Could Mary have sinned?

[Aloysius]

well here you're just griping with the doctrine of predestination... something that by Cam's godforesaken misinterpretation of the initial question has been introduced into this thread.

I have this crazy grasp on this issue in a way I have never quite been able to form into coherent sentences (well, unless you count the sentences that confuse everyone and would confuse me if I read them myself)... but it's a crazy difficult question to answer.

Cam has introduced to Mary's predestination a quite interesting way of looking at it that makes sense to some extent, the graced nature of her very being predestines her to the right choice.

predestination is a tough one, just remember to stay away from thinking God positively predestines anyone to choose wrongly and that He foreknows the outcome so that perhaps we necessarily choose what we are going to choose even though it is our choice outside of God's control but since He makes it necessary for us to choose by our very nature God is in control by providence but is still allowing that force that He created apart from ourselves to be controlled by ourselves in such a way that when we necessarily choose it is of our power but moreso God's foreknown power... err...

okay, don't remember that I'll just confuse you. gosh, how can something make sense so much in my head but not when I try to explain it? lol. it's like that time I stayed up late with a friend and we had a vision of the fourth dimension (which we decided to call the third dimension)... it's too hard to explain lol

anyhoo, again, we all say Mary as a human being had the potential to sin and reject the fiat. the immense mystery of predestination is a whole other issue entirely.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 31 2005, 12:36 AM']well here you're just griping with the doctrine of predestination... something that by Cam's godforesaken misinterpretation of the initial question has been introduced into this thread.

I have this crazy grasp on this issue in a way I have never quite been able to form into coherent sentences (well, unless you count the sentences that confuse everyone and would confuse me if I read them myself)... but it's a crazy difficult question to answer.

Cam has introduced to Mary's predestination a quite interesting way of looking at it that makes sense to some extent, the graced nature of her very being predestines her to the right choice.

predestination is a tough one, just remember to stay away from thinking God positively predestines anyone to choose wrongly and that He foreknows the outcome so that perhaps we necessarily choose what we are going to choose even though it is our choice outside of God's control but since He makes it necessary for us to choose by our very nature God is in control by providence but is still allowing that force that He created apart from ourselves to be controlled by ourselves in such a way that when we necessarily choose it is of our power but moreso God's foreknown power... err...

okay, don't remember that I'll just confuse you.  gosh, how can something make sense so much in my head but not when I try to explain it?  lol.  it's like that time I stayed up late with a friend and we had a vision of the fourth dimension (which we decided to call the third dimension)... it's too hard to explain lol

anyhoo, again, we all say Mary as a human being had the potential to sin and reject the fiat.  the immense mystery of predestination is a whole other issue entirely.
[right][snapback]774596[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


First off Al, the view is not "godforsaken." Unless, you think that all the Popes, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church I quoted as support, are also godforsaken.

Secondly, it is not predestination. That is at theory that you have PROJECTED!!!!! I have held the view that there was a free choice all along. I have held the view that Mary, at all times and at all points, enacted her free will. There is no predestination.

Thirdly, yes, you will confuse people. Why? Because your view is wrong. So, watch how you say what you say.

Finally, I answered the question as asked. The problem is that one question was asked, (to which I began a defense) and then the rest of the board started defending a different point of view from a theological standpoint.

And I disagree that she had the potential to sin. She was capable (because of her humanity), but from a Thomistic point of view, she did not have the POTENTIAL, because Original Sin was EXCLUDED!!!!!

I think that it would be best if you studied Aquinas a bit more and understood the way that he uses the language. Then perhaps you would not trip over you own tongue.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Maria' date='Oct 30 2005, 10:01 PM']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.
[right][snapback]774441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps I do need to learn to speak English, but welcome to theolgoical discussion. It isn't the easiest to understand.

Try reading Aquinas or Newman....you'll see what I mean. That is what I do for fun, when I am not on the golf course (then again, the rules of golf are almost as hard to understand). :

[qfnol31]

[quote]And I disagree that she had the potential to sin. She was capable (because of her humanity), but from a Thomistic point of view, she did not have the POTENTIAL, because Original Sin was EXCLUDED!!!!![/quote]

Neither did Adam nor Eve have original sin...

[Aloysius]

sigh... I was referring to your interpretation of the initial question that mostly everyone has concluded could be interpretted either way when I said "godforesaken". and it is clear from the subsequent postings of the original poster that the original question was not intended in the way you took it. I really didn't mean "godforesaken" to be taken so strongly, sorry if it was. but it referred to nothing but the interpretation of the question that led to this whole discussion, I thought we already had hammered that out-- "could" does not necessarily mean what you said it meant and the question that everyone on the thread was answering was not only a correct interpretation of the original question, it was also the WAY THE QUESTION WAS INTENDED and only your re-interpretation based on how you personally defined "could" caused the whole confusion, the godforeskaken confusion.

I know your view is not godforesaken, in fact once we finally figured out what nuance you were exploiting to academically debate I supported your view

and okay, she had the capability to sin... generally when we speak english and we say 'potential' that's what we meant. but now that I think about it, I suppose "potential" shouldn't have been used. I apologize.

predestination is a doctrine of the faith that doesn't contradict free will. how you explained the way you say Mary couldn't have sinned is only in the light of eternity, and when events are viewed in the light of eternity to have HAD TO occurred then that is predestination. the way you've been explaining it is a very good explanation of predestination in the light of free will, but it is thomistic predestination nonetheless.

during her life she held the capacity for sin as a human being, in the light of eternity she couldn't have sinned. if you don't invoke the doctrine of predestination on that one, then please explain to me why.

