Could Mary have sinned?

[Cam42]

Okay, so I'm going to shift gears a little bit.  I'm going to change course a touch.

 In the original Greek text, when the archangel Gabriel is speaking to the young Virgin, the word used is kecharitomene, which expresses a characteristic quality of Mary (much like a name); which is, that she is “full of grace.”  In some translations of scripture, Gabriel’s words are translated as “highly favored one,” but that doesn’t capture the best and fullest meaning.  Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace,” and since the Greek has it in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was filled with grace in the past, and the effect of it continues into the present.  If we accept St. Luke’s record of the archangel’s words as being accurate, it’s apparent that the grace received by Mary didn’t come about through Gabriel’s visit; rather, she was always filled with grace.

Always.  That is the key.  There is never a time in which she wasn't.  Mary couldn't sin, because she was always full of grace.  When she was conceived, she was certainly subject to the contracting of original sin, like all of us.  But she was preserved from it – and how so?  By grace.  Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way; that is, by anticipation.  There’s a helpful analogy which has been used by the Church to illustrate this: a man falls into a deep pit, and somebody reaches down and pulls him out.  It would be true to say that the man was “saved” from the pit.  A woman is walking by that same pit, and she’s about to fall in, but at that very moment someone reaches out and pulls her back from the edge.  She also has been “saved” from the pit.  And in fact, she didn’t even get dirty like the poor man did, who actually fell in.  God, who is outside of time, applied Christ’s saving grace to Mary before she was stained by original sin, rather like the woman in the story who didn’t get dirty because she was prevented from falling into the pit.  So yes, Mary had a Savior, and He is none other than Christ, her Son and her Lord.  Because she was preserved from sin, it follows that she did not know sin.  And because she did not know sin, she could not sin.  It was completely foreign to her.  From the moment of her conception and at any point following. 

You're also looking at things in the wrong way.   You seem to act as though sin is natural, and somehow defines humanity.  If I'm wrong, then you support my (and Knights) position.   In all actuality, sin is unnatural.  We weren’t created to sin; we were created to know God, and to love Him, and to serve him, and to spend eternity with Him in heaven.  Remember your Catechism.  In Mary, because of the Immaculate Conception, we see a human being as God intends us to be.  Not in how we expect it to be.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Cam42 said:

Okay, so I'm going to shift gears a little bit.  I'm going to change course a touch.

 In the original Greek text, when the archangel Gabriel is speaking to the young Virgin, the word used is kecharitomene, which expresses a characteristic quality of Mary (much like a name); which is, that she is “full of grace.”  In some translations of scripture, Gabriel’s words are translated as “highly favored one,” but that doesn’t capture the best and fullest meaning.  Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace,” and since the Greek has it in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was filled with grace in the past, and the effect of it continues into the present.  If we accept St. Luke’s record of the archangel’s words as being accurate, it’s apparent that the grace received by Mary didn’t come about through Gabriel’s visit; rather, she was always filled with grace.

Fair enough. It means that an action/state occurred in the past and continues up until the point in time when the statement is made. But does the "perfect passive participle" (whatever this is) indicate that the action/state must continue indefinitely into the future, beyond the time at which the statement is made? I don't think I know of any language that has a verb/adjective form like that, but does Greek?

If you could give one or two simple example sentences in Greek using the "perfect passive participle" and indicating how the use of it means that the action must continue indefinitely beyond the point in time the statement was made, that would be helpful.

But I don't see how one could have such a verb/adjective form like that in a language. You would end up with a statement like "Peace went to the store, is at the store, and will always be at the store". There is really a verb form in Greek that can do that in a single word?

So that is one problem that you have with that I think, but perhaps you can explain it.

The second problem is that you still have not affirmatively proved that being "filled with grace" means that one is incapable of sinning. The quote that Knight posted above certainly seems to suggest that though. That can help you.

Lastly, let's say that a person is "full of grace" and that means that a person is incapable of sinning. Can the person choose to reject the fullness of God's grace, and then sin after rejecting the fullness of God's grace?

The main problem that I do have with accepting your theology, does have to do with the New Eve problem that others have pointed out in this thread. Was that issue resolved? It does seem that if Mary could not have made any other decision but to accept God's request that she give birth to Jesus, then she really does not participate herself in the redemption of mankind. She does not really choose to cooperate with the grace that God has given her. She has no alternative other than to cooperate. She does not really seem to be a Co-Redemptrix at all. If that is the case, then I don't even really see why God chooses Mary at all. It seems like anyone will do. God could have just formed Jesus's earthly body out of dirt like he did Adam.

Quote

Always.  That is the key.  There is never a time in which she wasn't.  Mary couldn't sin, because she was always full of grace.  

OK. But again - you need to establish that "full of grace" means "cannot sin" (as well as the other points I mentioned above).

