Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

[setarcos]

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??

I would ask to what purpose? What purpose would suffering the effects serve to those whose suffering has no cause when the whole goal of creation is for man to come back to harmony with God and no suffering. How would it make sense that the person who has reached this goal, harmony and perfect communion with God should suffer still? What sense would it make for God to create the miracle of painful burn scars on a person even though that person was never burned by anything if the point of the person is to show the Glory of perfect, undefiled, communion and harmony with God? A beacon, a light to others who would seek out salvation?
Fear is a marker. It’s a sign saying look, see that I suffer from the fall from perfect communion with the creator. You cannot separate fear from its ultimate cause -original sin- because fear doesn’t exist of its own accord. It is a label defining an expression of a reaction to a stimulus. This expression has been impressed upon human souls by our fall from Gods graces. The reaction we call a state of fear is an integral part of what our souls have become. It is a reaction of disharmony and doubt about God perfect protection and love. The less fear we suffer the closer to harmonizing with Gods glorious perfect love we are. In analogy our souls are double amputees wearing prosthetics for legs. God wants to make us whole again. Let’s say fear is the prosthetics. We wear them in order to benefit our lives in our damaged state. This does not make them sinful. It does not make them the cause of our amputations. They are useful though, given the state we find ourselves in. Fear is useful in this unhealthy dangerous world. It can also be a hindrance. It’s not exactly fun to be fearful. Nor is it Gods wish that we suffer fear. A person who is whole with both legs is not able to wear prosthetics, not only because they don’t need them, but because they have legs where the prosthetics would go. There is no room. In perfected love of God there is no room nor need for fear.
Verse after verse in the bible is an appeal to us to not fear. The bible declares two forms of fear…the one beneficial, “fear of God”, the other a reaction to a perceived threat, generally speaking. Both are results of the fall. It is clear from the bible that God wants to quash all our fears. How is it that we can both be encouraged to fear God and be encouraged to not fear at all? It is because the former is a necessary stimulus which leads to life. The other forms of fear are doubts resulting from not having reached that eternal life in communion with God yet.
What is an immaculate if not in full communion and harmony with God? If so what has an immaculate to fear? Death? No. Death is a result of sin. Pain? No. An immaculate would know no pain being in full harmony with creation. Nor would an immaculate be allowed to suffer any pain, being in full communion and harmony with God who would protect them. The bible says “what have we to fear if God is with us?”
What then? The potential to sin? In order to do that they would have to fall out of harmony with God and if that were possible then there would be no point to the sacrifice once and for all in order that we might be saved, born anew, a purified soul. It would be reduced to a cyclic salvation like some eastern religious beliefs.
Would they be capable of fear from some faulty perception of reality? A Psychosis or phobia perhaps ? I think not. They are in perfect harmony remember. Would they be fearful of Gods judgment? Not having any taint of the original sin they would not be under any judgment from God nor have any reason to fear Gods judgment and therefor God.
So you tell me. When and why might we find fear in the immaculate?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would ask to what purpose? What purpose would suffering the effects serve to those whose suffering has no cause when the whole goal of creation is for man to come back to harmony with God and no suffering. How would it make sense that the person who has reached this goal, harmony and perfect communion with God should suffer still? What sense would it make for God to create the miracle of painful burn scars on a person even though that person was never burned by anything if the point of the person is to show the Glory of perfect, undefiled, communion and harmony with God? A beacon, a light to others who would seek out salvation?
Fear is a marker. It’s a sign saying look, see that I suffer from the fall from perfect communion with the creator. You cannot separate fear from its ultimate cause -original sin- because fear doesn’t exist of its own accord. It is a label defining an expression of a reaction to a stimulus. This expression has been impressed upon human souls by our fall from Gods graces. The reaction we call a state of fear is an integral part of what our souls have become. It is a reaction of disharmony and doubt about God perfect protection and love. The less fear we suffer the closer to harmonizing with Gods glorious perfect love we are. In analogy our souls are double amputees wearing prosthetics for legs. God wants to make us whole again. Let’s say fear is the prosthetics. We wear them in order to benefit our lives in our damaged state. This does not make them sinful. It does not make them the cause of our amputations. They are useful though, given the state we find ourselves in. Fear is useful in this unhealthy dangerous world. It can also be a hindrance. It’s not exactly fun to be fearful. Nor is it Gods wish that we suffer fear. A person who is whole with both legs is not able to wear prosthetics, not only because they don’t need them, but because they have legs where the prosthetics would go. There is no room. In perfected love of God there is no room nor need for fear.
Verse after verse in the bible is an appeal to us to not fear. The bible declares two forms of fear…the one beneficial, “fear of God”, the other a reaction to a perceived threat, generally speaking. Both are results of the fall. It is clear from the bible that God wants to quash all our fears. How is it that we can both be encouraged to fear God and be encouraged to not fear at all? It is because the former is a necessary stimulus which leads to life. The other forms of fear are doubts resulting from not having reached that eternal life in communion with God yet.
What is an immaculate if not in full communion and harmony with God? If so what has an immaculate to fear? Death? No. Death is a result of sin. Pain? No. An immaculate would know no pain being in full harmony with creation. Nor would an immaculate be allowed to suffer any pain, being in full communion and harmony with God who would protect them. The bible says “what have we to fear if God is with us?”
What then? The potential to sin? In order to do that they would have to fall out of harmony with God and if that were possible then there would be no point to the sacrifice once and for all in order that we might be saved, born anew, a purified soul. It would be reduced to a cyclic salvation like some eastern religious beliefs.
Would they be capable of fear from some faulty perception of reality? A Psychosis or phobia perhaps ? I think not. They are in perfect harmony remember. Would they be fearful of Gods judgment? Not having any taint of the original sin they would not be under any judgment from God nor have any reason to fear Gods judgment and therefor God.
So you tell me. When and why might we find fear in the immaculate?

