T
tuopaolo
Guest
The fact that He cannot be other than He is does not mean He is forced to be who He is.
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
Other than being overly-rude, that is more along the lines of what I was asking for in a response. Please, allow me some time to read and chew this over.
Also, I do not reject John Paul the Great, Fr. Hardon, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. I give them the full credit they deserve - which, great as it may be, is still not “absolutely correct about all things”. Infallible Church documents *are. *No need to cast dispersions when they aren’t warrented.
May Christ fill you with Love,
RyanL
Also, I do not reject John Paul the Great, Fr. Hardon, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. I give them the full credit they deserve - which, great as it may be, is still not “absolutely correct about all things”. Infallible Church documents *are. *No need to cast dispersions when they aren’t warrented.
May Christ fill you with Love,
RyanL
A
Axion
Guest
I could not find the above passage in Ineffabilis Deus. I presume it is your “take” on the earlier passage you quoted.
However I did find this in Ineffabilis Ddeus:
MARY COMPARED WITH EVE
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.
The words in bold, seem to me to indicate a freedom of choice and of will in the Blessed Virgin, which goes against the idea that she was unable to sin.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Mary has complete freedom in her will. You are wrongly assuming that freedom in her will means that she was capable of sinning. Church Doctor St Anselm teaches that when we are made by God incapable of sinning, that our freedom far from being lessened is rather perfected. The saints and angels in heaven are incapable of sinning but they are not less but rather more free because of it. God is the most free being of all, yet He is radically incapable of sinning.
“Allow me to praise you O sacred Virgin and give me strength against thy enemies.” – Blessed John Duns Scotus.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
While the “common teaching in Catholic Tradition” may not be infallible. It is still nevertheless to be respected and it may be a sin of temerity to deny it. But thanks for giving yourself time to chew it over. Take your time
R
RyanL
Guest
Again, I am not denying our “common teaching in Catholic Tradition”. Where I have taken issue is in the assumption that just because Fr. Hardon says this is Tradition makes it so. Were Fr. McBrian to say something was “common teaching in Catholic Tradition”, I would rightly question that as well. If he is right, it is to be believed. If he is wrong, and it is not Tradition, then it is not to be believed. Do you see the difference? I have not, nor would I dare disparage our Tradition. Perhaps that will prevent any future accusations to the contrary.
From Ineffabilis Deus:
If I’m not mistaken, your argument is that our Blessed Mother was ***capable ***of making a choice (free will), and made her choice for God. I agree, whole-heartedly. I think we may be at odds, however, on the idea that it was **possible **for her to choose something else. You would contend, I believe, that she simply could not choose anything other than God’s will. Please correct me if I am wrong. You also assert, I believe, that this was not a result of having been conceived without sin or having simply been sinless to this point. You believe that her incapacity to sin, inotherwords, was not a by-product of being sinless. It was, rather, because she was so perfectly filled with God’s grace (Kacharitomene) that a denial of God in any way would not have been possible due to the sheer volume of divine grace with which she was filled from the moment of her conception. Finally, just to make sure, this is not an argument of her having been predestined to be sinless, and in so being “it must be the case”.
I want to fully consider your argument fairly before I make a decision on this. I believe I am doing your argument justice, so please correct me if I am wrong. I would like to make sure we have our terms established, so that we aren’t arguing over something on which we both agree…
May God bless you and your family,
RyanL
T
tuopaolo
Guest
The Blessed Mother was capable of consenting to God’s will and she was also capable of withholding consent to many things which would not have been a sin to withhold consent from. For example, she would have been capable of not electing to get this or that present for her Son’s birthday. There are many choices we make that have nothing to do with sin. Framing freedom as the freedom to sin is a poor understanding of the meaning of true freedom. “Freedom to sin” is an oxymoron.
Again she made many choices where it was possible for her to choose something else. If she chose to get this present for her Son’s birthday she could have just as well chosen that other present instead.
You are wrong because many choices do not involve a choice between doing what is right and doing what is sinful but rather between two things which are both good things. For example if you choose to dance with this girl instead of that girl you do not sin and if you had instead chosen to dance with that girl instead of this girl you would not have sinned in that case either.
That’s right.
That’s correct. When someone is baptized, they are completely sinless; they are obviously not thereby impeccable since many Christians after having been baptized go on to sin.