Quote

When she was conceived, she was certainly subject to the contracting of original sin, like all of us.  But she was preserved from it – and how so?  By grace.  Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way; that is, by anticipation.  There’s a helpful analogy which has been used by the Church to illustrate this: a man falls into a deep pit, and somebody reaches down and pulls him out.  It would be true to say that the man was “saved” from the pit.  A woman is walking by that same pit, and she’s about to fall in, but at that very moment someone reaches out and pulls her back from the edge.  She also has been “saved” from the pit.  And in fact, she didn’t even get dirty like the poor man did, who actually fell in.  God, who is outside of time, applied Christ’s saving grace to Mary before she was stained by original sin, rather like the woman in the story who didn’t get dirty because she was prevented from falling into the pit.  So yes, Mary had a Savior, and He is none other than Christ, her Son and her Lord.  Because she was preserved from sin, it follows that she did not know sin.  And because she did not know sin, she could not sin.  It was completely foreign to her.  From the moment of her conception and at any point following. 

Yeah. Our priest made a similar analogy in RCIA. I think it is fairly common among Catholics. The problem is, the "pit" is "original sin". The Church has gone that far. You go farther. You say that the pit is "all sin". But I don't think you have proven that yet.

She was not "preserved from sin". The church teaches that she was preserved from "original sin". There is a difference.

Again - when you say "did not know sin" - what exactly do you mean?

Quote

You're also looking at things in the wrong way.   You seem to act as though sin is natural, and somehow defines humanity.  If I'm wrong, then you support my (and Knights) position.   In all actuality, sin is unnatural.  We weren’t created to sin; we were created to know God, and to love Him, and to serve him, and to spend eternity with Him in heaven.  Remember your Catechism.  In Mary, because of the Immaculate Conception, we see a human being as God intends us to be.  Not in how we expect it to be.

Sure. But then you are saying that Adam and Eve were imperfect creations (before the fall) are you not? Why would God create them imperfectly? I think that God created them as He intended to, but God intended that they have free will, which enabled them to sin. Just because they had that ability to sin does not mean that they were imperfect.

Now, my understanding is that in the new earth we still have our free-will, but because we share in the beatific vision we would have such infinite joy that it would be ludicrous for us to turn our backs on God and sin (this is Peace-theology though). Mary did not have the beatific vision while on Earth, but you seem to think that "full of grace" is the equivalent of it. Is that what you are saying, essentially?

Before we go further - one thing that I think it would be good for us to do is to actually define "grace". To a certain extent this is a tough conversation to have I think, because God's "grace" itself is something that is still a bit of a mystery to us. But for the purpose of this thread when you say "grace" how do you define it. What specifically is it that Mary is full of when you say "full of grace"?

Edited December 17, 2015 by Peace

[Cam42]

Pope Pius IX said of Mary's condition when he defined it INFALLIBLY:  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. [...]  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.  [...]  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.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."

------

Mary lived her life not as most human persons do, obtaining and losing actual grace.  She lived her life infused with sanctifying grace.  Inasmuch, Mary couldn't sin, because do so would to lose that gift of sanctifying grace that God gave her from the moment of conception.  As I've been saying (as have others), Mary didn't know sin, because she was excluded from sin.  She had no concept of what sin was.  She lived her life in a state of sanctifying grace.  By sanctifying grace, it is understood in a Catholic sense this way:  Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace".  [...]  

Sanctifying Grace has its formal operations, which are fundamentally nothing else than the formal cause considered in its various moments. These operations are made known by Revelation; therefore to children and to the faithful can the splendour of grace best be presented by a vivid description of its operations. These are: sanctity, beauty, friendship, and sonship of God.

1. Sanctity

The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God. This first operation is thrown into relief by the fact that the "new man", created injustice and holiness (Ephesians 4:24), was preceded by the "old man" of sin, and that grace changed the sinner into a saint (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex injusto fit justus). The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness. (See Pohle, Lehrb. der Dogm., 527 sq.)

2. Beauty

Although the beauty of the soul is not mentioned by the teaching office of the Church as one of the operations of grace, nevertheless the Roman Catechism refers to it (P. II, cap. ii, de bap., n. 50). If it be permissible to understand by the spouse in the Canticle of Canticles a symbol of the soul decked in grace, then all the passages touching the ravishing beauty of the spouse may find a fitting application to the soul. Hence it is that the Fathers express the supernatural beauty of a soul in grace by the most splendid comparisons and figures of speech, for instance: "a divine picture" (Ambrose); "a golden statue" (Chrysostom); "a streaming light" (Basil), etc. Assuming that, apart from the material beauty expressed in the fine arts, there exists a purely spiritual beauty, we can safely state that grace as the participation in the Divine nature, calls forth in the soul a physical reflection of the uncreated beauty of God, which is not to be compared with the soul's natural likeness to God. We can attain to a more intimate idea of the Divine likeness in the soul adorned with grace, if we refer the picture not merely to the absolute Divine nature, as the prototype of all beauty, but more especially to the Trinity whose glorious nature is so charmingly mirrored in the soul by the Divine adoption and the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost (cf. H. Krug, De pulchritudine divina, Freiburg, 1902).

