Sinless Mary

[SIA]

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one Father that says she did.
My point to SIA was that if he claims that Aquinas made this remark - I want to know from which of Aquinas’s writings this came. The burden of proof is clearly on SIA to provide this information.

I quoted from Aquinas’ work, Summa Theologiae that says the exact opposite of what SIA claims. Aquinas was no dummy and didn’t make such blatant contradictions.

I don’t think you know Aquinas as well as you claim. Aquinas wrote much throught his life but had an extrodinary encounter late in his life and declared ALL of his writings “but straw” following his spiritual encounter. We can pretend to know most if not everything about God but the truth is, the greatest of theology in all of time is “but straw” compared to the wisdom of our mighty God.

 

[VARC]

Lets do some word insertion here to make the point hit home with Job 14:4

Who can bring a clean Jesus out of an unclean Mary? not one. (Job 14:4)

**Protestants should try to claim that they can BRING A CLEAN JESUS OUT OF AN UNCLEAN MARY by their objection to the Immaculate Conception. **

“All things are possible with God”

“Gods is able to raise up disciples from these stones”

If God wants to bring a “clean Jesus” out of of an “unclean Mary” I think he could pull it off. Who are you to put limits on the Almighty?

 

[Good_Fella]

“All things are possible with God”

“Gods is able to raise up disciples from these stones”

If God wants to bring a “clean Jesus” out of of an “unclean Mary” I think he could pull it off. Who are you to put limits on the Almighty?

Oh, the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?
Romans 11, 33-34

My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
Isaiah 26, 10

God could never compromise his infinite wisdom by his omnipotence. God’s omnipotence is never exercised in contradiction to his wisdom or his righteousness from which it springs. And because God is righteous, he deals with his creation according to his revealed law. Original sin is a universal law.

Jesus did not have to be baptized, but he chose to be in order to fulfill all righteousness. Because God is wise, he treats his creation according to how it is. He doesn’t side-step it to safeguard his dignity as if he were on the defensive. Jesus was fully human, so he would have inherited the universal traits of original sin (concupiscence) from his mother, whose flesh he took. Original sin is materially passed on through the genes of both parents, not only effectively through the biological father by his seed.

Further, if God had directly intervened in the conception of the Son of Man, as he did with the immacualte conception of Mary, then Jesus would have been in the same position as Mary was: in need of redemption and a saviour. But such a state of affairs would be unfitting according to the Father’s wisdom, whose Only-begotten Son is the saviour of fallen mankind. Jesus could not have been fully man if he were born of a woman who was conceived in a state of original sin yet evaded its stain on the human soul, which God had fashioned in the incarnation, without God’s direct intervention as with Mary. Jesus is a divine Person, but his human nature remains distinct in the hypostatic union with his divine nature. Let us not lean towards the heresy of Monophysitism which plagued the early Church. :nope:

“The consideration of the knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause precedes the operation and effect.”
St. Thomas Aquinas

PAX

 

[Leeann]

Oh, the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?

My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure

First you quote the above verses and then go on to do just exactly what the first verse implies that nobody is able to do? You begin by stating what He “could never do” - notice how it says “how inscrutable his ways”. Nobody can understand them…but you then proceed go ahead and post the following, stating what He could never do…by your own understanding.

God could never compromise his infinite wisdom by his omnipotence. God’s omnipotence is never exercised in contradiction to his wisdom or his righteousness from which it springs. And because God is righteous, he deals with his creation according to his revealed law. Original sin is a universal law.

"The consideration of the knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause precedes the operation and effect."St. Thomas Aquinas

You are in good company however, as even Thomas Aquinas, a human, with our own limited, fallible understanding of God, has done the same.

 

[Good_Fella]

First you quote the above verses and then go on to do just exactly what the first verse implies that nobody is able to do? You begin by stating what He “could never do” - notice how it says “how inscrutable his ways”. Nobody can understand them…but you then proceed go ahead and post the following, stating what He could never do…by your own understanding.

