Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Council of Trent Fifth Session (1546), defined: “If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin harmed only him and not his descendants and that the holiness and justice received from God which he lost was lost only for him and not for us also; or that, stained by the sin of disobedience, he transmitted to all humankind only death and the sufferings of the body but not sin as well which is the death of the soul, anathema sit. For, he contradicts the words of the apostle: “Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [death] spread to all as all men sinned in him” [Rom 5:12 Vulg.].

We would have been born in a state of natural existence if original sin is just the absence of grace. The death of the soul is the stain of sin
 
Also: newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm

Reply to Objection 1. As bodily sickness is partly a privation, in so far as it denotes the destruction of the equilibrium of health, and partly something positive, viz. the very humors that are inordinately disposed, so too original sin denotes the privation of original justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but a corrupt habit.

(though the entire section is good)
 
Concupiscence is not remedied by baptism. Your position holds that the supernatural is necessary to man’s perfection, which is false. It is a gratuitous gift, not something owed to man’s nature
 
Concupiscensce is a consequence of original sin, and so something that the Virgin never had.

I agree with Saint Thomas in that sin is an attachment to less worthy things and a deprivation, as is the dimming of a light. And that original sin is a deprivation of original justice which man was created with, and an inherited defect of habit.

Certainly, the Church is better suited to define what the stain or original sin is than, say, you or I, and the idea of privation is not some new ecumenical definition.
 
Read the link in post 78. This has already been settled by the Church
 
setarcos said:
I am not Roman Catholic in that I do not believe in all of her doctrins should that be a bar to the title.
Click to expand...
If sounds as if you’re saying that you have to believe all of her doctrines in order to become Roman Catholic.

This is backwards.

What you do is find the Church Christ established, join it, and then conform your views to Christ’s.

Otherwise, if you’re in a church that happens to conform to all of your personal beliefs, you’re probably worshipping at the altar of the almighty self, rather than the Almight.
 
thinkandmull said:
The supernatural is not owed to humanity. So not having grace doesn’t create a stain. Only sin does that
Click to expand...
The Church does teach that one can be guilty of not being in a state of sanctifying grace, it is validly called a punishment and it is validly called sin…and therefore a stain.

Of course it is also held that these are not sin, punishment or guilt in the proper sense of those words but analogically so. Yet still close enough to validly use those words.
It’s in the CCC.
 
thinkandmull said:
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).
Click to expand...
  1. Not Reformable
  • Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide)
  • Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. (De fide.)
  • Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)
  • Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
  1. Truth is Guaranteed
  • In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)*
  1. Generally Accepted
  • From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)
  • Council of Trent (Denzinger)
833 Can. 23. If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema [cf. n. 805, 810].

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

Deduced from the text: Luke I, 28: “Hail, full of grace!”, because personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
The Church does teach that one can be guilty of not being in a state of sanctifying grace, it is validly called a punishment and it is validly called sin…and therefore a stain.

Of course it is also held that these are not sin, punishment or guilt in the proper sense of those words but analogically so. Yet still close enough to validly use those words.
It’s in the CCC.
Click to expand...
As Augustine taught, the stain is a type of sin, not a personal sin though. If it was just the absence of grace than grace is owed to nature, which is against the faith. So the CCC made a mistake
 
Vico said:
  1. Not Reformable
  • Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide)
  • Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. (De fide.)
  • Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)
  • Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
  1. Truth is Guaranteed
  • In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)*
  1. Generally Accepted
  • From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)
  • Council of Trent (Denzinger)
833 Can. 23. If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema [cf. n. 805, 810].

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

Deduced from the text: Luke I, 28: “Hail, full of grace!”, because personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace.
Click to expand...
I already answered this. Trent mentions it as a belief of the Church. It did not define anything on it. Otherwise it would be dogma, which you say it is not. An encyclical is not dogma. Your interpretation of Luke is not without fault either. Sent. fidei proxima and Sent. communis are just opinions and can’t be proven. Its not dogma that they are infallible, nor can universal consent be proven. Finally, I haven’t seen evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was defined. It is a title given at Councils, but they don’t appear to intend to define it. There is no Pope Ludwig
 
thinkandmull said:
I already answered this. Trent mentions it as a belief of the Church. It did not define anything on it. Otherwise it would be dogma, which you say it is not. An encyclical is not dogma. Your interpretation of Luke is not without fault either. Sent. fidei proxima and Sent. communis are just opinions and can’t be proven. Its not dogma that they are infallible, nor can universal consent be proven. Finally, I haven’t seen evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was defined. It is a title given at Councils, but they don’t appear to intend to define it. There is no Pope Ludwig
Click to expand...
Don’t know why you post about “Pope Ludwig” since there is not such claim. It makes your post seem to be not well formed.