3. Friendship
The friendship of God is consequently, one of the most excellent of the effects of grace; Aristotle denied the possibility of such a friendship by reason of the great disparity between God and man. As a matter of fact man is, inasmuch as he is God's creature, His servant, and by reason of sin (original and mortal) he is God's enemy. This relation of service and enmity is transformed by sanctifying grace into one of friendship (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex inimico amicus). According to the Scriptural concept (Wisdom 7:14; John 15:15) this friendship resembles a mystical matrimonial union between the soul and its Divine spouse (Matthew 9:15; Revelation 19:7). Friendship consists in the mutual love and esteem of two persons based upon an exchange of service or good office (Aristot., "Eth. Nicom.", VIII sq.). True friendship resting only on virtue (amicitia honesta) demands undeniably a love of benevolence, which seeks only the happiness and well-being of the friend, whereas the friendly exchange of benefits rests upon a utilitarian basis (amicitia utilis) or one of pleasure (amicitia delectabilis), which presupposes a selfish love; still the benevolent love of friendship must be mutual, because an unrequited love becomes merely one of silent admiration, which is not friendship by any means. But the strong bond of union lies undeniably in the fact of a mutual benefit, by reason of which friend regards friend as his other self (alter ego). Finally, between friends an equality of position or station is demanded, and where this does not exist an elevation of the inferior's status (amicitia excellentie), as, for example, in the case of a friendship between a king and noble subject. It is easy to perceive that all these conditions are fulfilled in the friendship between God and man effected by grace. For, just as God regards the just man with the pure love of benevolence, He likewise prepares him by the infusion of theological charity for the reception of a correspondingly pure and unselfish affection. Again, although man's knowledge of the love of God is very limited, while God's knowledge of love in man is perfect, this conjecture is sufficient--indeed in human friendships it alone is possible--to form the basis of a friendly relation. The exchange of gifts consists, on the part of God, in the bestowal of supernatural benefits, on the part of man, in the promotion of God's glory, and partly in the performance of works of fraternal charity. There is, indeed, in the first instance, a vast difference in the respective positions of God and man; but by the infusion of grace man receives a patent of nobility, and thus a friendship of excellency (amicitia excellentiae) is established between God and the just. (See Schiffini, "De gratia divina", 305 sqq., Freiburg, 1901.)

4. Sonship
In the Divine filiation of the soul the formal workings of sanctifying grace reach their culminating point; by it man is entitled to a share in the paternal inheritance, which consists in the beatific vision. This excellence of grace is not only mentioned countless times in Holy Writ (Romans 8:15 sq.; 1 John 3:1 sq., etc.), but is included in the Scriptural idea of a re-birth in God (cf. John 1:12 sq.; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 1:18, etc.). Since the re-birth in God is not effected by a substantial issuance from the substance of God, as in the case of the Son of God or Logos (Christus), but is merely an analogical or accidental coming forth from God, our sonship of God is only of an adoptive kind, as we find it expressed in Scripture (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5). This adoption was defined by St. Thomas (III:23:1): personae extraneae in filium et heredem gratuita assumptio. To the nature of this adoption there are four requisites;

1.  the original unrelatedness of the adopted person;
2.  fatherly love on the part of the adopting parent for the person adopted;
3.  the absolute gratuity of the choice to sonship and heirship;
4.  the consent of the adopted child to the act of adoption.

Applying these conditions to the adoption of man by God, we find that God's adoption exceeds man's in every point, for the sinner is not merely a stranger to God but is as one who has cast off His friendship and become an enemy. In the case of human adoption the mutual love is presumed as existing, in the case of God's adoption the love of God effects the requisite deposition in the soul to be adopted. The great and unfathomable love of God at once bestows the adoption and the consequent heirship to the kingdom of heaven, and the value of this inheritance is not diminished by the number of coheirs, as in the case of worldly inheritance.

In other words, Mary lived her life with an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  If that is the case, she couldn't sin, because to do so would be to lose the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to squander the gift that God bestowed upon her.  Her relationship with God, is the standard by which we strive to achieve.  This above all other things is why we hold Mary in such high regard.  We look to her as the model of humanity.  Again, Mary's freedom doesn't exist in the possibility that she can sin, but in the fact that she didn't.  There is no freedom in sinning.  The act of free will is to live in the Life of God and to love Him freely.  Those in heaven have free will, but they don't sin.  That is how Mary lived on Earth.  She couldn't sin, precisely because she lived in a state of sanctifying grace the entirety of her life, imbued at the moment of her conception.  Hence the term, Immaculate Conception. 

Edited December 17, 2015 by Cam42

[Cam42]

Pope St. John Paul II spoke about this when he made the following statements in 1996:

 

The special privilege by which Mary persevered in holiness throughout her earthly life invites us to contemplate her sublime growth in faith and love.

The doctrine of Mary's perfect holiness was the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 19 June. This truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was granted to her in order to fill her entire life", the Pope said. Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 24th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

1. The definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception directly concerns only the first moment of Mary's existence, from when she was "preserved free from every stain of original sin". The papal Magisterium thus wished to define only the truth which had been the subject of controversy down the centuries: her preservation from original sin, and was not concerned with defining the lasting holiness of the Lord's Virgin Mother.

This truth already belongs to the common awareness of the Christian people. It testifies that Mary, free from original sin, was also preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was granted to her in order to fill her entire life.