Setarcos this is a Catholic forum even if you are not.
You cherry pick the Bible in your own support which is certainly better than relying on your own reason if you want to influence people here.

However Catholics are not Protestants so even this attempt at influencing us is somewhat limping and sterile.

So you need to mount from Magisterial sources or Councils or even a consensus of the Father or Doctors of the Church if you really want to make progress against generally held Catholic sentiment on this point which is agin you.

I do not believe you will find any support for your strongly held opinion.
I have already quoted why from Aquinas whose teaching is 90% of what the Church teaches.

If you are unable to take the approach I suggest maybe it is best to just let it go.
Catholics are quite happy to accept Magisterial lead even if it may not be wholly likely according to reason…so long as it is not 100% against reason.

Its pretty clear there is no intrinsic philosophic or Biblical reason why fear must be foreign to an immaculate in a fallen world just as sickness and death is not. Biblical support? They too dwell outside of Eden do they not? The Tree of Life is not accessible to them.

Why should this be required by God?
Maybe it isn’t, maybe it is a counsel not a command…especially if immaculates wish to assist in redeeming their fellow non-immaculates.

How that works I do not know. But I do know that the NT teaches by word and example that loving our neighbour to the utmost also requires utmost solidarity … even to the point of sharing in the worst effects of their sin - without personally sinning themselves.

Revelation is not reason. If it were it wouldn’t be revelation would it.

But revelation does not contradict reason.
When you can demonstrate what we state is 100% against reason then Catholic understanding of revelation will be mistaken.
I believe you are far from that point in your philosophising.

 

[Vico]

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??

When the original sin (hereditary stain) dogma was defined (Council of Trent - Session V, 1546), the Blessed Virgin Mary and Our Lord Jesus Christ were excluded. Later the Church provided the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854).