I would go with your description “so perfectly filled with God’s grace (Kacharitomene)” rather than with the description “sheer volume of divine grace” because I’m not sure it would be accurate to attribute it to the volume – it may be rather a matter of the quality as opposed to quantity of grace, though the two may be closely related. I don’t know exactly how it is that she is impeccable; I only know that she is and that this is due not to something proper to her created nature, but due to grace.
That’s correct. She was, obviously, predestined to be sinless, but that’s distinct from her actually being impeccable. One could end up being sinless just due to some “happenstance” which is predestined by God. But here God graces her with an inherent quality (note that “inherent” just means that it inheres in her … it doesn’t mean genetic or anything like that).
Thanks but I am not a theologian so more than intending to argue for the position, I was just intending to show that it was “the common teaching in Catholic Tradition.” But I will do my best with the little that I know.
R
RyanL
Guest
Tuopaolo,
It has taken me some time to make sense of this. I had to go back to St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion to Mary” to help me, but I feel fairly grounded now.
Mary was, at the instant of her conception, infused with perfect grace, perfectly. I have cited the full past perfect participle meaning of her angelic title “Kacharitomene”, which signified her identity as much as her attributes (as do all biblical name-changes) - and I don’t think you disagree here.
In being fully and perfectly infused with grace, Mary was blessed more than any pure human or angel (Ineffabilis Deus and de Montfort). Based on my readings and my own experiential knowledge, I know that the grace of God helps us to understand how detestable sin really is. I believe that Mary had the free will and choice to choose God or not to choose God. Possessing the inherent grace, perfectly, she could see, however, how detestable sin is and what it would mean to God to choose sin. In light of this perfectly graced sight (if you will), she always freely chose God’s will every time. It wasn’t that it wasn’t an option, but rather that she knew how detestable an option it was and in light of this she always chose God’s will.
I refuse to believe that Mary’s free will was limited to such morally neutral and innane choices as ham sandwich or tuna (well…not ham, for a nice Jewish girl…). I believe that her capacity to sin was equal to any person’s, living or living-in-Christ (dead), but, like those who look on God in heaven (Saints), her knowledge of the terrible nature of sin made sinning such a detestable option as to really be not much of an option at all.
I believe this is compatible with both Scripture and Tradition. Please let me know your thoughts.
May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL
It has taken me some time to make sense of this. I had to go back to St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion to Mary” to help me, but I feel fairly grounded now.
Mary was, at the instant of her conception, infused with perfect grace, perfectly. I have cited the full past perfect participle meaning of her angelic title “Kacharitomene”, which signified her identity as much as her attributes (as do all biblical name-changes) - and I don’t think you disagree here.
In being fully and perfectly infused with grace, Mary was blessed more than any pure human or angel (Ineffabilis Deus and de Montfort). Based on my readings and my own experiential knowledge, I know that the grace of God helps us to understand how detestable sin really is. I believe that Mary had the free will and choice to choose God or not to choose God. Possessing the inherent grace, perfectly, she could see, however, how detestable sin is and what it would mean to God to choose sin. In light of this perfectly graced sight (if you will), she always freely chose God’s will every time. It wasn’t that it wasn’t an option, but rather that she knew how detestable an option it was and in light of this she always chose God’s will.
I refuse to believe that Mary’s free will was limited to such morally neutral and innane choices as ham sandwich or tuna (well…not ham, for a nice Jewish girl…). I believe that her capacity to sin was equal to any person’s, living or living-in-Christ (dead), but, like those who look on God in heaven (Saints), her knowledge of the terrible nature of sin made sinning such a detestable option as to really be not much of an option at all.
I believe this is compatible with both Scripture and Tradition. Please let me know your thoughts.
May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL
E
eddie
Guest
I’m sorry to jump in your thread, but I am involved in a friendly debate with a family member about purgatory;
What are the RCC teaching on this:
Does an unborn child go directly into heaven? If so, as an angel or a child of God?
Secondly, where does a born child, say a week old and not yet Baptized go?
Thank you and again I apologize for the interuptrion of your discussion.
What are the RCC teaching on this:
Does an unborn child go directly into heaven? If so, as an angel or a child of God?
Secondly, where does a born child, say a week old and not yet Baptized go?
Thank you and again I apologize for the interuptrion of your discussion.
