Could Mary have sinned?

[KnightofChrist]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

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).

Having an understanding of sin, which I'm sure she had, is not the same as not knowing sin. There is an great divide between Mary and sin as there is a divide between light and darkness. I understand Cam as saying Mary was incapable of sinning because she had no relation, no correction, no acquaintance to sin.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

Having an understanding of sin, which I'm sure she had, is not the same as not knowing sin. There is an great divide between Mary and sin as there is a divide between light and darkness. I understand Cam as saying Mary was incapable of sinning because she had no relation, no correction, no acquaintance to sin.

Thanks. So then he is simply restating his conclusion again - that Mary was incapable of sinning because she was born free from the stain of original sin and/or because she was given a special grace.

[KnightofChrist]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. So then he is simply restating his conclusion again - that Mary was incapable of sinning because she was born free from the stain of original sin and/or because she was given a special grace.

You'll have to get him to answer that one. But earlier you made an appeal to the majority, I would remind you right is right if no one is right and wrong is wrong if everyone is wrong. Whether or not most believe or not, matters not, truth is not dependent on the majority. As to whether not Cam has convinced anyone, well my mind has been changed since I first posted in this thread and it was due in some small part to this thread.

Also, how do you know that Mary's freedom had not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God?

CCC 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. 

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

You'll have to get him to answer that one. But earlier you made an appeal to the majority, I would remind you right is right if no one is right and wrong is wrong if everyone is wrong. Whether or not most believe or not, matters not, truth is not dependent on the majority. As to whether not Cam has convinced anyone, well my mind has been changed since I first posted in this thread and it was due in some small part to this thread.

Yes. Truth does not depend on the result of a vote. But I think the fact that he has not been able to convince anyone (other than you, apparently) suggests that the argument may not be as compelling as he asserts.

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Also, how do you know that Mary's freedom had not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God?

CCC 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. 

I do not know or assert that Mary's freedom has not bound itself definitively.

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, Peace said:

Yes. Truth does not depend on the result of a vote. But I think the fact that he has not been able to convince anyone (other than you, apparently) suggests that the argument may not be as compelling as he asserts.

Well people often have trouble admitting they were incorrect that could play a factor lol. But I do think you have said more than once at least parts of what he stating almost convince you or are pretty good arguments something of that nature anyway. Isn't that kind of a admission that some of his argument is at least partly or almost compelling?

Just now, Peace said:

I do not know or assert that Mary's freedom has not bound itself definitively.

But whether or not her freedom was definitively bound to ultimate good which is God matters a great deal to your position. As we see from CCC 1732 if her freedom was bound there was no possibility of her choosing evil. If it was not bound then she could choose evil or could sin. You have argued that Mary could sin therefor do you not de facto assert her freedom was not definitively bound to ultimate good?

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Well people often have trouble admitting they were incorrect that could play a factor lol. But I do think you have said more than once at least parts of what he stating almost convince you or are pretty good arguments something of that nature anyway. Isn't that kind of a admission that some of his argument is at least partly or almost compelling?

Let's back up a second here. Let's look at exactly what was written:

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.

This is more than someone stating that he has a strong argument. This is someone authoritatively stating that his assertion is true and that no other opinions have validity. He has stating that he has the definitive truth and everything else is mere opinion.

When I stated that his argument is not compelling I meant that it is not the only conclusion that a reasonable person can draw. I do not mean that it is not a strong argument. I already admitted that it was a strong argument.

10 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

But whether or not her freedom was definitively bound to ultimate good which is God matters a great deal to your position. As we see from CCC 1732 if her freedom was bound there was no possibility of her choosing evil. If it was not bound then she could choose evil or could sin. You have argued that Mary could sin therefor do you not de facto assert her freedom was not definitively bound to ultimate good?

I am not taking an affirmative position that Mary was capable of sinning. I do not know the answer to the question of whether or not she could have sinned. I have already stated earlier in this thread that if someone took an affirmative position that Mary was capable of sinning, I would probably find fault with that argument as well. We do not know the answer. It is the realm of things that we can speculate about, but I do not think we can know it unless the Church tells us dogmatically.

