Could Mary have struggled with concupiscence?

[jdconvert]

As I understand it, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and therefore possessed divine life in her soul all of her life. My question is, on what basis in Magisterial teaching do we say that Mary also had the preternatural gift of her passions being under the control of her intellect, or not having to struggle with concupiscence? Isn’t it entirely possible to have sanctifying grace in one’s soul, but still struggle with concupiscence(as is the case with all baptized infants)?

Thanks.

 

[Fidelis]

As I understand it, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and therefore possessed divine life in her soul all of her life. My question is, on what basis in Magisterial teaching do we say that Mary also had the preternatural gift of her passions being under the control of her intellect, or not having to struggle with concupiscence? Isn’t it entirely possible to have sanctifying grace in one’s soul, but still struggle with concupiscence(as is the case with all baptized infants)?

Thanks.

If Mary was preserved from original sin, it simply follows that she was not afflicted with concupiscence. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Concupiscence, “By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege.”

The Council of Trent defined that concupiscence is a result of original sin, that all who are descendents of Adam contract it, but that Mary–because of the special privilege afforded her because of her role as Mother of God–was preserved from original sin and its effects:

But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin…

This holy council declares, however, that* it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God*, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.

You may also find this chapter from Fundamentals of Catholicism helpful.

 

[Catholic80]

As I understand it, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and therefore possessed divine life in her soul all of her life. My question is, on what basis in Magisterial teaching do we say that Mary also had the preternatural gift of her passions being under the control of her intellect, or not having to struggle with concupiscence? Isn’t it entirely possible to have sanctifying grace in one’s soul, but still struggle with concupiscence(as is the case with all baptized infants)?

Thanks.

This is my guess…

Mary was not fallen, as we are. Her thoughts, tendencies, and such were never fallen or disordered as they are in fallen man. Here, I think, we can look at the purest of saints and their writings on temptations. St. Catherine of Sienna was “tempted” with impure thoughts, but they repulsed her. St. Therese of Lisieux was “tempted” with the idea the God didn’t exist, but she still believed God existed, St. Faustina was “tempted” with disturbing thoughts, but she remained silent during the temptations and the devil won nothing from her. Mother Theresa was “tempted” by the feeling that God had rejected her, but she still had an abounding faithfulness and love for Him. And of course, we know that Christ was tempted in the desert.

I think there is a difference in these temptations where one is pure versus where one is inclined to sin. Mary, Jesus, and the Saints were free, whereas most of us, who are still bound by sin are slaves. The temptations are no less painful or severe for the saints, and are probably even heavier and more difficult than the temptations of us who are not free, because they have the freedom and the strength to carry the heaviest burdens. But, since they are freer, (Mary being completely free), they are not inclined in the slightest to sin. No matter what temptation was thrown at them, they would not be inclined to sin.

So, my guess is, how they experience the temptations are different than us who are enslaved. My guess is that it is even more painful for them to experience the temptation by the very fact that they are not inclined to sin. For us slaves, the temptation arises from our inclination towards that sin. The temptation leads us to fall into that sin. But, just like the saints, when we resist that temptation, it leads us closer to God.

Something I also find interesting, is these saints all suffered from different temptations privy to what their vocation was. For example, Mother Theresa served and identified with the poorest of the poor, and she discovered that the poorest of persons are those that are lonely. What was her temptation, ultimately, but a profound loneliness.
So again, we see, that when we resist the temptation, it leads us all that much closer to Christ. We could also, then say, that the “temptation” of the saints is not really a temptation, but simply a pure suffering of love.

Again, this is all my guessing… but my thoughts on if Mary was tempted by concupiscence… Mary is Mary. She crushes the serpents head. She can stomp on a temptation and destroy it faster than it comes. Mary received all of her Son’s suffering at the foot of the Cross. Since Jesus was taking on all our sins and had the experience of being rejected by the father, I can only imagine that Mary took on all of our suffering too… including all of our temptations. But, the experience was much different, much more sorrowful, and much more painful for her. She was never inclined to sin, but accepted to suffer these things for us by her “Yes” in the divine mystery.

Please feel free to correct me any of you apologists out there if what I have said is contrary to Church teaching. This is simply my speculation and guess on the matter.

 

[Good_Fella]

So far, I cannot find anything that is actually written down in the bible that implies that Mary didn’t feel the regular physical feelings that other women do in that way. That would be the main source for something like this I imagine.

St. Luke does typify Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Covenant by referring to the second Book of Samuel. So the truth of Mary being preserved free from the stain of original sin and thereby this effect is implicitly revealed in the written word.

But how the heck is someone to find this out? It’s very personal.
I mean, if Mary didn’t struggle with “concupiscence”…is she actually going to be describing this lack of yearning to the male apostles and disciples?
If she did tell them, they didn’t write it down it seems…unless it’s in the gospels that were not included in the canon.
And if she didn’t tell them or anyone else, what concrete basis would magisterial teachings derive it from?