R
RyanL
Guest
eddie,
These are great questions, but I feel you may get more responses on a new thread - I’m not sure who, besides Tuopaolo and me, would really take the time to make it to the bottom of our fairly esoteric discussion.
If you need quick answers, you may check out the main www.catholic.com site, where they have some really great material!
God bless,
RyanL
These are great questions, but I feel you may get more responses on a new thread - I’m not sure who, besides Tuopaolo and me, would really take the time to make it to the bottom of our fairly esoteric discussion.
If you need quick answers, you may check out the main www.catholic.com site, where they have some really great material!
God bless,
RyanL
T
tuopaolo
Guest
You are absolutely right about that. This principle is further expounded upon by St Maximimilian Kolbe in reflecting on Mary’s statement that she was the Immaculate Conception “I am the Immaculate Conception” – not simply that she was immaculately conceived, but that she herself IS the Immaculate Conception.
That’s right.
Um you don’t have any experiential knowledge of the level of grace Mary received. She was raised ineffably above all other creatures and so you really can’t compare your experience to her experience. That would be like a Jew comparing his experience of seeing God in a sunset to Mose’s experience.
You are still not seeing the truth, my friend and I suspect it’s because as you put it you “refuse” to believe it. There are PLENTY of morally significant choices which we make which do not involve sin. For example, when a man chooses to be a celibate priest instead of marrying someone and having a family, neither option is a sin (marrying is not a sin), yet the man’s choice still has a moral character – it is an expression of the moral life. If you just see the moral life as avoiding evil then you don’t have any knowledge at all about what the moral life means. Taking your time to choose a flower for one’s beloved does not involve a choice where one option is a sin but nevertheless it is a very fruitful expression of the moral life. Because to be moral is not simply to avoid evil but to express fruitfully and beautifully all the variety of good that one’s heart desires.
Also think about it. If you want to say that if she were impeccable her choices would be “inane” you would have to say that Christ’s choices were “inane” also since you already believe that at least Christ was impeccable (at least you used to believe it since you stated so earlier in the thread)
Now you seem to be denying that the saints in Heaven are incapable of sinning! I don’t know what’s worse, saying that Mary could have sinned or saying that the saints in Heaven can sin and thereby lose the treasure of Heaven! Don’t try to think through these things on your own. You don’t want to try and re-invent the wheel. We don’t do that in engineering and we shouldn’t do that in theology
Just accept what is “the common teaching in Catholic Tradition.” At least you are committed to accepting the infallible teachings Maybe what you are trying to say is that while the physical character of the sins were within Mary’s power (so for example she had the strength to slap someone), that she was incapable of committing the act because it had no attraction for her heart which was full of grace.
God bless you too.
R
RyanL
Guest
…further expounded upon by St Maximimilian Kolbe in reflecting on Mary’s statement that she was the Immaculate Conception “I am the Immaculate Conception” – not simply that she was immaculately conceived, but that she herself IS the Immaculate Conception…
This is what I’m talking about! Now I have a source to read to see why you are saying what you say! Wonderful! Thank you!
tuopaolo:
You are entirely correct - I don’t know what it’s like to be graced above any creature. I do, however, know what it’s like to receive the grace of God. You are no one to judge the level of grace which I have received, and it is better for your soul if you don’t try. I have never played major league baseball either, but that doesn’t mean my baseball experience makes me incapable of relating to Babe Ruth. I have played the game, even though it is admittedly on a FAR lower level.
tuopaolo:
We’re talking past eachother somewhere in here, and I’m not quite sure where. You aren’t understanding what I’m saying, and I’m not understanding what you’re saying.
tuopaolo:
Again, we’re talking past eachother. I never said her choices were inane because of her impeccability - I said I don’t believe she was *only *capable of inane choices. We may be losing eachother here…
tuopaolo:
Let me re-state my position: Mary NEVER SINNED. Christ NEVER SINNED. Saints in heaven NEVER SIN. Saints in heaven have the beatific vision - which makes them different than Mary prior to the Annunciation (and possibly during her entre earthly life). We already talked about that!
tuopaolo:
You have given me little option! Prior to this post, you have failed to produce a single source for me to read - and the one source you have now provided me has no source document!Don’t try to think through these things on your own. You don’t want to try and re-invent the wheel. We don’t do that in engineering and we shouldn’t do that in theology
tuopaolo:
That’s basically what I have come to. Again, if you have documentation to support your conclusions, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!