There were three opposing ideas that had occurred:

1. 
   *]Theodorus of Mopsuestia - Adam’s sin did not bring death. Adopted by the Pelagians and condemned at Carthage.
   *]Pelagians later recanted and accepted that Adam’s sin brought death, but held that there was no inherited transmission of sin. Condemned at Council of Orange.
   *]Pelagians later recanted and adopted that Adam caused sin in us, but by imitation only. Condemned at Council of Trent.
   
   Death and Suffering are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin.
   The rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is an occasion of sin not necessarily a fault, so is not original sin.
   The absence of sanctifying grace (holiness) at conception is also an effect of the first sin, and is called the hereditary stain.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Death and Suffering are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin.
The rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is an occasion of sin not necessarily a fault, so is not original sin.
The absence of sanctifying grace (holiness) at conception is also an effect of the first sin, and is called the hereditary stain.

Not sure about the 2nd one.
It defines loss of original justice.
So while it does not wholly define original sin it is essential to it and will only be removed at the general resurrection of the just?
It is my understanding that the “stain” only refers to loss of SGrace.

 

[Vico]

Not sure about the 2nd one.
It defines loss of original justice.
So while it does not wholly define original sin it is essential to it and will only be removed at the general resurrection of the just?
It is my understanding that the “stain” only refers to loss of SGrace.

Both original holiness and original justice were lost. Holiness may be restored with sanctifying grace. The preternatural gifts are not possessed now, but sanctifying grace helps with concupiscence.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Both original holiness and original justice were lost. Holiness may be restored with sanctifying grace. The preternatural gifts are not possessed now, but sanctifying grace helps with concupiscence.

Anyone who has been keeping up here already knows what you just stated.

That has nothing to do with my observation here from what I can see.

You stated the disordered relationship of the body to the soul is not original sin.
However it is an essential component of original sin and the one aspect that is not healed by baptism, therefore I find your statement somewhat misleading.

It is also interesting this is not traditionally called a “stain”.

 

[Vico]

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

It is not consent but assent to what the Church teaches that is required. When the Church does not call it irreformable then the assent is not to what is irreformable but something else of a different theological certainty.

No conflict between the following.

Deprivation of original holiness and justice is called ‘original sin’ by the Council of Trent, Session V:

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

What was defined in 1954, Pope Pius IX:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful…”

What Pope Pius XII wrote in 1943 in Mystici Corporis:

It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included in the holocaust.

 

[Vico]

Anyone who has been keeping up here already knows what you just stated.

That has nothing to do with my observation here from what I can see.

You stated the disordered relationship of the body to the soul is not original sin.
However it is an essential component of original sin and the one aspect that is not healed by baptism, therefore I find your statement somewhat misleading.

It is also interesting this is not traditionally called a “stain”.

See if you can follow the explanation given in Catholic Encyclopedia.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

See if you can follow the explanation given in Catholic Encyclopedia.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

I am familiar with this.

Why do you quote it as relevant to the point at hand?

At no point have I denied, like the Protestants, that what was passed down to us was only loss of original justice .

 

[Vico]

I am familiar with this.

Why do you quote it as relevant to the point at hand?

At no point have I denied, like the Protestants, that what was passed down to us was only loss of original justice .

It is in answer to your statement that “You stated the disordered relationship of the body to the soul is not original sin. However it is an essential component of original sin and the one aspect that is not healed by baptism, therefore I find your statement somewhat misleading.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is in answer to your statement that “You stated the disordered relationship of the body to the soul is not original sin. However it is an essential component of original sin and the one aspect that is not healed by baptism, therefore I find your statement somewhat misleading.”

We are all aware of that.
You still haven’t effectively explained the relevance, you seem unwilling to do so?

The original issue is your opinion that loss of original justice transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is not original sin.

I maintain it is part of our hereditary sin so your formulation appears awkward.

 

[epostle]

https://s5.postimg.org/hqiumcdxj/catholicmeme001.jpg_resize_514_394.jpg

 

[Vico]

We are all aware of that.
You still haven’t effectively explained the relevance, you seem unwilling to do so?