But if you want to take an affirmative position on the matter, as Cam42 has, then you need to prove your assertion. My position is that Cam42 has not sufficiently demonstrated what he has asserted. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

[KnightofChrist]

Will you only accept defined dogamtic teaching?

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Will you only accept defined dogamtic teaching?

I will accept a non-defined teaching. I would guess that there are plenty of things in the Catechism that are not-defined, yet I still assent to them.

As for the idea that Mary was incapable of sinning - I did a web search for it. I do not see many very many people who make that assertion. I don't think you can say that the Church teaches it (whether dogmatically or not). Most of what I found were other speculative threads like this on other web forums.

I also was unable to locate many theologians that take that position. I only see a few people taking that position, and a certain "random person on the internet" here.

And there are problems with the argument that have not been fully addressed - but I don't feel like going through all of them again.

Where that is the case you have a heavy burden of proof, to convince me at least.

[Cam42]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Thanks. So then he is simply restating his conclusion again - that Mary was incapable of sinning because she was born free from the stain of original sin and/or because she was given a special grace.

Mary was free from ALL sin because God excluded her from sin.  At the moment of her conception, she was given the salvation that we attain at our death, in a state of grace.  Let me ask you this...when we die, can we go to heaven if we are not in a state of grace?  Of course the answer is no.  Mary was in that state of grace her whole life.  She was sinless.  Her fiat at the Annunciation was an affirmation or a confirmation of what was given to her at her Immaculate Conception.  Mary didn't know what sin was because she was excluded from sin.  She couldn't do something that she didn't know.  I can't be any clearer.

My conclusion is valid, even if you don't understand or won't understand it.  Mary was excluded from all sin at the moment of her conception.  Here is the syllogism that you're so desperate for....it isn't categorical, so don't flip a twist about it.....

IF a man is excluded from all sin, THEN a man cannot sin.
IF a man can sin, THEN a man is not excluded from all sin.

IF Mary had the potential to sin, then Mary was not excluded from all sin.
Mary was not excluded from all sin, therefore Mary had  the potential to sin.

The syllogism doesn't work.  Why, because it is dogma that Mary was excluded from all sin.  The argument is fallacious not because the argument can't be made valid, but because the argument isn't sound.  There is a a fallacious premise.  Namely, one that allows that Mary, who was sinless could sin.  It is an illogical statement based upon revealed dogma.

[KnightofChrist]

@Peace,

The Church does teach Mary could not sin. The inability for Mary to sin is commonly called the Doctrine of the Impeccability of Mary. I could spam this thread with many quotes from theologians, priests, cardinals who affirm the Doctrine of the Impeccability of Mary. But here is one example, thanks to my good friend Apotheoun. Maybe later when I feel better I'll post more.

"There are two types of impeccability: metaphysical and moral. The former is predicated exclusively of God who is holiness itself, and also of Christ, due to the Hypostatic Union. The latter belongs to the angels and saints on account of the beatific vision, and likewise to Our Blessed Lady, although for reasons other than those mentioned in the case of God, Christ, the angels and saints.

According to Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), Mary impeccable because of her fullness of grace. According to St. Bonaventure (d. 1274), Mary received a special divine assistance which strengthened the potencies of her soul, and this made it impossible for her to sin. St. Thomas (d. 1274) thought that Mary was impeccable owing to the constant act of divine Providence removing all occasions of sin from her path. Finally, in the opinion of Suarez (d. 1617) and most theologians, the remote cause of Mary's impeccability was the divine Motherhood; the proximate cause was threefold: the lack of concupiscence, the fullness of grace and an act of divine Providence which not only removed all occasions of sin from her but also confirmed her in grace."

Fr. Juniper B. Carol, OFM
Fundamentals of Mariology
(New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1956)
Pages 140-141

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Cam42]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

I will accept a non-defined teaching. I would guess that there are plenty of things in the Catechism that are not-defined, yet I still assent to them.

As for the idea that Mary was incapable of sinning - I did a web search for it. I do not see many very many people who make that assertion. I don't think you can say that the Church teaches it (whether dogmatically or not). Most of what I found were other speculative threads like this on other web forums.