The theological grade of certainty is plainly indicated as sententia communis) which is Common Teaching – a doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
 
Theologians don’t have any access to divine authority. They are students of theology and we have no guarantee that they are good at it. How many theologians are there? A couple million worldwide at the very least? How can there agreement be measured? What about rogue theologians?
 
thinkandmull said:
Theologians don’t have any access to divine authority. They are students of theology and we have no guarantee that they are good at it. How many theologians are there? A couple million worldwide at the very least? How can there agreement be measured? What about rogue theologians?
Click to expand...
How can their agreement be measured?

That’s pretty standard: by their conformity to the Great Theologian.
 
Also, your post (which was from Ludwig’s Ott’s book) says that “Truth is Guaranteed” by “Sent. fidei proxima”, although what is proximate to the faith is a matter open to question. I just want to get to the root of these questions. Mary being from original sin doesn’t necessary mean she was born in grace or free from sin always. Maybe the Church needs to define more often. I am SO for that! I like to find what belief goes where though; Ludwig’s book is called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, although most of it is not about dogma
 
PRmerger said:
How can their agreement be measured?

That’s pretty standard: by their conformity to the Great Theologian.
Click to expand...
Well of course. But how much they agree with each other on issues would have to be up to what, a poll? Does that suffice? These are categories made up by theologians themselves.
 
thinkandmull said:
Also, your post (which was from Ludwig’s Ott’s book) says that “Truth is Guaranteed” by “Sent. fidei proxima”, although what is proximate to the faith is a matter open to question. I just want to get to the root of these questions. Mary being from original sin doesn’t necessary mean she was born in grace or free from sin always. Maybe the Church needs to define more often. I am SO for that! I like to find what belief goes where though; Ludwig’s book is called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, although most of it is not about dogma
Click to expand...
I did not define sententia fidei proxima in my comment but common teaching which is for the freedom from concupisience teaching. Yes, I see that a Teaching proximate to Faith – a doctrine regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, yet not finally promulgated by the Church, Ott applied to “freedom from every personal sin”.

Yes, the dogma states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was from the moment of her conception, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem) but does not define the nature of original sin.

St. Pope John Paul II stated in General Audience of Wednesday, 19 June 1996, that she was free from all personal sin.

No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
  1. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or moral imperfection. The Council of Trent expresses this conviction, affirming that no one “can avoid all sins, even venial sins, throughout his life, unless he is given a special privilege, as the Church holds with regard to the Blessed Virgin” (DS 1573). Even the Christian transformed and renewed by grace is not spared the possibility of sinning. Grace does not preserve him from all sin throughout his whole fife, unless, as the Council of Trent asserts, a special privilege guarantees this immunity from sin. And this is what happened with Mary.
The Council of Trent did not wish to define this privilege but stated that the Church vigorously affirms it: “Tenet”, that is, she firmly holds it. This is a decision which, far from relegating this truth to pious belief or devotional opinion, confirms its nature as a solid doctrine, quite present in the faith of the People of God. Moreover, this conviction is based on the grace attributed to Mary by the angel at the time of the Annuncation. Calling her “full of grace”, kecharitoméne, the angel acknowledged her as the woman endowed with a lasting perfection and a fullness of sanctity, without shadow of sin or of moral or spiritual imperfection.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm24.htm
 
thinkandmull said:
If it was just the absence of grace then grace is owed to nature
Click to expand...
I don’t quite see your logic.
Just because someone has a potential for receiving and making use of another’s gift…why does that mean the giver is bound to give?
So the CCC made a mistake
Click to expand...
Can you quote exactly what you believe the mistake is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top