No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary

2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or moral imperfection. The Council of Trent expresses this conviction, affirming that no one "can avoid all sins, even venial sins, throughout his life, unless he is given a special privilege, as the Church holds with regard to the Blessed Virgin" (DS 1573). Even the Christian transformed and renewed by grace is not spared the possibility of sinning. Grace does not preserve him from all sin throughout his whole fife, unless, as the Council of Trent asserts, a special privilege guarantees this immunity from sin. And this is what happened with Mary.

The Council of Trent did not wish to define this privilege but stated that the Church vigorously affirms it: "Tenet", that is, she firmly holds it. This is a decision which, far from relegating this truth to pious belief or devotional opinion, confirms its nature as a solid doctrine, quite present in the faith of the People of God. Moreover, this conviction is based on the grace attributed to Mary by the angel at the time of the Annuncation. Calling her "full of grace", kecharitoméne, the angel acknowledged her as the woman endowed with a lasting perfection and a fullness of sanctity, without shadow of sin or of moral or spiritual imperfection.

3. Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.

Jesus's reply to his mother at the age of 12: "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.

Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the "why" of his behaviour: "Son, why have you treated us so?" (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another "why", refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship.

Nor can the words he spoke at Cana: "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (Jn 2: 4), be interpreted as a rebuke. Seeing the likely inconvenience which the lack of wine would have caused the bride and groom, Mary speaks to Jesus with simplicity, entrusting the problem to him. Though aware of being the Messiah bound to obey the Father's will alone, he answers the Mother's implicit request. He responds above all to the Virgin's faith and thus performs the first of his miracles, thereby manifesting his glory.

4. Later some gave a negative interpretation to the statement Jesus made when, at the beginning of his public life, Mary and his relatives asked to see him. Relating to us Jesus' reply to the one who said to him: "Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, desiring to see you", the Evangelist Luke offers us the interpretive key to the account, which must be understood on the basis of Mary's inner inclinations, which were quite different from those of his "brethren" (cf. Jn 7:5). Jesus replied: "My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Lk 8:21). In the Annunciation account, Luke in fact showed how Mary was the model of listening to the word of God and of generous docility. Interpreted in this perspective, the episode offers great praise of Mary, who perfectly fulfilled the divine plan in her own life. Although Jesus' words are opposed to the brethren's attempt, they exalt Mary's fidelity to the will of God and the greatness of her motherhood, which she lived not only physically but also spiritually.

In expressing this indirect praise, Jesus uses a particular method: he stresses the nobility of Mary's conduct in the light of more general statements, and shows more clearly the Virgin's solidarity with and closeness to humanity on the difficult way of holiness.

Lastly, the words: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Lk 11:28), spoken by Jesus in reply to the woman who had called his Mother blessed, far from putting into doubt Mary's personal perfection, bring out her faithful fulfilment of the word of God: so has the Church understood them, putting this sentence into the liturgical celebrations in Mary's honour. The Gospel text actually suggests that he made this statement to reveal that the highest reason for his Mother's blessedness lies precisely in her intimate union with God and her perfect submission to the divine word.

Mary belonged completely to the Lord

5. The special privilege granted by God to her who is "all holy" leads us to admire the marvels accomplished by grace in her life. It also reminds us that Mary belonged always and completely to the Lord, and that no imperfection harmed her perfect harmony with God.

Her earthly life was therefore marked by a constant, sublime growth in faith, hope and charity. For believers, Mary is thus the radiant sign of divine Mercy and the sure guide to the loftiest heights of holiness and Gospel perfection.

-------

This speaks to several themes which are in question.  First, the nature of Mary's relationship to God and to mankind.  Secondly, the question regarding the Greek is now laid to rest.  Pope St. John Paul II, has affirmed the position taken by KofC and myself regarding the understanding of kecharitoméne.  Finally, we see that the Saint speaks of Mary being free from ALL sin, which again is something which is understood not only to be original sin, but personal sin, as well.  

[HopefulHeart]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Fair enough. It means that an action/state occurred in the past and continues up until the point in time when the statement is made. But does the "perfect passive participle" (whatever this is) indicate that the action/state must continue indefinitely into the future, beyond the time at which the statement is made? I don't think I know of any language that has a verb/adjective form like that, but does Greek?

If you could give one or two simple example sentences in Greek using the "perfect passive participle" and indicating how the use of it means that the action must continue indefinitely beyond the point in time the statement was made, that would be helpful.

But I don't see how one could have such a verb/adjective form like that in a language. You would end up with a statement like "Peace went to the store, is at the store, and will always be at the store". There is really a verb form in Greek that can do that in a single word?

So that is one problem that you have with that I think, but perhaps you can explain it.

Because the verb is in the perfect tense, it has what is called "perfect aspect," which means that it describes "completed action with a continuing or permanent result." (I'm quoting my Greek textbook.) The use of the perfect passive participle ending demonstrates that the gracing of Mary was completed and continues into the present.

[Peace]

Cam - thanks for the reply.