I also was unable to locate many theologians that take that position. I only see a few people taking that position, and a certain "random person on the internet" here.

And there are problems with the argument that have not been fully addressed - but I don't feel like going through all of them again.

Where that is the case you have a heavy burden of proof, to convince me at least.

Ahhhhhh......there's the rub.  You won't accept what I'm saying as theologically possible or even true, because I'm just "some random person on the internet."

In short, this has nothing to do with the argument, this has everything to do with me and the fact that you have a prejudice against me for some reason.  That's fine, but let's call a spade a spade.

If you have problems with the argument that "haven't been fully addressed," I can't respond to your questions about the topic until you address the problems completely.

[Peace]

Yes Cam, you hit the nail on the head. The only reason I disagree with you is because of my deep rooted prejudice against you. It has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. The same is also true for the numerous other people in this thread who disagreed with you. After all, you took 15 years of Latin, how could you possibly be wrong?

[Cam42]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Yes Cam, you hit the nail on the head. The only reason I disagree with you is because of my deep rooted prejudice against you. It has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. The same is also true for the numerous other people in this thread who disagreed with you. After all, you took 15 years of Latin, how could you possibly be wrong?

I could be wrong...but you've done nothing to prove it.  And at this point, I don't see you putting up any sort of argument to the contrary, other than to sling ad hominems.  So, my assumption is valid, so far.  All you've been is combative, not constructive in the conversation.  So, please.....

As far as my having 15 years of Latin, it's a fact.  You didn't know that about me and I thought it would add credibility in your eyes.  See, you've been here for 8 months or so....I've been off and on here for 11 years.  I don't need your affirmation.  I was trying to ease your discomfort with me being "some random guy."  I'm not.  Not here.  You might not like it, but I've made my bones on this site.  I've earned the ability to say what I say, because I have the phat-cred to do it.  Yes, some people don't like me.  Some do.  I don't usually care.  But I am being more transparent for dUSt.  EOS.  You don't like it, don't respond.

But my responses are valid and sound, despite what your personal proclivities tell you.  So, I guess I'm calling you out.  Put some theology on the table or go find somewhere else to play.  So, I haven't convinced you...okay, you're not convinced.  Not everyone will be.  Let's see what you got.  All I've been doing is spoon feeding you theology which works...and you keep spitting it out, because you don't like my language.  Tough noogies.

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

I could be wrong...but you've done nothing to prove it.  

I do not need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that you are correct. You are the one making the assertion. I do not believe that you have proven that you are correct.

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

And at this point, I don't see you putting up any sort of argument to the contrary, other than to sling ad hominems.  So, my assumption is valid, so far.  All you've been is combative, not constructive in the conversation.  So, please.....

Are you really looking at the situation objectively? A few posts back I explicitly wrote things that I thought that were good about the position that you take, that it gives credit to God.

As for my argument to the contrary, again, I am not making an affirmative assertion that Mary could have sinned. I have stated here multiple times that I do not know.

But I am not convinced that you are correct, either. Because you are the one taking an affirmative position you carry the burden of proof. That is the way debate works.

I do not need to prove that the sun is red in order to say that I am not convinced by your assertion that the sun is blue. You need to prove that the sun is blue.

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

As far as my having 15 years of Latin, it's a fact.

Congratulations on your momentous achievement.

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

 

 You didn't know that about me and I thought it would add credibility in your eyes.  

I will know who to go to when I need help with my Latin homework, or it may be useful if I need to know the specific meaning of a Latin word. Beyond that it is not of particular relevance to me. I am more interested in the arguments that you present here. I find some of them to be strong arguments but not convincing.

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

See, you've been here for 8 months or so....I've been off and on here for 11 years.  I don't need your affirmation.  I was trying to ease your discomfort with me being "some random guy."  I'm not.  Not here.  You might not like it, but I've made my bones on this site.  I've earned the ability to say what I say, because I have the phat-cred to do it.  Yes, some people don't like me.  Some do.  I don't usually care.  But I am being more transparent for dUSt.  EOS.  You don't like it, don't respond.

I will respond or not respond as I see fit. Do you have any authority to stop me from doing that?

How many years you have been here on the site is not of particular relevance to me. ReyB has been on the site that long and look at the heresies that come out of his mouth.

