Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

[setarcos]

Some Catholic versions have “full of grace.”.

Some Catholic versions? Do you not find that statement curious? I ran a parallel comparison of bible translations of the verses in question and could find only two which added “full of Grace” into Luke 1:28. Neither of which were listed as acceptable translations by the catholic.org web sight. What am I missing?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You drink shallowly. Everything about Mary’s actions would be perfectly normal human reactions in a fallen world…by a fallen creature. Reread genesis. Adam and Eve had no fear of, nor need to fear, God until after the fall. Fear itself is a useful tool in a fallen world. But to classify fear as healthy is a misunderstanding of the state man finds himself in. By analogy we may consider Doctors very useful in a world subject to unhealthy conditions. This does not mean it is healthy to have Doctors. The need for doctors are an indicator of the existence of our fallen state. If we deem Mary born in a sinless state, untainted by the stain of Adam and Eves sin then we should expect any consequences resulting from their transgressions to not be found in Mary’s pure soul. Fear most definitely being one of them. A soul in perfect communion with God has nothing to fear. This is the “basis” of what you called my “baseless” contentions.

If you wish to influence people on the forum, which I presume is the reason you offer contributions here, then standing on your own personal conviction alone is not likely to do that.

Perhaps quote a doctor or well accepted Father of the Church when making your personal Biblical conclusions or interpretations. Perhaps quote a Council or Catechism or Magisterial statement.

Mary was like us but was without the stain of original sin.
The potential experience of all the usual human emotions and conditions would not appear at odds with that truth of faith. Sorrow, fear, anger and so on would appear to be virtuous in some situations so I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

You have not done so thus far.
In this sense your assertions are indeed generalised and without a base, hence baseless.

May I ask if you are Roman Catholic, you sound like you are more Eastern than Western in your creed.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Some Catholic versions? Do you not find that statement curious? I ran a parallel comparison of bible translations of the verses in question and could find only two which added “full of Grace” into Luke 1:28. Neither of which were listed as acceptable translations by the catholic.org web sight. What am I missing?

This link may assist your understanding if you actually are open on the matter:
catholicexchange.com/mean-full-grace

Regardless, the alleged objective accuracy of Biblical translations is not really salient to this point.
Authoritative dogmas of the Catholic Church are what they are and stand on their own regardless of whether referenced Bible quotes fully or only indirectly seem to support them.
Every Catholic knows that.

Just as Jesus in the Bible is said to have had brothers.
Yet Catholics have always understood those words to mean the valid but less likely translation of cousins or half brothers so as not to contradict the teaching of Mary’s life long virginity

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you wish to influence people on the forum, which I presume is the reason you offer contributions here, then standing on your own personal conviction alone is not likely to do that.

Perhaps quote a doctor or well accepted Father of the Church when making your personal Biblical conclusions or interpretations. Perhaps quote a Council or Catechism or Magisterial statement.

Mary was like us but was without the stain of original sin.
The potential experience of all the usual human emotions and conditions would not appear at odds with that truth of faith. Sorrow, fear, anger and so on would appear to be virtuous in some situations so I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

You have not done so thus far.
In this sense your assertions are indeed generalised and without a base, hence baseless.

May I ask if you are Roman Catholic, you sound like you are more Protestant or Eastern than Western in your creed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Could not kekharitomene mean just in that moment, without reference to everything in the past of future?

 

[thinkandmull]

How do we know what’s infallible if it hasn’t been deemed infallible by definition so that by a defined criteria we may judge a thing as such?

 

[pablope]

Mary couldn’t have been immaculate. She was afraid. A pure soul knows no fear. Fear is a consequent of sin.

How do you know Mary could not have been Immaculate?

So, do you know better than Pope Pius IX?

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm

piustheninth.com/apps/app12.htm

 

[James248]

Some Catholic versions? Do you not find that statement curious? I ran a parallel comparison of bible translations of the verses in question and could find only two which added “full of Grace” into Luke 1:28. Neither of which were listed as acceptable translations by the catholic.org web sight. What am I missing?

The Greek word kerichatome means “you who have been perfected in grace up to this moment.”

 

[thinkandmull]

The Greek word kerichatome means “you who have been perfected in grace up to this moment.”

You can be perfected in grace after sin, and sin after the perfection as well

 

[thinkandmull]

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, p. 203:

• In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

The Council of Trent declared: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin” (nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia). D 833. Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” of the Virgin Mother of God, that: “she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.”
Mary’s sinlessness may be deduced from the text: Luke I, 28: “Hail, full of grace!”, since personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace."

There is no Pope Lugwig. Sent. fidei proxima has never been defined to be a source of infallibility.