I found the entire speech:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm24.htm

In the document Pope John Paul II appears to discuss 2 distinct privileges:

1. The definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception directly concerns only the first moment of Mary's existence, from when she was "preserved free from every stain of original sin". The papal Magisterium thus wished to define only the truth which had been the subject of controversy down the centuries: her preservation from original sin, and was not concerned with defining the lasting holiness of the Lord's Virgin Mother.

This truth already belongs to the common awareness of the Christian people. It testifies that Mary, free from original sin, was also preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was granted to her in order to fill her entire life.

So the two privileges are 1) being preserved from the stain of original sin and 2) being preserved from all actual sin for the rest of her life.

He says that (1) has been defined by the Magisterium but that it has not spoken concerning (2).

Then he goes on to discuss (2):

He says that Canon 23 from the 6th Session of Trent means that: "Even the Christian transformed and renewed by grace is not spared the possibility of sinning. Grace does not preserve him from all sin throughout his whole life, unless, as the Council of Trent asserts, a special privilege guarantees this immunity from sin. And this is what happened with Mary."

But I don't think that Canon 23 really goes that far:

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

The canon says that noone can avoid all sin unless granted a special privilege. The special privilege makes it possible for the person who receives it to live a sin-free life. But the canon does not say that the person is incapable of rejecting or refusing to cooperate with that special privilege. We say that Mary makes a choice to co-operate with the graces given to her when she answers yes to the angel that came to her.

But the speech is strong support for your argument. I certainly cannot deny that. It is pretty convincing evidence. If the Pope's statement above were dogmatic then I don't think there would be any room to disagree with you. But what we appear to have is a speech given to a group of people on one particular occasion. The Pope could have been speaking rather loosely when he said that. The language is not as precise as one would expect in a written document, or a dogmatic statement.  The whole speech looks like it is about 3 minutes long.

At least to me, it is unclear if the Pope, when making the above statement, assumes Mary's cooperation with the special privilege she had. He does not really speak to whether Mary's cooperation with that grace (or special privilege) is necessary for her to remain sin-free for the rest of her life. Generally speaking, I think that is how the Church teaches concerning grace - that it is something to be actively cooperated with, or that it is something to be rejected. If the Pope is saying that Mary was granted a special grace that made it possible for her to live a sin free life, and that because she cooperated with that special grace, then it would have been impossible for her to sin, then I would have no problem agreeing with it (I have actually stated this previously in this thread).

So I think the question the is this - why would it be impossible for Mary to choose not to cooperate with the graces that God had given her if we assume that Mary has a free will? Whatever the bounds of the special grace are that was given to Mary - is there anything that says that Mary had no choice but to cooperate with that special grace?

One aspect of your argument that I like (and I do not know if you have discussed it previously in this thread) - is that essentially it takes away any glory that Mary might have and gives all the glory to God. If what you say is true - Mary gets no credit for any good thing that she did. It is simply the Holy Spirit working fully within her. That is a good argument I think - but it does seem to go against our perception of her as the New Eve and Co-Redeemer.

1 hour ago, HopefulHeart said:

Because the verb is in the perfect tense, it has what is called "perfect aspect," which means that it describes "completed action with a continuing or permanent result." (I'm quoting my Greek textbook.) The use of the perfect passive participle ending demonstrates that the gracing of Mary was completed and continues into the present.

Unless the book means a completed action that continues or is permanent up until the point in time the statement was made.

How would you write "Peace went to the store, is currently at the store, and will be at the store forever" using only 1 single verb? Could you please write that in Greek for me, using the perfect passive participle?

Peace

[Peace]

Cam42:

Regarding the speech - what do you do with this part:

Lastly, the words: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Lk 11:28), spoken by Jesus in reply to the woman who had called his Mother blessed, far from putting into doubt Mary's personal perfection, bring out her faithful fulfilment of the word of God: so has the Church understood them, putting this sentence into the liturgical celebrations in Mary's honour. The Gospel text actually suggests that he made this statement to reveal that the highest reason for his Mother's blessedness lies precisely in her intimate union with God and her perfect submission to the divine word.

The Pope talks about her "perfect submission to the divine word". Does it not imply that Mary has made a choice to co-operate with the grace that God gives her? It also talks about Mary's "faithful fulfillment of the word of God". How exactly does Mary exhibit faithfulness if she does not have a choice?

Mary belonged completely to the Lord

5. The special privilege granted by God to her who is "all holy" leads us to admire the marvels accomplished by grace in her life. It also reminds us that Mary belonged always and completely to the Lord, and that no imperfection harmed her perfect harmony with God.

Her earthly life was therefore marked by a constant, sublime growth in faith, hope and charity. For believers, Mary is thus the radiant sign of divine Mercy and the sure guide to the loftiest heights of holiness and Gospel perfection.

How is it that Mary grows in faith, hope, and charity? The answer would seem to be, by choosing to co-operate with the grace that God has given her. Is there another way that Mary grows in faith, hope and charity? What would your answer to that be?

Peace

[Peace]

Cam42:

I was thinking. Just so everyone can understand your entire argument - can you state it succinctly in the form of a logical proof?