The Holy Spirit, who Christ sent to guide the Church in all truth.

I can’t remember…did Jesus struggle with concupiscence in any story described in the christian canon?

Scripture does describe Christ as the unblemished lamb of God.

“He was born of Mary the fair ewe.”
Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (A.D. 170)

PAX

 

[Fidelis]

I think what the OP is asking is…what is all that information or interpretation based on?
Is that right, JD?
Meaning…on what basis did the Council of Trent or the Catholic Encyclopedia or the early church deciders come to the conclusion that Mary did not struggle with that as others, like priests or nuns or single Catholics who do not have sex in any way, do.
(all this, I assume, is assuming she remained a virgin for the rest of her life, yes?)

So far, I cannot find anything that is actually written down in the bible that implies that Mary didn’t feel the regular physical feelings that other women do in that way. That would be the main source for something like this I imagine.

But how the heck is someone to find this out? It’s very personal.
I mean, if Mary didn’t struggle with “concupiscence”…is she actually going to be describing this lack of yearning to the male apostles and disciples?
If she did tell them, they didn’t write it down it seems…unless it’s in the gospels that were not included in the canon.
And if she didn’t tell them or anyone else, what concrete basis would magisterial teachings derive it from?

As pointed out above, Mary’s non-subjection to concupiscence is grounded in the fact of her Immaculate Conception. This, in turn, is based on the constant teaching of the Church, including Sacred Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. This is summarized clearly in Ineffabilis Deus, the pronouncement by Pope Pius IX that defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I can’t remember…did Jesus struggle with concupiscence in any story described in the christian canon?

He did not, since concupiscence is a result of original sin which Jesus, even his human nature was not subject to. What applies to Mary applies in spades to Jesus. Both may have been exposed to temptations (the world and the devil) but not from within (the flesh). We, by contrast, are subject to all three:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever. (1 John 2:16-17)

That is not to say they did not experience normal human emotions and feelings–just not disordered ones arising out of concupiscence, which in turn arise from original sin–which neither one were subject to.

 

[Fidelis]

I do understand that you are saying that according to the definition/dogma of immaculate conception and original sin, anyone–like Mary–who was immaculately conceived would not feel the same physical yearnings for sex as other humans would.
(Is that what you are saying?)

No, it’s not what I’m saying or what the Church teaches. Mary (and Jesus, of course) had normal emotions and desires. However, because she was free from concupiscence, her emotions and desires were not disordered. The effects of sin, according to Church teaching, is that it weakens the will and darkens the intellect. Mary, being free from sin, was not subject to this. So, for example, knowing full well that she had been set apart for the unique role as the Mother of God, it follows that she knew she would be not being engaging in conjugal relations with an earthly husband. Unlike us who have fallen natures, who might be wracked with angst over not being able to have these types of relations, since she didn’t have concupiscence she didn’t have to struggle with temptations in the same way we would to engage in illicit (for her) sexual relations.

Can you tell me where it says in sacred scripture, as you say above, that to be immaculately conceived means no struggle with concupiscence?

Sacred Scripture does not go into detail about it, just as it does not go into detail about other important doctrines such as the Trinity or the Incarnation. It follows reasonably from what Scripture does say about original sin and sin in general.

When you say sacred scripture, do you mean the christian canon?

Yes. Christians do not base essential doctrine on non-canonical writings.

Also, I cannot find the lines in the 1854 pope link you posted, which reads rather confusing to me so I may just be missing it). But egged on by the OP’s question, I am still wondering: How did the definition evolve?

You’ll just have to read the document more carefully. There’s also this. If it is still confusing to you, you might need to rely on secondary sources such as at the link I provided in my first post. Do a search on catholic.com for “Immaculate Conception” and you’ll find a ton of related material.

Did any of those exempt of this “struggle” (Mary, Jesus, and I guess those dozens of other prophets born of virgins?) ever actually *tell *anyone they didn’t feel these feelings? Or is everyone just…assuming it?

There has never been anyone else born of a virgin–only Jesus.

As is pointed out in Scripture itself, not every single word that Jesus (or other characters in the Bible said is included in Scripture–only what is necessary for our salvation.(John 20:30-31) You could as just easily ask, of course, where does it say they *didn’t *say such a thing? As it is, we have what is given to us in Scripture to us by God, and the Church he has established to be it’s authoritative interpreter. Everything else is speculation–some of it reasonable and spiritually fruitful, some of it not so much.

 

[jdconvert]

My understanding is that the stain of original sin is not exactly the same as concupiscence. Original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace in the soul. Concupiscence is an inclination towards sin. So it is possible for someone to be cleansed of original sin(filled with sanctifying grace) but still struggle with disordered desires(as is the case with baptized infants). Is my understanding correct, and if it is, how does the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rule out the possibility of Mary having to struggle with concupiscence?

