you have a chance to run this past your priest that would be cool. Would be interested in hearing what he has to say about that question - is there any action that God cannot do?

This is just me discussing some thoughts, of course. I am not claiming answers to any of this . . .

[MarysLittleFlower]

Peace, I think the way it would be moral for God to do something that would be immoral for us, would be if He has a right to do it and we do not. Deciding who lives and who dies is one of those things. Certain things are also events He permits but doesn't directly will, and He brings good out of them through His response though He doesn't want the actual event. In certain things we also see His justice that acts when we don't accept His mercy. I think what I meant is that in these instances the conditions are such that the morality is actually different if God were to do it because He has certain rights we do not. For example I can't decide if the person in a nursing home would die today or later. If I were to kill them it would be murder. But God can decide because He gave them life and He knows the best time for then to die and permits it though caused by an illness or old age. He has their good in mind and loves them. Thats a difference. What I meant is that God would never do something that is immoral for Him to do. I am pretty sure the Church teaching is that if something is immoral for Him, He doesn't make it moral because it would be a contradiction of truth and goodness and that is part of His nature.   It would mean God contradicting His nature and He can't do. So nothing He does is ever evil. Does that make sense? I'll ask my priest if I get a chance  

Peace, everything God does is good because He is God but also remember that He is good. So He wouldn't ever do something that is not good. He is ultimately the measure of what good is, that is true, but He would never decide that something evil is good. This is because goodness is based on truth and charity.. Its true that the definition of truth and charity is up to God, but this is also something unchanging. God doesn't change. Our view of charity was placed there by Him so we can know what it is. Of course we don't know everything so we can make mistakes with this 

But there can be actions that would be wrong for us to do and not for Him, and certain things are in His permissive rather than direct Will which is different because He's not the cause. 

[Cam42]

On 11/28/2015, 9:36:03, Peace said:

On 11/28/2015, 10:06:09, Peace said:

 

 

 

[Selah]

No. The most pure Mother of God was the Ark of the New Covanent, free from all stain of Original Sin, and committed no personal sins during Her earthly life. 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Selah

[Cam42]

 

 

Whatever, I don't know why that showed up on top.  Anyhow, the question comes to this.  Was Mary full of grace?  Yes.  If Mary was full of grace, was she participating fully in God's salvific plan of salvation?  Yes.  If Mary sinned or could conceivably sin, would she still be full of grace?  No.  Is it possible for Mary to be full of grace and sin?  No.  Mary could not sin, because of the graces afforded to her at the time of her conception.  In other words, because of her Immaculate Conception, she would always do God's will.  Insofar as this is the case, she could not sin.

It is perfectly valid and perfectly sound to say, Mary could not sin.  Sin was not part of her nature, as defined by God.  She did not know sin.  Her every free choice was to do what God wanted her to do.  She was free from sin and therefore could not choose it, due to her not having it be part of her nature.

[Anomaly]

If God gave Mary sufficient grace to be incapable of sin and free will then why didn't God do the same for Adam and Eve or even do it now and avoid the possibility of billions of people going to hell with eternal torment?

I thought the ability to choose or not choose sin is essentially what free will is.  

[KnightofChrist]

Free will isn't always a choice between not sinning or sinning, it is basically yes I will do X or no I will not do X or I will do X or I will do Y. Naturally I have a flightless nature, I cannot by my free will choose to flap my arms and fly like an eagle to the sea. My inability to obtain natural flight doesn't mean I lack free will. It just means I have a flightless nature and cannot choose to fly naturally because it is not in my nature.

Mary has a sinless nature but still has free will, she cannot sin because it is not in her nature to sin like I cannot fly like a eagle because it is not in my nature to fly naturally.  

If this helps people to understand Mary's sinless nature or you now have the "Fly Like An Eagle" song stuck in your head; mission accomplished.