Could Mary have sinned?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 02:38 PM']None of you make any sense and are only confusing me more.
[right][snapback]774135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No one said that dogmatic theology was easy to understand. I am sorry that you don't understand what is being said. However, what I am saying, tina is supporting and Al and qfnol have seen cannot be stated any clearer.

I honestly don't know how to put it any clearer. Mary could not sin, becuase if she had, she would not be capable of being the Mother of God, PRECISELY because Christ had to come from a perfect human.

Had Mary sinned, God would have chosen another. Was Mary capable of sinning, yes, because she was human. But she could not, because she perfectly participated in the salvific action of God.

Mary's action was perfected at the moment of her conception. That is why it is the Immaculate Conception. Had her action been anything other, then she would not have been Immaculate.

As I have said about a million times, Mary could not sin. The reason she could not have sinned? Because she participated perfectly in the Incarnation. She gave Christ his human nature. Had her nature not been perfect as well, Christ would not have been perfect. So, could she have sinned? No. She had a choice, and she chose the good. This freedom to choose the good is not a privation of the ability to sin, but rather the perfection of the grace which God bestowed upon her at the moment of Conception. God exlcuded Original Sin from her, so that she could act perfectly, in the redemptive mission of Christ.

Does that mean that somehow she was incapable of sinning? No, not at all, but that is a totally different question, from a philosophical and theological point of view.

My position is supported by Popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church. I have quoted them, I have also quoted Cardinal Newman.....I suppose that I could and will now quote Aquinas:

[quote name='Summa Theologica III:27:3']The Holy Ghost effected a twofold purification in the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were, preparatory to Christ's conception: which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div. Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to be purified, in whom there is no stain, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second purification effected in her by the Holy Ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her entirely from the fomes.[/quote]

[quote name='Summa Theologica III:27:4']God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): "Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive," etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc.[/quote]

[quote name='Summa Theologica III:27:5']In natural things at first there is perfection of disposition, for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the form. Secondly, there is the perfection of the form; and this is the more excellent, for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is more perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly, there is the perfection of the end: for instance when fire has its qualities in the most perfect degree, having mounted to its own place.

In like manner there was a threefold perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin. The first was a kind of disposition, by which she was made worthy to be the mother of Christ: and this was the perfection of her sanctification. The second perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin was through the presence of the Son of God Incarnate in her womb. The third perfection of the end is that which she has in glory.

That the second perfection excels the first, and the third the second, appears (1) from the point of view of deliverance from evil. For at first in her sanctification she was delivered from original sin: afterwards, in the conception of the Son of God, she was entirely cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in her glorification she was also delivered from all affliction whatever. It appears (2) from the point of view of ordering to good. For at first in her sanctification she received grace inclining her to good: in the conception of the Son of God she received consummate grace confirming her in good; and in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good.[/quote]

And finally;

[quote name='Summa Theologica III:27:5']In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (Jn. 1:17) it is written: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others.[/quote]

All of this is offered as support for my position. Micah, I will let you sift through the Aquinas, but you will see that my position is not only supported by Newman, from earlier posts, but also from Aquinas.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 02:52 PM']I never said she was.  What I meant is that Eve was able to accept all God's grace the same way, and yet, she could change her mind (and did).  It follows that Mary had the capacity to change her mind as well.

I keep asking (repeatedly) if you are trying to say that Mary couldn't sin not because she lacked the capacity, but because she simply didn't.  As I understand it, it would go like this:

God foresaw that Mary would not reject His graces.

Therefore, God predestined Mary to be the Mother of Christ.

Therefore, He made her immaculate from the point of Conception, preserving her from every stain of original sin.

Thus, she couldn't sin...not because of her immaculate nature, but rather, that her immaculate nature was granted to her because she wouldn't sin, and thus, since this immaculate nature filled her with the grace necessary to follow God perfectly (if she cooperated), she "couldn't" sin...not because she was incapable, but because God knew that it would never be the case that she would sin, that is, that the situation in which Mary would sin would never occur, and therefore, that she couldn't sin.  However, such a situation *could* occur, but it never would, and thus, would never be actualized and thus, to all-knowing God, couldn't exist.

The problem I have is that you seem to keep saying:

God made Mary the Immaculate Conception.

Therefore, that grace kept her from sinning.

She accepted that grace at the moment of conception (which I still don't get, since it would require an act of the will), and kept accepting it, but could never reject it.

This seems inconsistent with Eve's case...she accepted her nature...kept accepting it...and then rejected it.  It seems impossible and just plain wrong to say that Mary couldn't reject it later.  Granted, she didn't, but to say that she didn't have the ability must be wrong.

Meanwhile, I'm tired of having it implied that I'm a heretic...if the Church wants people to believe, and those people are more than willing to believe, it would be nice if the Church would articulate a little more what they were supposed to believe.  I can't just take a Church Scholar's word for it that its a defined teaching (and if it is, then I submit, but how can I know that it really is, especially when it seems so ridiculous and no one will explain it to me?)
[right][snapback]774147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We have been explaining it to you. However, you are making a fundamental mistake in your view.

[quote name='Raphael']The problem I have is that you seem to keep saying:

God made Mary the Immaculate Conception.

Therefore, that grace kept her from sinning.[/quote]

It isn't the grace that is preventing Mary from sinning, it is her perfect participation in that grace which was given at her conception, to which she could not sin. It is her free choice to participate in the grace at all times. Had she at some point not participated in that grace, then she would have ceased to be the Immaculate Conception. That is what I have been getting at. And that is where I have never waivered.

Look back to what all of the supportive quotes say and you'll see where I am coming from. It is easy to see that when it is read in that light.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Cam, I'm not against your position...I don't even know what your position is. It sounds like you're taking a variety of positions.