You are in good company however, as even Thomas Aquinas, a human, with our own limited, fallible understanding of God, has done the same.

I clearly understand that God’s wisdom and will effect his omnipotent acts. And there is one thing I know for sure that God would never do, that is refuse to be baptized and dismiss his own laws. Certainly Jesus never failed to observe them. God could never be unrighteous. And it isn’t a question of whether Jesus had to obey his own laws. Certainly he didn’t have to, but he did because he knew his laws are something worthy for us to recognize and follow. Moreover, I know with absolute certainty that God would never save us other than by sending his only beloved Son, who is truly God and truly man - not just a spectre of flesh and blood: “a man like us in all things but sin” (Hebrews 4:15). God could have saved us by some other means, but he wouldn’t. I should never presume what God could or could not do, but I know from the scriptures what he would or would never do. God’s spoken word is irrevocable.

The Monophysites believed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. But Jesus had a human nature as genuine and tangible as ours. I cannot imagine how Jesus could have naturally avoided contracting the stain of original sin (concupiscence) from his mother if she had been conceived in a state of original sin, unless the Son of Man wasn’t fully human like us. Original sin is a universal law ordained by God, since in our human nature we tend to freely disobey God’s will. I believe God intended that his Only-begotten Son should not be subjected to the influence of sin. This would not be fitting for the Word made flesh. God never rebelled against God at the beginning of creation. Let us not presume that Jesus was not God in the flesh as the Arians do. :nope:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.
Galatians 4, 4

“Although this order of things be restricted to what now exists, the divine power and wisdom are not thus restricted. Whence, although no other order would be suitable and good to the things which now are, yet God could do other things and impose upon them another order.”
St. Thomas Aquinas

But in his wisdom God did not do other things and impose upon them another order. Hence it cannot be otherwise. He willed to save us by becoming fully human.

Throughout the Old Testament and in the Judaic intertestamental Wisdom literature, the power of God’s spoken word (his Wisdom) is emphasized. God does not simply act to demonstrate to us what he can do. Such condescension is unworthy of God. Nor does he act merely to exercise power without a wise purpose. His pleasure cannot be divorced from his wisdom. God acts as he sees is the fitting thing to do. And he does not go back on his word. Despots exercise autonomous power strictly for selfish gain and pleasure without regard to what is good and right.

So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
It shall not return to me void,
but shall do my will,
achieving the end for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55, 11

Is not my word like fire, says the Lord,
like a hammer shattering rocks?
Jeremiah 23, 29

With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding.
Job 12, 13

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

Anyway, my view of the Immaculate Conception is purely speculative in a fallible capacity, as was the view of Proclus of Constantinople in his homily. The Catholic Church does not infallibly and dogmatically teach that Jesus would have contracted the taint of original sin if his mother had been conceived with this sin on her soul. Pope Pius lX simply declared in his Apostolic Constitution that it would be unfitting for the holy child, begotten of the Father, to be borne by an unholy mother who is on common ground with the serpent and his seed. The question of whether Jesus would have been affected by the stain of original sin remains open. This ineffable mystery is something Catholics are free to judge for themselves.

PAX

 

[justasking4]

I clearly understand that God’s wisdom and will effect his omnipotent acts. And there is one thing I know for sure that God would never do, that is refuse to be baptized and dismiss his own laws. Certainly Jesus never failed to observe them. God could never be unrighteous. And it isn’t a question of whether Jesus had to obey his own laws. Certainly he didn’t have to, but he did because he knew his laws are something worthy for us to recognize and follow. Moreover, I know with absolute certainty that God would never save us other than by sending his only beloved Son, who is truly God and truly man - not just a spectre of flesh and blood: “a man like us in all things but sin” (Hebrews 4:15). God could have saved us by some other means, but he wouldn’t. I should never presume what God could or could not do, but I know from the scriptures what he would or would never do. God’s spoken word is irrevocable.

