Could Mary have sinned?

[Aloysius]

"predestination" is only calvinistic if you define it as such. are we not allowed to use this scriptural word because some heresies have taken hold of it?

[scardella]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 31 2005, 04:47 PM']"predestination" is only calvinistic if you define it as such.  are we not allowed to use this scriptural word because some heresies have taken hold of it?
[right][snapback]775189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, what is the Catholic understanding of predestination, then?

[Aloysius]

It's hard to explain and I am certainly competant to do nothing but confuse people

but the way Cam described the reason Mary "couldn't" have sinned or didn't "have the potential" to sin is predestination because he's looking at it from the light of eternity, saying that if we think from eternity like God where all moments are as one to Him then there is no possibility that Mary could have sinned even though when you look from time Mary certainly has the capacity as a human being to sin.

here's a long artical on it all:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm[/url]

the two main accepted Catholic theories on predestination are Thomism and Mollinism (which seeks to convert thomism to emphasize free will more)

In Thomism, the elect freely choose, but [i]necessarily[/i] (in the light of eternity) choose because of who they were created to be, good and salvation. The reprobate are not actively made to necessarily choose against salvation (that would be the calvinistic heresy of double predestination) but they are, in the light of eternity, repbrobate and damned.

Molinism emphasizes free will more, the elect and reprobate are all offered all effificaious grace and must choose either to accept or reject it, but God foreknows but does not actively take into account in their creation who will be elect and who will be reprobate.

Molinism seems the more popular of the two nowadays but I am particular to Thomism (maybe I'm just afraid to dissent from the Angelic Doctor on anything lol).

basically, you gotta accept the Catholic Dogma of predestination; you gotta accept the Catholic Dogmas of grace; and you gotta accept the Catholic Dogma of free will. The interaction of all that has been the subject of much controversy and debate within the Church for centuries.

[scardella]

It still sounds funny to me, even though that description is palatable. What you're describing does shed more light on some comments that my ol' buddy St. Louis de Montfort makes.

[quote name='Aloysius']basically, you gotta accept the Catholic Dogma of predestination; you gotta accept the Catholic Dogmas of grace; and you gotta accept the Catholic Dogma of free will.  The interaction of all that has been the subject of much controversy and debate within the Church for centuries.
[right][snapback]775212[/snapback][/right][/quote]

I think that IS what we're effectively debating....

Edited October 31, 2005 by scardella

[Aloysius]

that's what I'm saying.

she had the capacity to sin and as such we can say she "could" have sinned

in the light of eternity because of the predestination and foreknowledge of God (properly understood in the Catholic sense) by her nature and role and God's choice for her she "could not" have sinned because she didn't sin and wouldn't have sinned.

that predestination could be applied in either the thomistic sense or the molinist sense to say what Cam was trying to say that she "couldn't" have sinned

if you want to continue with a debate the two systems of predestination, though, count me out. I've been through that before.

[Maria]

So, Cam, your idea of efficacious grace is grace that is given with the knowledge that the grace will produce the desired result – that the person will co-operate fully with the grace given? And this is the kind of grace that is given when key events in Salvation History are involved?
So, for instance, regarding the protestant idea that if Mary had refused Gabriel’s invitation, someone else would have been asked, the response is that if there was a real possibility that Mary would have refused, she would not have been asked?

And, on the other hand, sufficient grace is la-de-da grace. It allows the person to accomplish the will of God, but there’s not certainty that the grace will be accepted and acted upon. Something like that?

[scardella]

BTW, where is predestination defined infallibly?

And to clarify my last quote, we seem to be debating how they all work together, not the pronouncements themselves.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='scardella' date='Oct 31 2005, 10:37 PM']BTW, where is predestination defined infallibly?
[right][snapback]775471[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is definitive doctrine simply in light of many verses of Scripture, such as Rom 8:29, and the interpretation of these verses in the ordinary magisterium. There are also decrees of the Council of Trent that come to mind which bear weight on this question.

There is however quite a range of theological speculation possible in this area given that no particular soteriological system has been dogmatized.

[scardella]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 1 2005, 12:52 AM']It is definitive doctrine simply in light of many verses of Scripture, such as Rom 8:29, and the interpretation of these verses in the ordinary magisterium. There are also decrees of the Council of Trent that come to mind which bear weight on this question.

There is however quite a range of theological speculation possible in this area given that no particular soteriological system has been dogmatized.
[right][snapback]775605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So, it's doctrine, not dogma, correct? Dogma has to be explicitly declared, correct?

[Aloysius]

a Dogma is an infallible truth intimately connected with the gospel and salvation

a doctrine is an infallible truth on anything in the realm of faith or morals

it is dogma, truth essential to the gospel message. it is a great mystery, however, and no one system of studying it can be classified as infallible.

Also, I do not believe there has been an official declaration of dogma which would be the full refined and perfected divinely revealed truth about this essential doctrine of the faith.

for more info, go to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm[/url]

Section II there talks about the Catholic Dogma of predestination

[Benedict]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 29 2005, 12:17 PM']you fail to understand the nature of the tense used when the Angel Gabriel says Mary is full of grace.

[u]it means that AT EVERY POINT of Mary's existence up until the Angel Gabriel came she was full of Grace[/u].  it's a perfect past participle, it was her continuous state and nature her whole life to that point.[/quote]
That may be a description of the Immaculate Conception, but [i]kecharitomene [/i]does not, of itself, require the underlined.

[Aloysius]

is that not the tense that was used in the scripture? I'm pretty sure it means the same thing as "you who have always been full of grace"

[Aloysius]

I know at the very least it refers to something that existed continuously in the past and still exists in the present. I suppose it could be said to have begun at some point in the past not necessarily her conception, but it had to have been a continuous state up until the point of the annunciation. and the whole time during that state, at every point, she couldn't have been sinning. because it was continuous.

but I thought its connotation was actually [i]always been [/i]full of grace... I could be wrong. I've done nothing but dabble here and there in Greek every once in a while in my life

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I have not read this discussion in its entirety, I must agree with Cam, and with many of the Saints and Doctors of the Church on this subject:

Free Will does not depend on the ability to sin. Thus, God can perfect our free will such that we are unable to sin though we remain perfectly free (like the Saints and upright angels in Heaven).

To argue that Mary must have been able to sin because "otherwise she would not have been free" evidences the influence of modern philosophy and the changing of terms. Freedom is not some kind of Lockean unfettered will: Freedom is the ability to keep uprightness of will for its own sake.

Thus, Mary was [i]perfected[/i] by Divine Grace at the moment of her conception, saved not just from Original Sin, but from all sin by anticipation of the Blood of Her Divine Son.

Moreover, let us simply think logically: Which is more fitting, for God to save Mary from Original Sin in such a way that she could fall into sin later, or for God to perfect her in such a way that in her free will she only exercises her will-for-justice?

[i]potuit, decuit, ergo fecit[/i]

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

I beg pardon for not reading the whole thread, so ignore me if this is of little or no use, but I think that referring to the CCC #1732 will aide us in this:

[quote]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.
[/quote]

and 1733:

[quote]1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin." 28
[/quote]

I believe that we all agree that Mary's will was quite closley (if not perfectly) conformed to the Father's will as evidenced through her fiat. This would apply to the first sentence of 1732. Her will was bound definitively to the ultimate good and therefore was not able to choose the evil. It is important to note, however, that the mroe one does the good (the closer one bounds one's will to the Father's) the more free one becomes. So we must say that since Mary was bound so closley to the will of the Father she is far freer than any of us here.

As I said, I am sorry if I have repeated anything, but this piqued my interest suddenly and thought I could contribute.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Paphnutius