[scardella]

The way it makes most sense to me is that God, being the supreme all-knowing being that He is, set circumstances up so that Mary, being gifted w/ the Immaculate Conception, would continuously choose God, without any invasion of her free will.

All this predestination talk sounds too... Calvinistic.

BTW, didn't some saint or blessed write about visions she was shown about Mary's life?

[scardella]

Also, thinking in terms of God's viewpoint makes me dizzy.

Edited October 31, 2005 by scardella

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='scardella' date='Oct 31 2005, 03:57 PM']The way it makes most sense to me is that God, being the supreme all-knowing being that He is, set circumstances up so that Mary, being gifted w/ the Immaculate Conception, would continuously choose God, without any invasion of her free will. 

All this predestination talk sounds too... Calvinistic. 

BTW, didn't some saint or blessed write about visions she was shown about Mary's life?
[right][snapback]775047[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Several, I think.

Venerable Mary of Agreda wrote an "autobiography" of Mary. :

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 31 2005, 09:25 AM']Perhaps I do need to learn to speak English, but welcome to theolgoical discussion.  It isn't the easiest to understand.

Try reading Aquinas or Newman....you'll see what I mean.  That is what I do for fun, when I am not on the golf course (then again, the rules of golf are almost as hard to understand).  :
[right][snapback]774713[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't find Aquinas or Newman particularly difficult. I read through the whole thing, and completely understand Micah's confusion. Simply asking "Could Mary have sinned" is on the verge of being too simple of a question, it takes clarification, that was subsequently presented. But to get really simple:

- Mary lived on earth in a state free from original sin.
- This is LIKE Eve who was created in a state without original sin.
- Mary had free will. In this capacity she had the option, as did the Christ to chose sin.
- By virtue of both her Immaculate Conception and the foreknowledge of God, we know she did not sin.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:15 PM']I don't find Aquinas or Newman particularly difficult. I read through the whole thing, and completely understand Micah's confusion. Simply asking "Could Mary have sinned" is on the verge of being too simple of a question, it takes clarification, that was subsequently presented. But to get really simple:

- Mary lived on earth in a state free from original sin.
- This is LIKE Eve who was created in a state without original sin.
- Mary had free will. In this capacity she had the option, as did the Christ to chose sin.
- By virtue of both her Immaculate Conception and the foreknowledge of God, we know she did not sin.


[right][snapback]775072[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Christ did not have the capacity to sin. He is a God man. Unlike Mary (and the rest of us), his humanity is perfectly subject to a divine nature. A Divine person cannot sin.

[Brother Adam]

Quite on the other hand, God has the capability to do anything He wishes, not everything is in his nature. In Christ's incarnation He also has human experiences (a la the temptation in the desert), and is presented the option of chosing that which is contrary to the Father's will. It is outside the nature of Christ to sin though, so He will not chose sin, but that does not negate the possibility of being presented with the choice of sin.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:30 PM']Quite on the other hand, God has the capability to do anything He wishes, not everything is in his nature. In Christ's incarnation He also has human experiences (a la the temptation in the desert), and is presented the option of chosing that which is contrary to the Father's will. It is outside the nature of Christ to sin though, so He will not chose sin, but that does not negate the possibility of being presented with the choice of sin.
[right][snapback]775108[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Christ's temptations were always external, never internal. That is to say, he could certainly be presented with anything, but he could never consider sinning. Such is impossible for a Divine person. A person entertains temptation, not a nature.

Some of his temptations were not sins. For example, Satan tempted him to change a rock into bread. It would not be a sin to do so, and so he could consider it.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Era Might

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:33 PM']Christ's temptations were always external, never internal. That is to say, he could certainly be presented with anything, but he could never consider sinning. Such is impossible for a Divine person. A person entertains temptation, not a nature.

Some of his temptations were not sins. For example, Satan tempted him to change a rock into bread. It would not be a sin to do so, and so he could consider it.
[right][snapback]775111[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In itself it would not be 'sinful' but he would be doing something expressly contrary to the will of the Father, which of course, is His mission even if he had desired for "this cup to pass from me". Christ of course would not sin, but that still does not negate the fact he could be presented with the option to sin.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I do think that Christ's human mind could process temptation, but it would never appeal to His Divine Personage, and thus, He wouldn't do it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:39 PM']In itself it would not be 'sinful' but he would be doing something expressly contrary to the will of the Father, which of course, is His mission even if he had desired for "this cup to pass from me". Christ of course would not sin, but that still does not negate the fact he could be presented with the option to sin.
[right][snapback]775115[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is nothing sinful about the natural burden of humanness that shies away from a particular path. Supposing Christ wanted to eat bread (which he probably did), his desire was not a sin, because there is nothing inherently sinful about eating the bread. His will always remained, nevertheless, subject to that of the Father.

I agree that Christ could certainly be presented with a moral temptation. He could not, however, consider it, because it is impossible for the God man to sin, or to even consider it. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Christ's human nature always operated through his divine nature, because he was a Divine person. A Divine person cannot consider sinning.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Era Might