The original issue is your opinion that loss of original justice transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is not original sin.

I maintain it is part of our hereditary sin so your formulation appears awkward.

Going back to Post #66

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”.

Going back to Post #103

Originally Posted by Vico
Death and Suffering are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin.
The rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is an occasion of sin not necessarily a fault, so is not original sin.
The absence of sanctifying grace (holiness) at conception is also an effect of the first sin, and is called the hereditary stain.
Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Not sure about the 2nd one.
It defines loss of original justice.
So while it does not wholly define original sin it is essential to it and will only be removed at the general resurrection of the just?
It is my understanding that the “stain” only refers to loss of SGrace.

New Commentary:

St. Thomas Aquinas give us that the species of original sin, formally, is taken from its cause which is privation of original justice i.e., the non-subjection of the will to God. Taken materially, original sin is concupiscence, not a disorder of will, but all other disorders of the soul’s powers.

Original sin is erased by baptism yet concupiscence still remains, so original sin and concupiscence cannot be identical in us.

Concupiscence is not original sin but an effect of it per the Council of Trent, chapter 5, first decree, canon V (excerpt):

This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Note that in the same chapter, canon II state that there is a loss of both holiness and justice. They are different:

“If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; …”

 

[Randy_Carson]

When did the Church infallibly teach that Mary never sinned? Is it dogma? Trent said that “this is what the Church has taught” but doesn’t cite where this comes from. Does it come from the Liturgy like Mary’s virginity? (I haven’t found a dogmatic statement on that either, but the Liturgy is infallible teaching in practice I believe).

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers which suggest that the idea of Mary being without sin was present VERY early:

Hippolytus (AD 235)

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Origen (AD 244)

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

St. Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

St. Augustine (ca. AD 415)

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1 [ante A.D. 446]).

St. Andrew of Crete (AD 660 – AD 740)

Today, O Savior, You have give to pious Anne fruitful offspring of her womb, Your Immaculate Mother… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 4)

O Virgin undefiled, undefiled is your birth… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 5)

St. John Damascene (ca. AD 645 – ca. AD 749)

We had closed Paradise; you opened again the entryway to the tree of life. We turned joys into sorrow; you turned sorrow back into the greatest of joys for us. And how would you, the Immaculate, taste of death? You are the bridge to life, you are the staircase to heaven; and [for you] death will be but a passageway to immortality. O Most Blessed, truly blessed art thou! (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary, 10:8)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Going back to Post #66

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”.

Going back to Post #103

Originally Posted by Vico
Death and Suffering are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin.
The rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam (concupiscence) is an occasion of sin not necessarily a fault, so is not original sin.
The absence of sanctifying grace (holiness) at conception is also an effect of the first sin, and is called the hereditary stain.
Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Not sure about the 2nd one.
It defines loss of original justice.
So while it does not wholly define original sin it is essential to it and will only be removed at the general resurrection of the just?
It is my understanding that the “stain” only refers to loss of SGrace.

New Commentary:

St. Thomas Aquinas give us that the species of original sin, formally, is taken from its cause which is privation of original justice i.e., the non-subjection of the will to God. Taken materially, original sin is concupiscence, not a disorder of will, but all other disorders of the soul’s powers.

Original sin is erased by baptism yet concupiscence still remains, so original sin and concupiscence cannot be identical in us.

Concupiscence is not original sin but an effect of it per the Council of Trent, chapter 5, first decree, canon V (excerpt):

This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Note that in the same chapter, canon II state that there is a loss of both holiness and justice. They are different:

“If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; …”

Again nothing new here unless I’ve missed something.

Vico are you able to get past the OCD Turing like affinity for quoting hard to relevantly relate chunks of text and contribute something personally surgically apposite.

Otherwise you give the impression of being at a loss to answer my observations re the awkwardness of your statement in blue.

Are they your own words or are they quoted from somewhere?

 

[Vico]

Again nothing new here unless I’ve missed something.