The Monophysites believed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. But Jesus had a human nature as genuine and tangible as ours. I cannot imagine how Jesus could have naturally avoided contracting the stain of original sin (concupiscence) from his mother if she had been conceived in a state of original sin, unless the Son of Man wasn’t fully human like us. Original sin is a universal law ordained by God, since in our human nature we tend to freely disobey God’s will. I believe God intended that his Only-begotten Son should not be subjected to the influence of sin. This would not be fitting for the Word made flesh. God never rebelled against God at the beginning of creation. Let us not presume that Jesus was not God in the flesh as the Arians do. :nope:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.
Galatians 4, 4

“Although this order of things be restricted to what now exists, the divine power and wisdom are not thus restricted. Whence, although no other order would be suitable and good to the things which now are, yet God could do other things and impose upon them another order.”
St. Thomas Aquinas

But in his wisdom God did not do other things and impose upon them another order. Hence it cannot be otherwise. He willed to save us by becoming fully human.

Throughout the Old Testament and in the Judaic intertestamental Wisdom literature, the power of God’s spoken word (his Wisdom) is emphasized. God does not simply act to demonstrate to us what he can do. Such condescension is unworthy of God. Nor does he act merely to exercise power without a wise purpose. His pleasure cannot be divorced from his wisdom. God acts as he sees is the fitting thing to do. And he does not go back on his word. Despots exercise autonomous power strictly for selfish gain and pleasure without regard to what is good and right.

So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
It shall not return to me void,
but shall do my will,
achieving the end for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55, 11

Is not my word like fire, says the Lord,
like a hammer shattering rocks?
Jeremiah 23, 29

With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding.
Job 12, 13

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

Anyway, my view of the Immaculate Conception is purely speculative in a fallible capacity, as was the view of Proclus of Constantinople in his homily. The Catholic Church does not infallibly and dogmatically teach that Jesus would have contracted the taint of original sin if his mother had been conceived with this sin on her soul. Pope Pius lX simply declared in his Apostolic Constitution that it would be unfitting for the holy child, begotten of the Father, to be borne by an unholy mother who is on common ground with the serpent and his seed. The question of whether Jesus would have been affected by the stain of original sin remains open. This ineffable mystery is something Catholics are free to judge for themselves.

PAX

I thought that if a Catholic rejected this proclaimation of the pope he was cursed or something like that. If this is true then how can Catholics be free to judge for themselves?

 

[Good_Fella]

I thought that if a Catholic rejected this proclaimation of the pope he was cursed or something like that. If this is true then how can Catholics be free to judge for themselves?

Because the Church has not made a definite decision on this matter in the dogma. The important thing is the Immaculate Conception. Catholics are obligated to give their sacred assent to this teaching: that Mary was preserved free from original sin at the instant she was conceived. We are not bound to believe an item that has not been defined in a dogma. The question of whether Christ could have contracted original sin isn’t even raised in the Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius. The matter isn’t even an official teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Until now it’s been purely theological speculation among the faithful. It remains an ineffable mystery.

 

[Leeann]

Because the Church has not made a definite decision on this matter in the dogma. The important thing is the Immaculate Conception. Catholics are obligated to give their sacred assent to this teaching: that Mary was preserved free from original sin at the instant she was conceived. We are not bound to believe an item that has not been defined in a dogma. The question of whether Christ could have contracted original sin isn’t even raised in the Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius. The matter isn’t even an official teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Until now it’s been purely theological speculation among the faithful. It remains an ineffable mystery.

Thank you Goodfella for clarifying this.
I never knew this…I always thought that the “sinlessness of Mary” was part of an official dogma.

Peace and God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I thought that if a Catholic rejected this proclamation of the pope he was cursed or something like that. If this is true then how can Catholics be free to judge for themselves?