She could sin...but she couldn't...I mean...what is that?

[quote]I honestly don't know how to put it any clearer. Mary could not sin, becuase if she had, she would not be capable of being the Mother of God, PRECISELY because Christ had to come from a perfect human.[/quote]

Her choosing not to sin happened throughout her life, though...it wasn't a once-for-all decision.

I would say that Mary DIDN'T sin, because if she had, she couldn't have been the Mother of God. I would say that if she had, she wouldn't have been chosen to the the Mother of God. I would say that because God knew in His omniscience that she never would sin, He made her the Immaculate Conception, so that her agreement with His will could be perfect.

However, I would not say that God made her the Immaculate Conception and thus she was forced not to sin (which is what it sounds like you've been saying half the time; the other half of the time, you've been denying that). Her Immaculate Conception had to be freely accepted by her. I believe that it was her sinlessness, foreseen by God, which prompted Him to grant her the Immaculate Conception, and it was the Immaculate Conception's graces which perfected her sinlessness.

Now, of course, since the Immaculate Conception was granted to her because of her foreseen virtue, it is obvious that she could not have changed her mind, because then she would never have received the Immaculate Conception, but in that case, the Immaculate Conception is the result of her virtue and not the cause of it. Further, without the grace of the Immaculate Conception, no one could have the strength to resist sin that well, right?

So what we get into is a which came first argument (not temporally, but in the concept of cause and effect).

[Cam42]

I don't know how to say it any clearer. Sorry.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 30 2005, 04:45 PM']I don't know how to say it any clearer.  Sorry. 
[right][snapback]774177[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Okay...all the aspects of the argument, what caused what? I think getting this in order might help...in the sequence of events (though not necessarily along the path of linear time), what caused what?

[StColette]

*looks out from under her lampshade*

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' date='Oct 30 2005, 04:50 PM']*looks out from under her lampshade*
[right][snapback]774183[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You keep that up and the kids are gonna start requesting you as their nightlight.

[StColette]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 03:51 PM']You keep that up and the kids are gonna start requesting you as their nightlight.
[right][snapback]774184[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mt:5:15:
Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. (DRV)

Okay back to the correct topic lol

[Jaime]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 03:48 PM']Okay...all the aspects of the argument, what caused what?  I think getting this in order might help...in the sequence of events (though not necessarily along the path of linear time), what caused what?
[right][snapback]774179[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok let me take a stab at explaining Camster's train of thought.

Was Mary capable of sinning? Yes. She was human and therefore capable of sinning. If she had been born with original sin, she would have sinned.

However, God (being outside of time) knew that if Mary received the grace she received, she would choose to remain sinless her entire life. That is why he chose her.

Now snapping back into the timeline again

Could Mary have sinned? Camster takes it as a past tense question. If it were possible for her to choose to sin after being conceived without original sin, God would not have bestowed the grace upon her. We know that Mary led a sinless life. Mary would not have been chosen if she had not led a perfect life. Therefore she could not sin.

Is it determinism? No because Mary had the free will to accept the gift.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 30 2005, 06:32 PM']Ok let me take a stab at explaining Camster's train of thought. 

Was Mary capable of sinning?  Yes.  She was human and therefore capable of sinning.  If she had been born with original sin, she would have sinned.

However, God (being outside of time) knew that if Mary received the grace she received, she would choose to remain sinless her entire life.  That is why he chose her. 

Now snapping back into the timeline again

Could Mary have sinned? Camster takes it as a past tense question.  If it were possible for her to choose to sin after being conceived without original sin, God would not have bestowed the grace upon her.  We know that Mary led a sinless life. Mary would not have been chosen if she had not led a perfect life.  Therefore she could not sin.

Is it determinism? No because Mary had the free will to accept the gift.
[right][snapback]774285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True genius is not determined by who can speak of lofty things, but by who can communicate lofty things to simpletons. For this, I'll call you a genius. :

[Thy Geekdom Come]

BTW, nice supersuit.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 30 2005, 05:38 PM']BTW, nice supersuit.
[right][snapback]774291[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought a Halloween costume would be fun for the avatar.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 30 2005, 05:32 PM']Ok let me take a stab at explaining Camster's train of thought. 

Was Mary capable of sinning?  Yes.  She was human and therefore capable of sinning.  If she had been born with original sin, she would have sinned.

However, God (being outside of time) knew that if Mary received the grace she received, she would choose to remain sinless her entire life.  That is why he chose her. 

Now snapping back into the timeline again

Could Mary have sinned? Camster takes it as a past tense question.  If it were possible for her to choose to sin after being conceived without original sin, God would not have bestowed the grace upon her.  We know that Mary led a sinless life. Mary would not have been chosen if she had not led a perfect life.  Therefore she could not sin.

Is it determinism? No because Mary had the free will to accept the gift.
[right][snapback]774285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Maria]

He agrees!!!!!!!!

I think Cam needs to learn how to speak English :


The whole problem in this thread stemmed from the fact that most of us were taking the original question from an ability point of view, while Cam was taking it from a 'past tense' point of view.

[scardella]

I meant it in the ability point of view, so there! That's how Jimmy Akin sounded to me. Maybe that's the cause of the confusion.

I think I have some sort of grasp on the idea, but why are y'all assuming that God predicated her Immaculate Conception on her (foreknown) response? I would think that if that were His thinking, He'd have found a new Eve rather than His first choice... but, then again, maybe I'm answering myself, heh heh.

It still sounds like it's saying something to this effect:
I had a roast beef poboy for lunch. Therefore, I did not have the ability to choose something different for lunch.

Furthermore, it still doesn't seem to gel w/ Eve.

Furthermore, the Annunciation as a proposal still doesn't make sense in light of this.