Something along these lines:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

[Cam42]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

[snip]

Then he goes on to discuss (2):

He says that Canon 23 from the 6th Session of Trent means that: "Even the Christian transformed and renewed by grace is not spared the possibility of sinning. Grace does not preserve him from all sin throughout his whole life, unless, as the Council of Trent asserts, a special privilege guarantees this immunity from sin. And this is what happened with Mary."

But I don't think that Canon 23 really goes that far:

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

The canon says that noone can avoid all sin unless granted a special privilege. The special privilege makes it possible for the person who receives it to live a sin-free life. But the canon does not say that the person is incapable of rejecting or refusing to cooperate with that special privilege. We say that Mary makes a choice to co-operate with the graces given to her when she answers yes to the angel that came to her.

[snip]

So I think the question the is this - why would it be impossible for Mary to choose not to cooperate with the graces that God had given her if we assume that Mary has a free will? Whatever the bounds of the special grace are that was given to Mary - is there anything that says that Mary had no choice but to cooperate with that special grace?

[snip]

Unless granted a special privilege.  And that was granted to Mary.  Both Pope St. John Paul II and the Council of Trent say the very same thing.  I don't see where you don't get that.  Sure, the Saint uses more modern language, but the reality is the same.  No man can avoid sin unless he is granted a special privilege.  That was given to Mary.  Clearly stated by both.  We confirm what was already true at Mary's fiat.  It doesn't begin there.  It begins at her Immaculate Conception.  And that confirmation comes by the name that Gabriel gives her.

Because to sin is to NOT have free will.  I've said this over and over.  The Church doesn't define free will as the ability of one to choose sin.  That is how you are defining it.  That is wrong.  The Church defines free will as the free choice to follow God in all that He does.  It is not a freeing act to sin, it is a binding one.  Change your stance.

There is no limit (boundary) to sanctifying grace.  It is eternal and it is freely given with no expectation of remediation or completion.  Mary didn't need to choose to live a grace filled life, she just lived it.  Why?  Because she was excluded from all sin; original or otherwise.  Her cooperation was the perfect example of free will. 

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

[snip]

Lastly, the words: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Lk 11:28), spoken by Jesus in reply to the woman who had called his Mother blessed, far from putting into doubt Mary's personal perfection, bring out her faithful fulfilment of the word of God: so has the Church understood them, putting this sentence into the liturgical celebrations in Mary's honour. The Gospel text actually suggests that he made this statement to reveal that the highest reason for his Mother's blessedness lies precisely in her intimate union with God and her perfect submission to the divine word.

The Pope talks about her "perfect submission to the divine word". Does it not imply that Mary has made a choice to co-operate with the grace that God gives her? It also talks about Mary's "faithful fulfillment of the word of God". How exactly does Mary exhibit faithfulness if she does not have a choice?

Mary belonged completely to the Lord

5. The special privilege granted by God to her who is "all holy" leads us to admire the marvels accomplished by grace in her life. It also reminds us that Mary belonged always and completely to the Lord, and that no imperfection harmed her perfect harmony with God.

Her earthly life was therefore marked by a constant, sublime growth in faith, hope and charity. For believers, Mary is thus the radiant sign of divine Mercy and the sure guide to the loftiest heights of holiness and Gospel perfection.

How is it that Mary grows in faith, hope, and charity? The answer would seem to be, by choosing to co-operate with the grace that God has given her. Is there another way that Mary grows in faith, hope and charity? What would your answer to that be?

Peace

Of course Mary had a choice, but it was one that was assented to at the moment of her conception.  From that moment onward, every action she made was in complete harmony with God.  That is what Jesus was getting at in the passage Pope St. John Paul II  cites.

Mary continues to grow, because she is still a fully human person who shares in the redemptive action of Christ Jesus.  She spent her earthly life constantly growing toward a greater love of the Lord.  She still had to undergo the human aspects of life, but she did it in a sinless way.  Just because she lived a life that was complete via sanctifying grace doesn't mean that she had perfect knowledge.  She still had to grow, just like all humans, closer to God in a temporal and intellectual sense.  She didn't have a Divine Will like her Son.  She only had a human will, albeit one which was free from sin.

 

45 minutes ago, Peace said:

Cam42:

I was thinking. Just so everyone can understand your entire argument - can you state it succinctly in the form of a logical proof?

Something along these lines:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

This isn't a philosophical syllogism.  So, there isn't a clear way to offer a logical proof in the way that you're expecting.  We're not speaking philosophy, we're speaking theology.  Two entirely different schools of study.  Is there a logical aspect to this, sure.  Not all arguments are arranged in a syllogism though. 

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

No man can avoid sin unless he is granted a special privilege.  That was given to Mary.  Clearly stated by both.  We confirm what was already true at Mary's fiat.  It doesn't begin there.  It begins at her Immaculate Conception.  And that confirmation comes by the name that Gabriel gives her.

Sure. But having the special privilege does not mean that she is incapable of sinning. The special privilege only makes it possible for her to live a life free from sin. Her acceptance and cooperation with that grace is still required.

Think of it as a house. Bricks (the special privilege) are necessary to build the house (avoiding sin). But just because one has been given bricks does not mean that one has no other choice but to build the house. One can take the bricks and toss them aside. Mary took the bricks and built the house. But that does not mean she could not have tossed the bricks aside.