Vico are you able to get past the OCD Turing like affinity for quoting hard to relevantly relate chunks of text and contribute something personally surgically apposite.

Otherwise you give the impression of being at a loss to answer my observations re the awkwardness of your statement in blue.

Are they your own words or are they quoted from somewhere?

I don’t understand your Question due to the phrase “OCD Turing like affinity” – what does that mean?

I suppose you are not reading the posts completely. Are you? It is from Catholic Encylopedia as posted more than once.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t understand your Question due to the phrase “OCD Turing like affinity” – what does that mean?

I suppose you are not reading the posts completely. Are you? It is from Catholic Encylopedia as posted more than once.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

Are you able to explain relevance of chunks of quoted text or answer simple questions.
Noone is going to shoot you for being personal.
Did you once work extensively in a Govt department or a big legal firm by any chance.

 

[Vico]

Are you able to explain relevance of chunks of quoted text or answer simple questions.
Noone is going to shoot you for being personal.
Did you once work extensively in a Govt department or a big legal firm by any chance.

Never worked in a Government or Law.

 

[setarcos]

Setarcos this is a Catholic forum even if you are not.

Greetings again my fellow truth seekers.
My dear Blue Horizon,
This is a Catholic forum…and? Have you forgotten what the forums are for? Let me refresh your memory from the forum home page,
“The Catholic Answers Forums (CAF) exists to provide a community for Catholics and non-Catholics of all levels of interest in and/or commitment to the Catholic Church where they may gather on the Internet for discussion in a safe and charitable environment. We do not require that members agree with the Catholic Church in order to participate; only that they remain charitable in their postings”
You speak to me as if because I am not a Catholic I either should not be permitted on here or have nothing of value to contribute since Catholics are incapable of further reasoning on their beliefs - having accepted that no further reasoning is possible or necessary. This doesn’t say much for defending the faith or testing the spirits. It does say a lot for arrogance and prideful behavior.

You cherry pick the Bible in your own support which is certainly better than relying on your own reason if you want to influence people here.

How is it you think I am “cherry picking” the bible? If you would not be accused of the same then give me examples of this as opposed to what you do. You make these accusations but give no examples. How are we to have a productive discussion if you don’t? I should be allowed to see where you think this is happening in error so that I may defend my position or accept yours. Why do you say influence people here? I’m not here to influence anyone. I’m here to ask questions, receive other view points, and reason things out. Is this unreasonable? Who doesn’t rely on their own reasoning to some extent? Did you not rely on your own reasoning to understand the reasoning behind the Magisterium’s interpretations of scripture? If no one ever did then conversion to Catholicism would be arbitrary and deference for the truth merely incidental.

However Catholics are not Protestants so even this attempt at influencing us is somewhat limping and sterile.

Let me restate this, I am not here to influence anyone. I’m here to discuss my opinions. To weed out my errors and to get to truth. Limping and sterile? Really? So far your argument against my views seems to be to refer to the opinions of the Church Doctors without reasoning with me about why they are correct in their judgments. If you cannot reason from their stand point with me as to why I am in error how can you say you understand their standpoint to begin with?

So you need to mount from Magisterial sources or Councils or even a consensus of the Father or Doctors of the Church if you really want to make progress against generally held Catholic sentiment on this point which is agin you.

This is baffling. I have “mounted” a discussion by quoting the RCC. However reasoning from scripture does not have to agree with the so called Magisterium nor certain Doctors of the Church if they are wrong. Your contention is they cannot be wrong. My contention is they are wrong and I’ve outlined my reasons why. I’ve quoted scripture and the RCC. I’ve mounted a reasonably coherent explanation of why Immaculate should feel fear. I’ve started with a definition of what it is to be immaculate, taken from the Catholic RCC and proceeded to reason from that point. You have not, that I can see, addressed my arguments except vaguely and peripherally.

