Did Mary always know she was sinless?

[tafan2]

I have always wondered about Mary’s relation to sin, i.e., how similar was she to Adam and Eve before the fall, and how was she different? In short, was she able to be tempted? And would it have been the type of powerful temptations that we as the faithful sometimes experience?

Let me explain. She had no original sin in her, so does this mean she didn’t even have the inclination to sin? Could she have been tempted to choose sin over God, as Eve was? And could she (even though she did not) have chosen sin and thus lost her immaculate-ness? Before the Incarnation? Afterwards?

She did not suffer from concupiscence, a tendency or desire to sin. But she almost certainly was tempted. What is apparent by both the story in Genesis and the story of Christ’s temptation is how hard the devil had to work to tempt them. It wasn’t near as easy for the devil to tempt them as it is for him to tempt us. It would be naïve to thing that Mary was never tempted. The odds are great that the devil put a lot of work into tempting her. It would be hard to see why he would have treated her nicely.

So while Mary had a distinct/significant advantage over us with regards to avoiding sin, ie lack of concupiscence, she also had a disadvantage, a really motivated tempter.

Mary could have chosen to sin at any time. She had a free-will, just as we all do.

 

[tafan2]

There must have been many times when she was just frustrated during her normal day as a housewife and mother and would have liked to get snappish with somebody. She chose not to do that.

If by being snappish with somebody, you are saying that she would have liked to sin against them, I believe you are wrong. She would have never had any internal desire to sin. Was there times when she was frustrated and the devil tried to make her see an advantage of getting snappish with somebody? I am sure that happened a lot.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To me the two things you said are the same thing. I don’t think any of us trying to live a good life “likes” to sin. We are tempted by the devil to do so.

 

[tafan2]

To me the two things you said are the same thing. I don’t think any of us trying to live a good life “likes” to sin. We are tempted by the devil to do so.

Not quite, but close (applies to both of us actually). When you say none of us “likes” to sin, that is because all sin is contrary to human reason. However, due to the fall, our sensitive desires are not always inline with reason, this is concupiscence. The whole “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” thing. So it is not the case that we would always need a temptation by the devil in order to sin. The temptation can be simply our own corrupted desire (I called this “internal”, which is not quite right, the Church uses the term “sensitive”).
Mary did not suffer from this. Like Adam and Eve, she would never had a sensitive desire to sin, she would have never thought she would derive some pleasure or relief from “getting snappish from somebody”. It would have taken the devil, or another person to try to convince her to sin. We, on the other hand, can be convinced all by ourselves, by our own desires when they are out of line with human reason.

DISCLAIMER: this all comes from my own study of moral theology. I am not a trained moral theologian. My understanding of it all could be flawed, so feel free to correct me if needed.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’d say it’s just your opinion or how you choose to understand sin. I don’t see our own weakness as being somehow separate from a demonic temptation. Mary may have had much less human weakness, but her sources of temptation were the same as for you and me and Jesus Christ.

 

[tafan2]

Its more than just my opinion, it is my understanding of the Church’s teaching about sin. In particular, I could point out the articles 1,2, and 3 here: SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Concupiscence (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 30) and the Catechism paragraphs 2515 and 2516. I could also point to a couple of textbooks, but don’t really want to look up the references. No where have do I remember seeing that all human sin originates with temptation from the devil. I believe that the simply lack of alignment with our desires and reason can lead to sin. Mary had no incongruity between her desires and her reason. That is specifically why she had much less human weakness.

If by temptation, you mean someone external to us (ie the devil) leading us to sin, her source for that was the same. As I have stated.
If you are including material things or our own desires as temptations, she did not have the same.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So you’re saying that Mary could never have a temptation to sin originating from she herself?

How is she human then?

Would the same apply to Jesus?

 

[tafan2]

Yes, that would be what I am saying. And it would apply to Jesus, and it applied to Adam and Eve before the fall. And they were all human. How?

Okay, let me try this:
Perhaps I have a weakness for gambling. If I go to a location such as a casino, I can easily get caught up in the excitement and really want to go overboard (BTW, in reality I am not this bad, but lets say it is a danger). It is obviously opposed to reason, but my desire is not aligned with my reason in those situations. Now another person has literally never had any desire to gamble, they honestly do not see why anyone gets any pleasure in it at all. Now, suppose that other person has a weakness for drink. He is not an alcoholic, but when he is stressed out and finds himself in a bar, he just really wants to tie one on. Its not reasonable to do so, his problems return in the morning, but he has a desire to use alcohol as a means to just forget about them for the night, d?*n the consequences. I literally have never gotten drunk in my life and have never had a desire to do so. I can enjoy a drink or two, and that’s it (my mother would fall into this category BTW).

Both people have different human weaknesses, to use your term. Different areas of life where our appetites do not align with reason. We are both human, despite myself liking gambling too much but not having a desire to abuse drink and the other person being just the opposite.

Well Mary, would have be on the good side of both of those situations. It is obvious that we do not all have the same deformed appetites, so why is it necessary that a human have at least one? Only because of the fall. Only because of the fall do we all have various types of incongruity between our appetites and our reason.

But she could have sinned, she had a free will and she could have responded to a temptation in the same way as Adam and Eve. That is a difference between her and Jesus. It was against his nature completely.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can accept that Mary had either fewer human weaknesses, or the same human weaknesses as a normal person but to a much lesser degree.

I cannot, however, accept that Mary had zero human weaknesses. She was human, not a robot created by God. At the very least she would have felt the mother’s urge to defend/ protect her child and be angry at anyone who hurt her child. She would have had to fight that one off in order to go along with God’s plan for Jesus.

 

[tafan2]

Mary had no concupiscence. That is a teaching of the church. Human weaknesses is not a precisely defined term, but I would say it pretty much equates to concupiscence, ie a disorder between our desires/appetites and our reason. She would have felt no urge to defend/protect her child beyond what was just. She would have felt not anger beyond what was just. She did not have to fight any of her own urges in order to go along with God’s plan for Jesus. She would have had to fight temptations, yes.

All of that, I am certain, is official church teaching. My previous explanations may have been off here and there, but she had not concupiscence (which is the best way to accurately define human weakness, IMO).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think of “concupiscence” as a tendency to lust, gluttony, gambling, drinking, anger, impatience etc. I presume from your examples that is how you think of it too. I believe the references describe it as some sort of deformed appetite of humans that make us prone to a particular sin.

To say “Mary had no concupiscence” makes sense, but to say she had no human weakness at all to overome in an extreme stress situation is just weird.

Anyway, I think this is one of those I say Tomato, You say Tomahto things. As far as I’m concerned, Mary was a human free of original sin created by God who always conformed her will to that of God. If she did this with zero effort then she wouldn’t have been human, given that Jesus himself had to make an effort to conform his will with that of the Father despite being fully divine in addition to fully human.

Mary wasn’t a robot. She fought temptation just like anybody else. That’s all that needs to be said.

I will be leaving the thread now so as to not beat a horse that looks dead to me.

 

[tafan2]

I think of “concupiscence” as a tendency to lust, gluttony, gambling, drinking, anger, impatience etc. I presume from your examples that is how you think of it too.

I realize you want to leave the thread, I am not trying to beat a dead horse. Let me ask you one question:
My definition of human weakness, with regards to sin, is precisely concupiscence. What is yours?

 

[tafan2]

Mary wasn’t a robot. She fought temptation just like anybody else. That’s all that needs to be said.

Just to be clear to anyone who has not read our entire conversation:

I have stated that Mary had temptations and that she had to resist them.
Also, I have never come close to implying she was a robot, I have stated explicitly that she had free-will.