 

[James248]

You can be perfected in grace after sin, and sin after the perfection as well

Mary was perfected in grace and never sinned.

 

[Vico]

There is no Pope Lugwig. Sent. fidei proxima has never been defined to be a source of infallibility.

Its Ludwig.

The authority is not Ludwig Ott but the Catholic Church:

The Council of Trent:
“No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin” (nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia). Denzinger 833.

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”:
“she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.”

Of course, senentia fidei proxima is a type of theological opionion and Lumen Gentium number 25 teaches that non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful even though not requiring the assent of faith, so they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly. Senentia fidei proxima is above sententia certa (theologically certain).

 

[setarcos]

If you wish to influence people on the forum, which I presume is the reason you offer contributions here, then standing on your own personal conviction alone is not likely to do that…

Greetings and thank you for pointing that out. I must apologize, I didn’t mean to make it sound as if I have stopped thinking on these because I had arrived at a conclusive personal conviction. I have questions. I am not here to influence anyone to sway one way or another but to gain in understanding and wisdom and see where this may take me.
Surely if a person has come to an accepted belief here they can answer my questions in a manner I can understand, either through their own gained knowledge or by quoting another’s. If not they may need to reassess their own understanding of their convictions. If I lack understanding of the belief of others and they have a correct understanding of a correct beleif this very fact indicates that they should be capable of defending that belief in a reasonable and understandable manner, the way they themselves came to that belief.

Perhaps quote a doctor or well accepted Father of the Church when making your personal Biblical conclusions or interpretations. Perhaps quote a Council or Catechism or Magisterial statement…

If a specific position rests upon the convictions of another’s opinions then you are most correct in requesting a quotatation from that source. I sometimes get ahead of myself by posting propositions, having reasoned through them before with others, which should be posted as A priori questions and reasoned through afresh from the beginning. As it is, the propositionIf a specific position rests upon the convictions of another’s opinions then you are most s I make should be capable of standing or falling on their own merits through this process providing the terms used are properly defined and agreed upon in the beginning. It is my fault for allowing this not to be the case. Because of this and because this is a Catholic forum I will endeavor to use only Catholic sources of information in an attempt to clarify my reasoning. Primarily the paper back “Catechism of the Catholic Church” an image book published by Doubleday April 1995. Imprimi potest : Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Mary was like us but was without the stain of original sin.
The potential experience of all the usual human emotions and conditions would not appear at odds with that truth of faith. Sorrow, fear, anger and so on would appear to be virtuous in some situations so I think the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

You have not done so thus far.
In this sense your assertions are indeed generalised and without a base, hence baseless…

Fair enough. My basis for the assertion will be in the following post.

May I ask if you are Roman Catholic, you sound like you are more Eastern than Western in your creed.

I am not Roman Catholic in that I do not believe in all of her doctrins should that be a bar to the title.
God bless your desire for the good.

 

[setarcos]

Greetings brothers and sisters of the truth.
Here is my basis for asserting that Mary could not have been without original sin.

First I will define my understanding of the terms and concepts involved, next I will use these terms and concepts to formulate the proposition I am arguing for.

It is self evident that Mary was human and thus like us in this nature. It is not explicetly evident that she was without the stain of original sin and this is what I am arguing against.

Let us first define sin as "an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another."RCC[387]
It then follows that original sin was the first abuse by Adam and Eve of this freedom.
We must then ask, what were the consequences of this original sin? How are these consequences manifested in those afflicted with its “stain”?
1:"Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness."RCC[399]
2: Adam and Eve “become afraid of God”.RCC[399] Before the fall there was no fear nor need to fear anything. “They become afraid of a God of whom they have conceived a distorted image-that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.” RCC[399]
3: Harmony is destroyed and “the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered”; “visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.” and “Death makes its entrance into human history.” RCC[400]