 

[Fidelis]

My understanding is that the stain of original sin is not exactly the same as concupiscence. Original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace in the soul. Concupiscence is an inclination towards sin.

Correct. Concupiscence is a result of, or effect from, original sin.

So it is possible for someone to be cleansed of original sin (filled with sanctifying grace) but still struggle with disordered desires (as is the case with baptized infants).

Yes, as in the case of all of us who are baptized because even though we are baptized, concupiscence remains.

How does the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rule out the possibility of Mary having to struggle with concupiscence?

As I said in my first post above citing the Council of Trent, concupiscence is a result of original sin which all who are descendents of Adam inherit. Mary–because of the special privilege afforded her because of her role as Mother of God–was preserved from original sin and its effects, one of which is the inclination to sin which we call concupiscence. So she didn’t have to struggle with a sinful nature because she didn’t have one, being preserved from original sin that wounds human nature. No original sin–no wounded nature–no concupiscence.

 

[Good_Fella]

Daddygirl:

Whatever sexual feelings Mary may have had would not have been darkened and disordered as those belonging to someone with a fallen human nature.

Most Church dogmas - such as the Trinity, original sin, and the Immaculate Conception - have developed over time starting at the speculative theological level among believers as the Church grows in deeper understanding of the faith through contemplation and discernment with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The task of the Magisterium is to define these truths of divine revelation and those connected with them by proposing which should be irrevocably adhered to in faith by all Christians. A final judgment is reached and made by the authority of the official teaching office of the Church - the Pope in union with the college of bishops - on matters of faith and morals through an authentic interpetation of both the written word (Scripture) and the spoken word (Tradition), which has been transmitted from the time of the apostles and faithfully held and expounded by able men who have succeeded them in their ministry. Because of a supernatural sense of the faith, which the entire Church possesses with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium can appeal to the teachings of individuals like Augustine (grace and original sin) and John Duns Scotus (the Immaculate Conception) when proposing what should be faithfully adhered to by all Christian believers. What the apostles have handed down to us both in writing and in preaching is a “heritage of faith” whose significance grows fuller over time upon further reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who declares to the Church how the Word of God is to be fully understood. Not one individual who has ever preached or interpreted the Word of God has been enlightened by an understanding of the entire spectrum of the divine mysteries. Historically religious thinkers have been called to contribute to the gradual unfolding of divine revelation in the deposit of faith originally handed down through the apostles. The final teaching authority of the Magisterium judges and determines what should be proposed as a definite revelation from God. The Holy Spirit ensures that its final judgment is free from error.

“It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities.”
Acts 15, 28

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 97

Unblemished can mean free from physical or moral spots or stains: morally flawless in thought, word, and deed. Jesus certainly never suffered from any moral spots or stains such as dark thoughts and feelings of lust which are the effects of original sin. Neither did his blessed mother Mary. Whatever sexual feelings either of them may have had in their common humanity, pride and the gratification of personal pleasure weren’t at the root of them, just as they weren’t for Adam and Eve before the Fall. Eve acted as she did purely on the serpent’s suggestion, and subsequently Adam on hers through the serpent. Since earliest times Christians have traditionally perceived Jesus and Mary as being morally pure and spotless in nature. Neither of them suffered from concupiscence. Mary has been likened to an enclosed graden which the serpent cannot penetrate and destroy from within as it can with the rest of humanity which is morally flawed by nature. Together with her Son, Mary stands out from among the rest of us who suffer from the moral blemishes inherited from Adam and Eve. She is like “a lily sprouting among thorns”.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
St. Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235)

“Thou alone and thy mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy mother.”
St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”
St. Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446)

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
St. Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily Vl:ll (ante A.D. 446)

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.
My sister,** my spouse**, is a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.
Song of Solomon 4, 7,12

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.
And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1, 34-35

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Jerry-Jet]

An example of two people not having concupiscence were Adam and Eve before the fall. before the fall they were both naked and unashamed–it was only after the fall that they knew they were naked and made clothes to wear.

If Adam and Eve before the fall had not concupiscence then it stands to reason that Mary free from Original Sin and Jesus who inherited His pre-fall humanity from her also didn’t have concupiscence.

 

[Vico]

As I understand it, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, and therefore possessed divine life in her soul all of her life. My question is, on what basis in Magisterial teaching do we say that Mary also had the preternatural gift of her passions being under the control of her intellect, or not having to struggle with concupiscence? Isn’t it entirely possible to have sanctifying grace in one’s soul, but still struggle with concupiscence(as is the case with all baptized infants)?

Thanks.

The preternatural gifts are infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

The dogma of the Assumption does not define Mary’s death or non-death, therefore it is not certain that she was conceived with the preternatural gifts. So we are certain that Mary was from from the stain of original sin (lack of sanctifying grace) but not certain that had the preternatural gifts.