If you can’t produce a clear source on this…that’s okay. Like I said earlier, I think we’re talking past eachother here, and not answering the other’s questions. It may be better if we discontinue…
May God grace you and make His face to smile upon you,
RyanL
T
tuopaolo
Guest
I cited a source in my very first post. If you doubt my veracity you can always look it up for yourself in a good Catholic library or perhaps even at a secular university library or through inter-library loan or by simply purchasing the book (eg through amazon.com). You can also see how in this archived copy of a page that was once on apologist Dave Armstrong’s website, that the very same source is cited with the same text (except that he includes some preceding text and leaves out some of the text I quoted in full):
Very good. It’s true that - prima facie - Mary should have the same capacity to choose sin that Adam and Eve, in their original innocence, had. However, the teaching of the Church is otherwise. Fr. John Hardon (who received me into the Church), the eminent catechist and prolific author, wrote in his Catholic Catechism (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975, pp. 159-160):
The Council of Trent said that Mary “by a special privilege of God” was exempt from all sin, even venial ones, during her whole life. Like the Immaculate Conception, which it presupposes, Mary’s personal sinlessness follows from the Church’s constant belief in her spotless purity and is founded on her dignity as the Mother of God . . .
Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of his human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall . . . an added prerogative . . . It was a free gift of God’s mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor.
If that’s what you’ve come to then you essentially agree with the common teaching that Mary was indeed incapable – by grace – of sinning.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
B
Brown10985
Guest
If God gave Our Lady impeccibility from sinning by his grace then why didn’t he grant this to everyone so everyone could be saved?
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Well, I know this discussion is continuing on, and maybe not everyone is reading all of it before posting… but…
There is a distinction to be made from Mary’s impeccability and Mary’s sinlessness. She did have a free will, and it was not beyond her power to sin. In many ways, she was above the first Eve (Mary’s the “new Eve” you know), in the degree of grace given to her by God. She was “full of grace.” But by God’s grace, she did not sin.
That’s why she’s such a model for the Church, for the faithful. She’s like us in everyway, as a created being, but she did not sin. Ok, she didnt’ have original sin either, but you know, generally speaking. God did no injustice to her such as taking away her free and consenting will.
Now maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the way I understand, and I think it’s in line with Marian devotion teachings.
Not a direct analogy, but Paul speaks of “elect/chosen angels” in I Timothy 5:21. God kept them from falling, but they had angelic will like the other angels that “fell,” spoken of in Jude.
God did keep her from sin, but an important Augustinian/Catholic distinction, is that she also cooperated with God by consenting her will.
Because Mary consented with her will, she was sinless. Not ONLY “because,” but not without that “because.”
Why did God not do that with everybody? The answer to that question, the Marian aspect of it, is meant I believe to drive us to God, not make us doubt. We have the power to believe as well, to utilize our will. So everyone can believe, but they don’t. Mary had a will like ours.
One reason they don’t is that they don’t have the operative or pre-emptive grace to lead them to faith, but they can’t blame God, because they have a will to choose to “trust and obey” Him.
I Corinthians 4:7
And what do you have that you did not receive?
St. Augustine quotes that all the time in talking about God’s grace. Along with other “pet verses” of his.
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Simply quoting what’s stated as a common teaching or opinion in the Council of Trent, or the Catechism thereof, doesn’t cinch the case. Though it does bolster one’s case.
I’d like to think that those who currently are not in line with the “majority opinion” are that way, not out of willfull, but rather from simple ignorance. Obvious, you can’t be Catholic and doubt the Immaculate Conception once you’re presented with it, just like you can’t doubt Papal infallibility as it’s defined.
So if I said something that’s wrong, well then, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to mislead anyone. There’s just a lot of details there in words like impeccability and predestination, not to mention free will.
I’d like to think that those who currently are not in line with the “majority opinion” are that way, not out of willfull, but rather from simple ignorance. Obvious, you can’t be Catholic and doubt the Immaculate Conception once you’re presented with it, just like you can’t doubt Papal infallibility as it’s defined.
So if I said something that’s wrong, well then, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to mislead anyone. There’s just a lot of details there in words like impeccability and predestination, not to mention free will.
- Status