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Because to sin is to NOT have free will.  I've said this over and over.  The Church doesn't define free will as the ability of one to choose sin.  That is how you are defining it.  That is wrong.  The Church defines free will as the free choice to follow God in all that He does.  It is not a freeing act to sin, it is a binding one.  Change your stance.

I respectfully disagree. My definition is closer to definition in the Catechism than yours. Please refer back to my prior post in this thread on that topic. You did not respond to it.

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

There is no limit (boundary) to sanctifying grace.  It is eternal and it is freely given with no expectation of remediation or completion.  Mary didn't need to choose to live a grace filled life, she just lived it.  Why?  Because she was excluded from all sin; original or otherwise.  Her cooperation was the perfect example of free will. 

 OK. So she chose to cooperate with the grace given to her by God. What prevents Mary from choosing not to cooperate with that grace? Is there a third privilege that we do not know about? The privilege of being incapable of choosing not to cooperate with grace.

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Of course Mary had a choice, but it was one that was assented to at the moment of her conception.  From that moment onward, every action she made was in complete harmony with God.  That is what Jesus was getting at in the passage Pope St. John Paul II  cites.

Where is your evidence that Mary's choice to cooperate with God's grace was assented to at the moment of her conception? And where is your evidence that this choice is locked in for all time?

If I choose to cooperate with the grace that God has given me today, what prevents me from refusing to cooperate with it tomorrow?

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Mary continues to grow, because she is still a fully human person who shares in the redemptive action of Christ Jesus.  She spent her earthly life constantly growing toward a greater love of the Lord.  She still had to undergo the human aspects of life, but she did it in a sinless way.  Just because she lived a life that was complete via sanctifying grace doesn't mean that she had perfect knowledge.  She still had to grow, just like all humans, closer to God in a temporal and intellectual sense.  She didn't have a Divine Will like her Son.  She only had a human will, albeit one which was free from sin.

I do not think that one needs to gain additional knowledge in order to grow in faith, hope, and charity.

So, you are saying that at Mary's conception she did not have a perfect love of the Lord - you stated that this is something she constantly grew in as she gained knowledge. But despite that perfect love of God, she makes a life-long, eternally unchangeable, decision to cooperate with His graces? Does that make sense? At least in my world, human beings cooperate more and more with the graces that God gives us as our love for Him grows.

24 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

This isn't a philosophical syllogism.  So, there isn't a clear way to offer a logical proof in the way that you're expecting.  We're not speaking philosophy, we're speaking theology.  Two entirely different schools of study.  Is there a logical aspect to this, sure.  Not all arguments are arranged in a syllogism though. 

OK. Fair enough. I did not think that you could prove it logically, but I was hoping that you could at least try, so that I could understand the basic logic behind your argument. The various  things we have been discussing are all over the place, so I was hoping we could condense it into a concrete set of points. But no worries if you don't feel like doing that. It would take a long time I think.

[KnightofChrist]

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

I respectfully disagree. My definition is closer to definition in the Catechism than yours. Please refer back to my prior post in this thread on that topic. You did not respond to it.

I'm pretty sure I have the flu. But I'm still reading while I've nothing else to do in between coughing up a lung lol.

Respectfully you are in error. Free will doesn't depend upon choosing between good and evil. Sin is not freedom, it is slavery. Christ as the council of Chalcedon declared is "like us in all things but sin." Christ like us has free will but cannot sin. The devil's temptation of Christ was only external.

[Cam42]

43 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure. But having the special privilege does not mean that she is incapable of sinning. The special privilege only makes it possible for her to live a life free from sin. Her acceptance and cooperation with that grace is still required.

[snip]

I respectfully disagree. My definition is closer to definition in the Catechism than yours. Please refer back to my prior post in this thread on that topic. You did not respond to it.

 OK. So she chose to cooperate with the grace given to her by God. What prevents Mary from choosing not to cooperate with that grace? Is there a third privilege that we do not know about? The privilege of being incapable of choosing not to cooperate with grace.

Where is your evidence that Mary's choice to cooperate with God's grace was assented to at the moment of her conception? And where is your evidence that this choice is locked in for all time?

If I choose to cooperate with the grace that God has given me today, what prevents me from refusing to cooperate with it tomorrow?

I do not think that one needs to gain additional knowledge in order to grow in faith, hope, and charity.

So, you are saying that at Mary's conception she did not have a perfect love of the Lord - you stated that this is something she constantly grew in as she gained knowledge. But despite that perfect love of God, she makes a life-long, eternally unchangeable, decision to cooperate with His graces? Does that make sense? At least in my world, human beings cooperate more and more with the graces that God gives us as our love for Him grows.

OK. Fair enough. I did not think that you could prove it logically, but I was hoping that you could at least try, so that I could understand the basic logic behind your argument. The various  things we have been discussing are all over the place, so I was hoping we could condense it into a concrete set of points. But no worries if you don't feel like doing that. It would take a long time I think.