Everyone is free to judge for themselves. Anyone who wishes to reject the Truth that God has revealed can choose to do so. All will reap the consequences of their choices. Eternal life for those that choose right, and eternal death to those who choose the lie.

It is the duty of the church to hold out the Truth, and the duty of the disciple to embrace it.

 

[Good_Fella]

Thank you Goodfella for clarifying this.
I never knew this…I always thought that the “sinlessness of Mary” was part of an official dogma.

Peace and God Bless

Mary’s sinlessness is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, but not the question of whether Christ would have contracted the taint of original sin without her immaculate conception. Mary’s sinlessness relates to her position with God the Father as the mother of his Only-begotten Son. It has no relation with her human nature. Mary was always full of grace in virtue of her Divine maternity.

PAX :harp:

 

[elvisman]

I don’t think you know Aquinas as well as you claim. Aquinas wrote much throught his life but had an extrodinary encounter late in his life and declared ALL of his writings “but straw” following his spiritual encounter. We can pretend to know most if not everything about God but the truth is, the greatest of theology in all of time is “but straw” compared to the wisdom of our mighty God.

Then ****PROVE IT, **SIA.
Provide the entire letter, sermon or book that this came from. Show me the proof - in context where ****St. Thomas Aquinas made the statement **YOU claim he did:
"Only a sinner needs a Savior and Mary must have been a sinner."
****Until you do, you should be regarded as nothing more than another **bitter anti-Catholic with an axe to grind
**
I present proof with my arguments.
All you provide is vitriol andarrogance*****.***

 

[RobHom]

“All things are possible with God”

That is most certainly a truth…as I have been reminded over and over again by my Protestant friends over the years…

“Gods is able to raise up disciples from these stones”

Yes, God can…he created the earth and all within it, so raising a disciple from a stone would be simple!

If God wants to bring a “clean Jesus” out of of an “unclean Mary” I think he could pull it off. Who are you to put limits on the Almighty?

If he wanted to, he could have, but the issue begs the question: WHY WOULD HE WANT TO? Your hypothesis fails any test of logic in reality. Yes, God can do anything…but, why would God want His “sinless Son” to be born of an unclean mother? He wouldn’t. Simple as that. For you to state that He did is to limit God, and presuppose that you know His mind.

What I find truly amazing nowadays…is that modern “christians” suppose that they know more than men who spent their entire lives in study of Scriptures and the writings of the ECF’s…and they while being the primary antagonists of the Church at the beginnings of the Reformation…Still held to certain facts, and pronounced them and believed them!!

Perhaps reading the following and having a moment of introspection or two might bring some clarity to your issues?

davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

 

[justasking4]

Mary’s sinlessness is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, but not the question of whether Christ would have contracted the taint of original sin without her immaculate conception. Mary’s sinlessness relates to her position with God the Father as the mother of his Only-begotten Son. It has no relation with her human nature. Mary was always full of grace in virtue of her Divine maternity.

PAX :harp:

Keep in mind that this idea that she was always full of grace in virtue of her Divine maternity is speculation since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way. To think those that knew her best were totally unaware of this is truly telling.

 

[Good_Fella]

Keep in mind that this idea that she was always full of grace in virtue of her Divine maternity is speculation since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way. To think those that knew her best were totally unaware of this is truly telling.

“Hail, full of grace (Chaire kecharitomene), the Lord is with you.”
Luke 1, 28

 

[guanophore]

Keep in mind that this idea that she was always full of grace in virtue of her Divine maternity is speculation since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way. To think those that knew her best were totally unaware of this is truly telling.

No, ja4. Eternal Truth does not become reduced to “speculation” just because you can’t find it in your Bible. The Truth is much bigger than your Bible can ever hold, and the notion that things you can’t find in there are “speculations” is absurd.

