Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear so many preachers, scholars, and priests say “this word in Hebrew really means” so and so. Yet it is translated differently by the translators of that edition. There are so many interpretations of words that it seems to me that we need a Magisterium, even if it works slowly. Protestants really have no argument against each other that can’t be disagreed with. They have all read the Bible and all hold to what they want to believe. Although I am personally right now struggling with Trent’s definition that people can’t go through life without venial sins, I know that Jesus is real and since I live in a historical period, I want to know what we know historically about Jesus, if anything. What has been passed down? Only the Catholic Church has a reliable system in dealing with this question. Otherwise I would be stuck in a “personal relationship with Jesus” without anything to read about him! That would stink
 
Blue_Horizon said:
My friend we can reason and rationalise all we like but Revelation as understood by the Magisterium cannot be gain-sayed.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said I am not Catholic for reasons I have stated before. One being the present discussion. I do not as yet recognize the argument that the Magisterium is the end all and be all for the interpretation of scriptural truth. To think one may establish the truth of a matter to a non Catholic, thereby potentially gaining a convert, by appealing to an Authority, yet to be recognized by the potential convert, as a proof of the yet to be proven is absurd. Its true because the Magisterium says its true even if it seems to be shown to be not true is an argument hardly worthy of a scholar of the truth.
Blue_Horizon said:
The same Biblical verse that the Catholic Church interprets as Mary “full of grace” also has the angel counsel her “do not be afraid.” Clearly the angel considered Mary capable of fear.
Click to expand...
The Latin phrase “plena gratia” translated from the Greek word “Kecharitomene” as the Catholic Church interprets it in reference to Luke 1:28 is a logically and coherently contested interpretation. Indeed if my premise is correct then “highly favored” fits quite sufficiently where as “full of Grace” if I understand its implications correctly would not. The one link you gave me on Catholic exchange led me to an Author whose treatise in my view has some flaws in its logic and charity. For instance, when downgrading other scholar’s opinions it would be courteous to name them, quote them, and then constructively present correction of their error. Phrases such as protestant sceptic, common protestant critique, protestant claim, disingenuous…group, and protestant apologists semantic shell-game (as if Catholics cannot be accused of the same game…sigh), without actually quoting Protestants and presenting counter reasoning but only presenting generalized protestant ideas and yet quoting Catholic sources and reasoning is hardly charitable. Logically the Author hasn’t to me anyway presented a good case for his conclusions. For instance the Author himself points out that after all the semantic twisting and turning of the interpretation of the word….”these definitions do leave it open-ended as to whether grace or favor is the way to go.” It is also interesting to note that his “likelihood” proof relying on a count of the majority of uses of charis being translated as grace 132 out of 156 times is taken from the King James version which, apparently the Author missed this glaring disparity, translates the phrase as “highly favored”. In the next paragraph he draws, to him, an indisputable conclusion from the above unproven proof. Presumably using the same bible version mentioned, since he hasn’t offered another he goes a step further saying Luke 1:30 clinches the proof because the noun charis here being rendered grace, which it isn’t in the King James version, should be the clarifying settlement? I am not saying he is wrong in his assumptions about kecharitomene, but he most certainly has failed to prove it here.
As for the Angels statement, I absolutely agree that the verse shows Mary capable of and demonstrating fear. That is an integral part of my argument against her immaculate conception. That the Angel considered her capable of fear is not a proof in itself of Mary being capable of fearing while also being an immaculate soul.
Blue_Horizon said:
As the "Angelic Doctor states: "…when the appetite fears so as to shun what reason requires to be shunned, the appetite is neither inordinate nor sinful.”
Click to expand...
The so called “Angelic Doctor” here is quite correct….if in reference to a soul suffering from the effects of the stain of original sin.
I never said, nor do I believe fear is sinful. Indeed my argument states fear as a consequential symptom of sin. I don’t consider hospitals sinful either. But if Doctors are needed this is a sure sign of the consequences of sin….an existent unhealthy disposition.
Read further here:
newadvent.org/summa/3125.htm
 
Did not Jesus fear in the garden, sweating blood? Did not He say “Father, why have you forsaken me?”?
 
thinkandmull said:
Did not Jesus fear in the garden, sweating blood? Did not He say “Father, why have you forsaken me?”?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Quite astute of you to point this out. Jesus was obviously a unique case. He was as Catholics define him both fully God and fully Man. But more than simply becoming fully man he was to be the sacrificial lamb to take away the sins of the world and open salvation to all who would believe in him. To do this he had to take on the sins of the world. Death is inarguably a consequence of sin. We get this explicitly from reading scripture. Jesus was pure and without sin. We get this also from scripture. Yet Jesus had to die! He took on the sins of the world and consequently suffered the effects the symptoms of which would have manifested in things such as fear, pain, anger, doubt…etc.
This is the important difference between Mary and Jesus. Mary was not the sacrifice to save all. Mary if immaculate would have taken on no sins of the world as Christ had to so Mary should have suffered no consequential symptoms of sin.
Blessings be upon you always.
 