So pre fall there was the grace of holiness, no fear of God, harmony within mans soul and between man and nature and there was no death.
After the fall we have a loss of original holiness, requiring the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice for our redemption. We now have a fear of God necessitated by the distorted image of God and a fear of a creation wich has become alien and hostile. Harmony is destroyed, control is lost over our spiritual faculties and piece with nature, necessitating the expression of the antithesis’s of the good passions. We now have manifestations of hate with love, anger with calm, fear with piece, sorrow with happiness etc.
Love being the most fundamental of the passions is expressed in the souls moving desire towards the good and its attainment. RCC[1765] There is no movement of the soul if this good is already attained. Thus it would have been superfluous for scripture to say Adam loved God while his soul was in a state of perfect harmony. We have this desire of movement towards the good because of our loss of original holiness and consequently an unfulfilled love which Adam and Eve originally possessed. While the passions are neither good nor evil-RCC[1767]-neither are they extant of themselves except by being manifestations of the stimulated soul. It is because of this that the existence of sin after the fall causes the “negative” passions to manifest themselves as its inheritted symptoms.RCC[1765] We qualify a passion not as a virtue or a vice because of its own inherit qualities but by way of contribution to the souls actions.RCC[1768] Thus it is good to fear God after the fall in so much as it moves us from the evil and death to the good and life…e.g. Proverbs 19:23, this fear has been made (a virtue of necessity) where as before the fall sin was non existant and so was its stimulous of the soul towards an expression of fear. All was in harmony and the grace of original holiness remained intact.
Mary, by being without original sin, effectively equates the state of her soul with that of eve before her transgression. Her soul should be in full harmony, her love for God should be complete, the original holiness enjoyed by Adam and Eve intact within her. Mary by having her soul elevated to a state uneffected by original sin has become innocence personified. Her souls responses to stimulus from an evil world would not be the same as a souls responses in a post fallen state. Why, if fear is a healthy response in an uncertain situation?
The status of a pure soul, you will recall, is complete spiritual harmony and its control over the body through its faculties. RCC[400] The expression of fear is a necessary agent in the movement toward the good of a soul suffering from the effects of original sin, or in the case of a baptized soul, the temporal consequences of sin the soul may yet be subject to.RCC[1264] The pure soul, unadulterated by the stain of original sin, would have no manifestation of fear having attained perfect harmony and love towards God. This is why, even in the presence of the ultimate evil of Satan and his deception, Adam and Eve expressed no fear. This is why 1 John 4:18 says “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been perfected in love.” Mary being perfected in love…RCC [829, 2013] should have no fear.
God bless

 

[Vico]

…

• Firstly there are both original justice and original holiness that were lost. Catechism 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”.
• Secondly, the stain of original sin is being born without sanctifying grace. Catechism 411 … Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.
• Thirdly mortal sin is a result of the free act of will when the person posesses sanctifying grace. Only in a personal mortal sin is the true nature of sin found perfectly. God gives sufficient grace for the observation of the commandments but it is not irrestible, and if cooperated with is efficatious. There is a difference in this respect as a result of the wills, between Adam and Eve (merely sufficient) and The Blessed Virgin Mary (efficacious). Catechism
  397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart …
• Fourthly the fear in 1 John 4:18 does "does not exclude a fear of displeasing, offending, and losing him by sin. and “no way excludes the wholesome fear of God’s judgments, so often recommended in holy writ, nor that fear and trembling with which we are told to work out our salvation. (Philippians ii. 12.)”

Haydock Commentary on 1 John 4:18
Ver. 18. Fear is not in charity, &c. By the fear, which a perfect charity and love of God excludes, we may understand a fear of temporal losses in this world, of the loss of goods, of banishment, of torments, of death itself, which the love of God made so many glorious martyrs contemn; or an anxious servile fear of punishment in the next world, for the more perfect charity and the love of God is, so much the more doth it banish this imperfect and servile fear; but as perfect charity does not exclude a love, and constant desire of loving God as our last end, for whose enjoyment we were created, so it does not exclude a fear of displeasing, offending, and losing him by sin. (Witham)

— Perfect charity, or love, banisheth human fear, that is, the fear of men; as also all perplexing fear, which makes men mistrust or despair of God’s mercy; and that kind of servile fear, which makes them fear the punishment of sin more than the offence offered to God. But it no way excludes the wholesome fear of God’s judgments, so often recommended in holy writ, nor that fear and trembling with which we are told to work out our salvation. (Philippians ii. 12.) (Challoner)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Greetings brothers and sisters of the truth.
Here is my basis for asserting that Mary could not have been without original sin.

First I will define my understanding of the terms and concepts involved, next I will use these terms and concepts to formulate the proposition I am arguing for.

It is self evident that Mary was human and thus like us in this nature. It is not explicetly evident that she was without the stain of original sin and this is what I am arguing against.