It is equally ignorant to purport the assumption that things not written in NT were “unknown” to the Apostles. Does the NT ever tell about anyone performing their personal hygiene? Can you find an example of anyone bathing, or performing elimination? Would you assume that these activities were 'unknown" to them, or that they were “unaware” because it is not written?

Would you consider it “speculation” to believe that they did these hygenic things daily?

Honestly.

 

[justasking4]

No, ja4. Eternal Truth does not become reduced to “speculation” just because you can’t find it in your Bible. The Truth is much bigger than your Bible can ever hold, and the notion that things you can’t find in there are “speculations” is absurd.

It is equally ignorant to purport the assumption that things not written in NT were “unknown” to the Apostles. Does the NT ever tell about anyone performing their personal hygiene? Can you find an example of anyone bathing, or performing elimination? Would you assume that these activities were 'unknown" to them, or that they were “unaware” because it is not written?

Would you consider it “speculation” to believe that they did these hygenic things daily?

Honestly.

When it comes to the personal habits of the apostles its irrelevant to Christian doctrine and practice. Since the Catholic church insist important things about Mary that affects a catholics faith and practice then it is absolutely essential to have it clearly grounded in the Scriptures. No doctrine or practice should ever be based on the speculations of men… but solidly and clearly on the Word of God i.e. the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

When it comes to the personal habits of the apostles its irrelevant to Christian doctrine and practice.

I agree! My point is that your postulation that “if I do not see it in scripture it is speculation” is spurious.

Since the Catholic church insist important things about Mary that affects a catholics faith and practice then it is absolutely essential to have it clearly grounded in the Scriptures.

Actually, no.

Since the whole NT was produced by, for, and about Catholics there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic teaching.

However, we do see the doctrines clearly grounded in the Scripture. You do not, because you have rejected the Sacred Tradition, which is the lens through which we look.

No doctrine or practice should ever be based on the speculations of men… but solidly and clearly on the Word of God i.e. the Scriptures.

While I agree that no doctrine should be based on speculation, and that all doctrine is grounded on the Word of God, Catholics do not limit the Word of God to the Sacred Writings.

That Word of God lives as much in those who have received the Apostolic Teachings:

"We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers."1 Thess 2:13

For some reason, which I think is likely rebellion against authority, you believe that this Word of God that is at work in the believers somehow “disappeared” when the NT was written.

 

[PerryJ]

Since that topic is far afield from this thread, I will concede the point. You are purporting that the “wages of sin is death” and that, since Mary died, it proves that she has no sin. But Jesus has removed all sin and effects of sin from those who are “in Him”. Mary was saved, and therefore, will not inherit the consequences of sins.

It is believe that Mary did die. Just as Christ died and was sinless. Mary was assumed into Heaven as the Bible shows two others and probably all that were mentioned during Penecost. Her body was not corrupted and she was assumed into Heaven.

 

[Nickkname]

JasonTE said…

Where is the evidence of “people referring to Mary as a sinner long before anybody referred to her as sinless from conception?”

Let’s see some early Church writings that called her a sinner, if there are any.

I do believe the Archangel Gabriel called Mary full of grace. And Mary visited Lourdes and called herself the Immaculate Conception. So both from Public Revelation and private revelation Mary’s sinlessness is defended - and what’s more, it was an angel of God and Mary herself who defended the Immaculate Conception. The only way it could be better is if God Himself said Mary was sinless. Oh, wait, I forgot, He did! He spoke to Mary through His angel, and isn’t the Bible the Word of God?

As for the early Church Fathers who opposed Mary’s sinless, there were some unfortunately. They included: Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica), Saint Bernard, Saint Bonaventure, and a number of theologians.

 

[PerryJ]

“Hail, full of grace (Chaire kecharitomene), the Lord is with you.”
Luke 1, 28

Ja4 it doesn’t get any clearer than this. Sin reduces grace. Mary is full of grace; therefore, she does not have sin and hasn’t been touched by it. How does one refute something so clear in the Bible?