Astute point as well. However, why is it not at least possible for a sinless person to have the effects of original sin without the sin itself? Do you have a philosophical argument to back this up??
 
thinkandmull said:
Astute point as well. However, why is it not at least possible for a sinless person to have the effects of original sin without the sin itself? Do you have a philosophical argument to back this up??
Click to expand...
This is a good point. The various preternatural gifts coincided with original justice and were lost with original sin, but are not necessarily dependent on the former or incompatible with the latter. As the most notable example, Adam and Eve lost their bodily immortality as a consequence of their sin … but it does not seem that a person imbued with original justice has to be physically immortal, nor that a person with original sin has to be mortal. (Indeed, depending on how far we want to take the details of the story with the trees, the reason Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden was to deny them access to the Tree of Life, by which it seems they could have remained physically immortal even in their fallen state.) On the flip side, presumably a person (such as Mary, or Jesus in His humanity) could have lacked the guilt of original sin and its direct effects (unmastered passions/concupiscence) while still suffering some effects (fear and sadness and death) of living in a fallen world without God’s special gifts.
 
Usagi said:
This is a good point. The various preternatural gifts coincided with original justice and were lost with original sin, but are not necessarily dependent on the former or incompatible with the latter. As the most notable example, Adam and Eve lost their bodily immortality as a consequence of their sin … but it does not seem that a person imbued with original justice has to be physically immortal, nor that a person with original sin has to be mortal. (Indeed, depending on how far we want to take the details of the story with the trees, the reason Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden was to deny them access to the Tree of Life, by which it seems they could have remained physically immortal even in their fallen state.) On the flip side, presumably a person (such as Mary, or Jesus in His humanity) could have lacked the guilt of original sin and its direct effects (unmastered passions/concupiscence) while still suffering some effects (fear and sadness and death) of living in a fallen world without God’s special gifts.
Click to expand...
Catechism:

Original Holiness = sharing in divine life

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

Original Justice = harmony with creatures and creation

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
 
setarcos said:
As I’ve said I am not Catholic for reasons I have stated before. One being the present discussion. I do not as yet recognize the argument that the Magisterium is the end all and be all for the interpretation of scriptural truth. To think one may establish the truth of a matter to a non Catholic, thereby potentially gaining a convert, by appealing to an Authority, yet to be recognized by the potential convert, as a proof of the yet to be proven is absurd. Its true because the Magisterium says its true even if it seems to be shown to be not true is an argument hardly worthy of a scholar of the truth.
Click to expand...
I am not interested in converting you.
Catholicism hardly stands or falls on the question of Mary’s Immaculate conception.
However if you cannot accept that Peter is the rock on which Jesus builds his historical Church then Catholicism is not for you. Try Protestantism if you do have Christian faith, Its likely where God is calling you.

I am simply observing that possibilities, not even likely ones, are not necessities.
You seem to be asserting effective logically necessary specific conclusions from somewhat generic data. If I am engaging in any apologetics at all I am simply observing that there is no coercive logical necessity in your musings. Which leaves room for the Magisterium to be correct even if scholarly or logical probability re the “evidence” in your favour is greater than 50%.

I get it you believe your arguments are more probable.
It makes no difference to my view as >50% probability is not necessary truth unless its 100%.

Hence my example of the “brothers of Jesus”.
That is clearly a better first pass or usual translation of the individual isolated Gospel passages involved. However it is not beyond the realms of reasonable scholarly translation for the words used to also be taken as half-brothers or cousins or even “adopted” children regularly cohabiting in the family unit.
The Latin phrase “plena gratia” translated from the Greek word “Kecharitomene” as the Catholic Church interprets it in reference to Luke 1:28 is a logically and coherently contested interpretation. Indeed if my premise is correct then “highly favored” fits quite sufficiently where as “full of Grace” if I understand its implications correctly would not.
Click to expand...
I am not a binary thinker when it comes to such matters. Fate is stranger than fiction as they say and the world is usually grey not binary.
As for the Angels statement, I absolutely agree that the verse shows Mary capable of and demonstrating fear. That is an integral part of my argument against her immaculate conception. That the Angel considered her capable of fear is not a proof in itself of Mary being capable of fearing while also being an immaculate soul.
Click to expand...
OK, now I understand that this is why you believe Mary could not be immaculate.