 

[setarcos]

I do not believe you will find any support for your strongly held opinion.
I have already quoted why from Aquinas whose teaching is 90% of what the Church teaches.

I don’t care so much if I find support here - I didn’t expect to find support considering my opinion goes against generally held Catholic belief - only that Catholic belief can be defended and its truth shown. If I am wrong then so be it. It would make my life so much the better to be able to share in the truth with others. Even if I started out believing the others wrong but found they were indeed correct that would be wonderful progress for my soul.
As for Aquinas, being correct in some things does not make him correct in all things. I realize you cannot understand the philosophy of Catholicism without understanding the philosophies of Aquinas so it is beneficial to study him. In studying him though you will find some proven errors in his thinking and some downright bizarre opinions. Your quote from him on sin though is completely irrelevant to my arguments. I never once said fear is sinful. I do not nor have ever believed fear to be a sin. If you get that out of my arguments please show me and I will try to clarify what I meant.

If you are unable to take the approach I suggest maybe it is best to just let it go. Catholics are quite happy to accept Magisterial lead even if it may not be wholly likely according to reason…so long as it is not 100% against reason.

To accept the Magisterium’s lead does not mean one doesn’t have to be reasonable with others in defense of their positions. Indeed an apologist’s position is that the magisterium can be defended reasonably If you are arguing from the point of view that their statements reflect truth. This is what primarily starts the process of conversion. Are these forums not a platform from which to do that? By what criteria do you use to accept the authority of the Magisterium? That it is 90% probable that what the bible says gives them that authority and that’s good enough for belief? By your logic the other 10% aren’t wrong. They may very well be right even though their opinion is not “wholly likely according to reason”. As long as it’s not 100% against reason right? This tells me that because much of the interpretation of the bible cannot be proven to be 100% against reason, anyone can mount a defense of nearly any opinion and be in a kind of truth limbo, Including the Magisterium. Spin the dial, if you land on Catholicism, be one.

Its pretty clear there is no intrinsic philosophic or Biblical reason why fear must be foreign to an immaculate in a fallen world just as sickness and death is not. Biblical support? They too dwell outside of Eden do they not? The Tree of Life is not accessible to them.

I believed I had shown that the bibles stance on fear is to get us back to a state of harmony without fear.
You continue to equate the state of the world now, fallen, and what affects it with the state of the immaculate soul, unfallen perfection, and what affects it. Simple common sense shows the two not equal. Indeed sickness and death would be foreign to an immaculate soul. Sickness and death are effects of a fallen world which the world must endure. Neither of these affects the immaculate soul nor need be endured by the immaculate. This is not my opinion this is by the definition of immaculateness given by the Magisterium. I would have to say if immaculate the soul would not taste of death. Is this not the belief of Catholics about Mary? If immortal then one would venture to say that they do have access to the tree of life. Just as Adam and Eve did before the fall. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

Why should this be required by God?
Maybe it isn’t, maybe it is a counsel not a command…especially if immaculates wish to assist in redeeming their fellow non-immaculates.

Why do you believe this is required by God for immaculates?

How that works I do not know. But I do know that the NT teaches by word and example that loving our neighbour to the utmost also requires utmost solidarity … even to the point of sharing in the worst effects of their sin - without personally sinning themselves.

Not sure what you mean by “utmost solidarity”? What do you mean by sharing in the worst effects of their sin without sinning themselves? Can you give me an theoretical example?

Revelation is not reason. If it were it wouldn’t be revelation would it.

But revelation does not contradict reason.
When you can demonstrate what we state is 100% against reason then Catholic understanding of revelation will be mistaken.
I believe you are far from that point in your philosophising.

Ah that is the point isn’t it. Revelation should not contradict reason. What point do you believe I’m at in my reasoning? Seems whenever anyone cannot mount a reasonable argument for their position they resort to revelation. If you would have a clear argument against what I’ve said about Mary I would love to discuss it with you. You may very well change my views. I’m open to the possibility. Are you?