Nor am I particularly enamored of you phat-cred. What I am enamored of is by logic and arguments that are convincing. You have not presented any arguments that I find convincing, although I admit that you do make some arguments that are strong and make sense.

11 hours ago, Cam42 said:

But my responses are valid and sound, despite what your personal proclivities tell you.  So, I guess I'm calling you out.  Put some theology on the table or go find somewhere else to play.  So, I haven't convinced you...okay, you're not convinced.  Not everyone will be.  Let's see what you got.  All I've been doing is spoon feeding you theology which works...and you keep spitting it out, because you don't like my language.  Tough noogies.

What theology is it that you want me to put on the table exactly? I can post some material from New Advent if you like. Please choose a topic.

Again - I am not as seating that Mary cold have sinned. I do not know, as I have stated before. If you want to prove that you are correct you have to put the "evidence on the table".

Again, that is how debate works. You have not proven your position. Other people on this site have, and I have agreed with them.

Now you say that you keep spoon feeding me theology that works, but some of the things you say are nonsensical, as I and others have pointed out in this thread. Perhaps we are just all incapable of understanding the genius of what you write. Please forgive us for our lack of ability.

Peace

[Cam42]

On 12/19/2015, 12:35:31, Peace said:

I do not need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that you are correct. You are the one making the assertion. I do not believe that you have proven that you are correct.

Are you really looking at the situation objectively? A few posts back I explicitly wrote things that I thought that were good about the position that you take, that it gives credit to God.

As for my argument to the contrary, again, I am not making an affirmative assertion that Mary could have sinned. I have stated here multiple times that I do not know.

But I am not convinced that you are correct, either. Because you are the one taking an affirmative position you carry the burden of proof. That is the way debate works.

I do not need to prove that the sun is red in order to say that I am not convinced by your assertion that the sun is blue. You need to prove that the sun is blue.

Congratulations on your momentous achievement.

I will know who to go to when I need help with my Latin homework, or it may be useful if I need to know the specific meaning of a Latin word. Beyond that it is not of particular relevance to me. I am more interested in the arguments that you present here. I find some of them to be strong arguments but not convincing.

I will respond or not respond as I see fit. Do you have any authority to stop me from doing that?

How many years you have been here on the site is not of particular relevance to me. ReyB has been on the site that long and look at the heresies that come out of his mouth.

Nor am I particularly enamored of you phat-cred. What I am enamored of is by logic and arguments that are convincing. You have not presented any arguments that I find convincing, although I admit that you do make some arguments that are strong and make sense.

What theology is it that you want me to put on the table exactly? I can post some material from New Advent if you like. Please choose a topic.

Again - I am not as seating that Mary cold have sinned. I do not know, as I have stated before. If you want to prove that you are correct you have to put the "evidence on the table".

Again, that is how debate works. You have not proven your position. Other people on this site have, and I have agreed with them.

Now you say that you keep spoon feeding me theology that works, but some of the things you say are nonsensical, as I and others have pointed out in this thread. Perhaps we are just all incapable of understanding the genius of what you write. Please forgive us for our lack of ability.

Peace

Unless you give me solid reasoning as to why you don't accept it, other than, "I don't buy your argument....," I don't doubt that you won't get very far.  What EXACTLY is your problem with my argument?  Where does it fall down?  Where is it invalid and or unsound?  AND why.  That is why you need to back yourself up, theologically.

See, a debate is a two way street.  I can only provide one side of the debate, not both.  Yes, I do have to prove the veracity of my claim.  I believe I've done that.  I can't argue with you based upon the fact that you don't like my position.  WHY don't you like my position?  That will bring resolution.

So, according to you, I've not proven the position....okay, I accept that.  I've accepted that all along, which is why I continue to engage the conversation.  Oh, BTW, debate doesn't always entail a winner or a loser.  Sometimes, it's about the discussion.  So, I'm not so sure that it matters whether you believe me or not....but if you're going to continue, you need to get a sense of clarity and start responding to the debate, as opposed to being a snarky smart@$$.  I look past it....and pretty well ignore it.  I'm not interested in that part of your personality right now.