Lets relook at your original statement:
"Mary couldn’t have been immaculate. … A pure soul knows no fear. Fear is a consequent of sin. "
This appears to be a logically erroneous assertion so probably unhelpful in making your point
.
Fear may well be a consequence of “sin”.
That doesn’t stop fear being a consequence of other things that are not “sin”.
Just as Aquinas, whom you agree with, states.

Of course “sin” is a slippery word.

It may also be true that the immaculate may fear simply by reason of cohabiting with non immaculates in a world outside of Eden.
 
Usagi said:
This is a good point. The various preternatural gifts coincided with original justice and were lost with original sin, but are not necessarily dependent on the former or incompatible with the latter. As the most notable example, Adam and Eve lost their bodily immortality as a consequence of their sin … but it does not seem that a person imbued with original justice has to be physically immortal, nor that a person with original sin has to be mortal. (Indeed, depending on how far we want to take the details of the story with the trees, the reason Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden was to deny them access to the Tree of Life, by which it seems they could have remained physically immortal even in their fallen state.) On the flip side, presumably a person (such as Mary, or Jesus in His humanity) could have lacked the guilt of original sin and its direct effects (unmastered passions/concupiscence) while still suffering some effects (fear and sadness and death) of living in a fallen world without God’s special gifts.
Click to expand...
Well put.
Mary, in solidarity with all humanity, is just as locked out of Eden (where the tree of life grows) as we are.

Death etc may be the fate of immaculates (eg Jesus) for reasons other than purely redemptive ones. Perhaps Jesus’s death was itself an example of his deep solidarity with humanity not only in its nature (but not its actual wound) but also in its evil external conditions/effects …including a rational fear of this external evil as Aquinas states.

In fact this very solidarity may be a significant part of the Redemption which would explain why Mary may acceptably be called a “Coredemptrix”.
 
The teaching that Mary remained free from all personal sin her entire life is infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium. It is a separate dogma from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in which Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was taught by Papal Infallibility.

The two dogmas are closely related. But recall that Eve was created in a state of original innocence, and yet she committed personal sin. So the Church has taught both that Mary did not inherit original sin, and that she never committed personal sin.

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:
  1. Papal Infallibility
  2. Conciliar Infallibility
  3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium
    A teaching is formal dogma if it is taught by any of the above three modes of infallibility.
 
thanks ron conte, succinctly and accurately put.

adding to your point, can anyone cite anything that indicates that the Church EVER TAUGHT that Mary sinned?

i think not!!!
 
Vico said:
Catechism:

Original Holiness = sharing in divine life

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

Original Justice = harmony with creatures and creation

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
Click to expand...
Original Justice, according to Aquinas, also includes, and primarily so, harmony with the Creator.
It is unclear whether that must necessitate sanctifying grace before the Fall which was considered present anyways.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The teaching that Mary remained free from all personal sin her entire life is infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium. It is a separate dogma from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in which Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was taught by Papal Infallibility.

The two dogmas are closely related. But recall that Eve was created in a state of original innocence, and yet she committed personal sin. So the Church has taught both that Mary did not inherit original sin, and that she never committed personal sin.

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:
  1. Papal Infallibility
  2. Conciliar Infallibility
  3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium
    A teaching is formal dogma if it is taught by any of the above three modes of infallibility.
Click to expand...
How do you know it was taught under OUM? I don’t think that can be demonstrated
 
I want to know what is defined and what is straight from the Bible.

Trying to prove that Mary was the new Ark doesn’t hit me as a strong point. She carried Jesus, so of course she could be called the new Ark. But was she perfect in the sense that the old ark had to be always clean? Well that was the OT and Jesus hadn’t entered a sinless world yet. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Marian teachings, but I don’t think Protestants don’t have arguments to satisfy their disbelief.
 
thinkandmull said:
Trent mentioned the doctrine about Mary in passing. It did not put its authority behind it, otherwise it would be dogmatic. Second, Lumen Gentium is not infallible, as Paul VI said himself. Not everything that is non-infallible teaching must be assented to. Rome tries to say it is, but if it violates one’s firm belief consent of the will cannot be demanded since its NOT infallible. Third, you quote the Catechism as saying: 417 “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called ‘original sin’.” This is contrary to Catholic doctrine that original sin is a STAIN, not a deprivation of something that is not owed. In fact, your Catechism quote is in contradiction to your quote from Pius XII:
“she was immune from all SIN, personal or inherited.” So the Catechisms teaching must be rejected (non-infallible). Finally Ludwig Ott is just a theologian. Theologians try to raise their ideas to “theologically certain” although they have no authority to. They have no authority from God. They are just students of studies
Click to expand...
You might also just be thinking of a stain in too much of a material staining material sense.
 
The supernatural is not owed to humanity. So not having grace doesn’t create a stain. Only sin does that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top