Let us first define sin as "an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another."RCC[387]
It then follows that original sin was the first abuse by Adam and Eve of this freedom.
We must then ask, what were the consequences of this original sin? How are these consequences manifested in those afflicted with its “stain”?
1:"Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness."RCC[399]
2: Adam and Eve “become afraid of God”.RCC[399] Before the fall there was no fear nor need to fear anything. “They become afraid of a God of whom they have conceived a distorted image-that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.” RCC[399]
3: Harmony is destroyed and “the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered”; “visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.” and “Death makes its entrance into human history.” RCC[400]

So pre fall there was the grace of holiness, no fear of God, harmony within mans soul and between man and nature and there was no death.
After the fall we have a loss of original holiness, requiring the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice for our redemption. We now have a fear of God necessitated by the distorted image of God and a fear of a creation wich has become alien and hostile. Harmony is destroyed, control is lost over our spiritual faculties and piece with nature, necessitating the expression of the antithesis’s of the good passions. We now have manifestations of hate with love, anger with calm, fear with piece, sorrow with happiness etc.
Love being the most fundamental of the passions is expressed in the souls moving desire towards the good and its attainment. RCC[1765] There is no movement of the soul if this good is already attained. Thus it would have been superfluous for scripture to say Adam loved God while his soul was in a state of perfect harmony. We have this desire of movement towards the good because of our loss of original holiness and consequently an unfulfilled love which Adam and Eve originally possessed. While the passions are neither good nor evil-RCC[1767]-neither are they extant of themselves except by being manifestations of the stimulated soul. It is because of this that the existence of sin after the fall causes the “negative” passions to manifest themselves as its inheritted symptoms.RCC[1765] We qualify a passion not as a virtue or a vice because of its own inherit qualities but by way of contribution to the souls actions.RCC[1768] Thus it is good to fear God after the fall in so much as it moves us from the evil and death to the good and life…e.g. Proverbs 19:23, this fear has been made (a virtue of necessity) where as before the fall sin was non existant and so was its stimulous of the soul towards an expression of fear. All was in harmony and the grace of original holiness remained intact.
Mary, by being without original sin, effectively equates the state of her soul with that of eve before her transgression. Her soul should be in full harmony, her love for God should be complete, the original holiness enjoyed by Adam and Eve intact within her. Mary by having her soul elevated to a state uneffected by original sin has become innocence personified. Her souls responses to stimulus from an evil world would not be the same as a souls responses in a post fallen state. Why, if fear is a healthy response in an uncertain situation?
The status of a pure soul, you will recall, is complete spiritual harmony and its control over the body through its faculties. RCC[400] The expression of fear is a necessary agent in the movement toward the good of a soul suffering from the effects of original sin, or in the case of a baptized soul, the temporal consequences of sin the soul may yet be subject to.RCC[1264] The pure soul, unadulterated by the stain of original sin, would have no manifestation of fear having attained perfect harmony and love towards God. This is why, even in the presence of the ultimate evil of Satan and his deception, Adam and Eve expressed no fear. This is why 1 John 4:18 says “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been perfected in love.” Mary being perfected in love…RCC [829, 2013] should have no fear.
God bless

My friend we can reason and rationalise all we like but Revelation as understood by the Magisterium cannot be gain-sayed.

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.

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.”
Read further here:
newadvent.org/summa/3125.htm

 

[thinkandmull]

Its Ludwig.

The authority is not Ludwig Ott but the Catholic Church:

The Council of Trent:
“No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin” (nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia). Denzinger 833.

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”:
“she was immune from all sin, personal or inherited.”

Of course, senentia fidei proxima is a type of theological opionion and Lumen Gentium number 25 teaches that non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful even though not requiring the assent of faith, so they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly. Senentia fidei proxima is above sententia certa (theologically certain).

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

 

[thinkandmull]

My friend we can reason and rationalise all we like but Revelation as understood by the Magisterium cannot be gain-sayed.

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.

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.”
Read further here:
newadvent.org/summa/3125.htm

I don’t know if “full of grace” is a proper interpretation. Grace as understood by Greeks was favor from the gods. Was Luke using it in that sense, or in the theological sense expounded by St. Paul of SANTIFYING grace? Who knows

I’ve heard it argued that if someone is full of grace there is no room for sin. That doesn’t mean there was formally no sin or afterwards no sin however. I’ve looked around, and I don’t think any of the Marian doctrines can be strictly proven from Scripture.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t know if “full of grace” is a proper interpretation. Grace as understood by Greeks was favor from the gods. Was Luke using it in that sense, or in the theological sense expounded by St. Paul of SANTIFYING grace? Who knows

I’ve heard it argued that if someone is full of grace there is no room for sin. That doesn’t mean there was formally no sin or afterwards no sin however. I’ve looked around, and I don’t think any of the Marian doctrines can be strictly proven from Scripture.

Excellent scholarly insights. Clearly the concepts and words used by different authors cannot be assumed to have the exact same meaning…and may vary even in the use of a single author in different works.

But it doesn’t matter whether the interpretation mined by the Magisterium markedly differs or not from what the original author himself likely intended. So long as it doesn’t starkly contradict anything an author intended we can assume the HS is inspiring and unravelling the original content even unto today.

 

[thinkandmull]

Oh of course I am certainly not question Pius IX’s decree that she was conceived without the stain of sin