Actually, it does.  Mary was incapable of sinning, because she didn't know what sin was.  She was excluded from sin.  EXCLUDED.  As in had no knowledge of it.  It wasn't even foreign, it was non-existent.  Pope Pius IX said as much and Pope St. John Paul II affirmed it.  Her acceptance of the sanctifying grace was given to her at the moment of her conception.  That is the miracle.  That is the reason that the Immaculate Conception is dogma.  That is the reason that Mary was sinless and could not sin; from the moment of her conception, she had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Your defintion is not.  I assert that free will is a positively defined action.  Here is what the Catechism says:

By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil." Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person. (CCC #1706)

"Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history." He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:

Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness. (CCC #1707)

Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good" (GS 15 § 2). (CCC #1711)

That is EXACTLY what I've said.

The fact that Mary doesn't know sin and that she lived her live in a perfect state of grace means that she chose from the moment of her conception to not sin.  You and I on the other hand were not given that choice.  We were born with original sin and even though we are cleansed of the sin at baptism, the remnant remains.  Mary never had that remnant.  It simple never existed for her.  

The evidence has been presented several times over.  I've quoted Ineffabilis Deus, several times.  I've quoted Sacred Scripture.  I've quoted the Saints.  My argument is compelling and it is correct.  You might not like it, but it remains true, regardless of your opinion.

Then you think wrong about growth in virtue.  We all must continually grow in faith, hope, and charity.  And knowledge is how we do that.  We are rational beings.  That is precisely how we grow, when something is incorporeal.

I did not say that her love was imperfect.  I said her love was incomplete.  Different word.  Different meaning.

Because it cannot be proven by a categorical syllogism doesn't mean that I'm dodging the question.  The discussion is serving as a proof.
 

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Actually, it does.  Mary was incapable of sinning, because she didn't know what sin was.  She was excluded from sin.  EXCLUDED.  As in had no knowledge of it.  It wasn't even foreign, it was non-existent.  Pope Pius IX said as much and Pope St. John Paul II affirmed it.  Her acceptance of the sanctifying grace was given to her at the moment of her conception.  That is the miracle.  That is the reason that the Immaculate Conception is dogma.  That is the reason that Mary was sinless and could not sin; from the moment of her conception, she had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Again - when you keep saying "Mary did not know what sin was" I have no idea what you are talking about. I have asked you several times to explain what you mean when you say that. I am guessing that in the course of her life she witnessed a person sin at least once. She did not know that it was wrong? She has no knowledge of right and wrong? Is that what you are saying?

How is acceptance of grace given to someone? Acceptance is generally understood as an act that one does.  You can stretch out your arm to give me a 5 dollar bill. I have to extend my arm in order to accept it. So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that. It does not make sense to me.

Your Mary is an automaton is she not? I really don't see how you avoid that conclusion. But that is fine. Let's just agree to disagree.

29 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Your defintion is not.  I assert that free will is a positively defined action.  Here is what the Catechism says:

By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil." Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person. (CCC #1706)

"Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history." He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error:

Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness. (CCC #1707)

Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good" (GS 15 § 2). (CCC #1711)

That is EXACTLY what I've said.

Please see my prior post. Page 29 of this thread. You cite a lot of things but you do not cite a definition of free will. I posted a definition.

29 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

The fact that Mary doesn't know sin and that she lived her live in a perfect state of grace means that she chose from the moment of her conception to not sin.  You and I on the other hand were not given that choice.  We were born with original sin and even though we are cleansed of the sin at baptism, the remnant remains.  Mary never had that remnant.  It simple never existed for her.  

The evidence has been presented several times over.  I've quoted Ineffabilis Deus, several times.  I've quoted Sacred Scripture.  I've quoted the Saints.  My argument is compelling and it is correct.  You might not like it, but it remains true, regardless of your opinion.

No. Your argument is not compelling. It if it was compelling you would have been able to convince everyone (or at least a bare majority) of the truth of your assertion within the 33 pages of this thread. Are we all just too irrational or intellectually incapable of understanding these matters with the same clarity as the great Cam42 who has studied Latin for 15 years? Please.

 Your assertion may or may not be correct. And if your argument is false, it remains false regardless of your opinion. Notwithstanding, I do admit that your argument has merit.

But for now let's just agree to disagree. If you are going to start barking again I am not interested. You have presented everything that you can and I think we are starting to repeat ourselves - and the very same arguments that you presented to many other members of this forum without convincing them.

29 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Then you think wrong about growth in virtue.  We all must continually grow in faith, hope, and charity.  And knowledge is how we do that.  We are rational beings.  That is precisely how we grow, when something is incorporeal.

That might be how you grow, I will grant you that much.

Peace

[KnightofChrist]

Peace, Mary does not know sin in the same or similar manner that she "knows not a man."

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Peace, Mary does not know sin in the same or similar manner that she "knows not a man."

Fair enough. But if that is what was meant by it, then Cam's statement does not make whole lot of sense to me.

Cam42 wrote "Mary was incapable of sinning, because she didn't know what sin was."

If that is what he means by "does not know what sin was" then then Cam's statement, restated another way, seems to be "Mary was incapable of sinning because she never sinned." It does not make sense (at least to me).