Teaching on Mary's sinlessness

[Blue_Horizon]

I answer personal tangents personally, and non personal tangents impersonally, with the original sources.

In my experience, that one would consider such behaviour appropriate or helpful in a discussion channel, would likely be indicative of tendencies towards high functioning autism or even a mild form of selective mutism.

Just sayin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The soul is eternal but may be dead – without sanctifying grace the soul is spiritually dead, spiritually because the soul is immaterial.

Is this you or are you quoting somebody?
Regardless its pretty much nonsense so far as Aristotelianism/Thomism is concerned.

"Death is the separation of body and soul, the destruction of a full human being.
In a loose analogical sense we might say the soul may be “dead” (as in a state of mortal sin) in so far as a soul deprived of SG can do nothing of itself to merit any more grace and so is “dead” re Communion with God (just as the Communion of the body with the soul is destroyed at death).

However this is not really what you are saying above.
You seem to say “the soul is dead without sanctifying grace because the soul is immaterial (and eternal).”
That just makes no sequitorial sense at all.

And the difficulty with T&M’s approach is that he seems to believe “human being” is defined not just by “union of body and soul” but rather by “union of body, soul and grace”.

Thus if God through original sin deprives the innocent of grace he is somehow being unjust and depriving them of something He intrinsically committed to providing naturally by bringing them into existence.

The problem with this is, of course, that such a definition of what it means to be a “human being” is at odds with the very definition of “grace” as a free gift (that is what grace means) that is not owed by God at all.
Its like trying to say that an irresistible force should be able to budge an immovable object…what the .

Being without sanctifying grace is the natural state

Agreed in the sense as above.
Though there is another sense of “natural” in so far as had A&E not sinned their progeny would “naturally” have been born with SG - as a free yet certain gift from God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We are born without grace AND with the stain of sin

You are doing my head in.
The very definition of the stain is inheriting an absence of SG isn’t it?

So basically you just said “We are born without grace AND without grace.”

Did you mean original justice perhaps?

 

[Vico]

Is this you or are you quoting somebody?
Regardless its pretty much nonsense so far as Aristotelianism/Thomism is concerned.

"Death is the separation of body and soul, the destruction of a full human being.
In a loose analogical sense we might say the soul may be “dead” (as in a state of mortal sin) in so far as a soul deprived of SG can do nothing of itself to merit any more grace and so is “dead” re Communion with God (just as the Communion of the body with the soul is destroyed at death).

However this is not really what you are saying above.
You seem to say “the soul is dead without sanctifying grace because the soul is immaterial (and eternal).”
That just makes no sequitorial sense at all.

And the difficulty with T&M’s approach is that he seems to believe “human being” is defined not just by “union of body and soul” but rather by “union of body, soul and grace”.

Thus if God through original sin deprives the innocent of grace he is somehow being unjust and depriving them of something He intrinsically committed to providing naturally by bringing them into existence.

The problem with this is, of course, that such a definition of what it means to be a “human being” is at odds with the very definition of “grace” as a free gift (that is what grace means) that is not owed by God at all.
Its like trying to say that an irresistible force should be able to budge an immovable object…what the .

Agreed in the sense as above.
Though there is another sense of “natural” in so far as had A&E not sinned their progeny would “naturally” have been born with SG - as a free yet certain gift from God.

Originally Posted by Vico
The soul is eternal but may be dead – without sanctifying grace the soul is spiritually dead, spiritually because the soul is immaterial.

I am explaining that is it not a physical soul so not a physical death.

I mean death of the soul as in the Catechism usage:
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.

What is the meaning of the abbreviation: T&M? Do you mean T of M (“Theodorus of Mopsuestia”)?

Yes that teaching was condemned at Carthage.

There are two speculative states: that of pure nature (without supernatural or preternatural gifts) and that of unimpaired nature (including preternatural gifts).

Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567 (Denzinger 1055)
55. God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now.

 

[Vico]

We are born without grace AND with the stain of sin

We were not preserved, as the Blessed Virgin Mary was, ab omni labe originalis pecatti.

 

[Vico]

Your post contradicts number three in your list. Also, if Trent excluded Mary from original sin, why did Pius IX define it

Pius IX defined the immaculate conception in 1854 with Ineffabilis Deus, because it was not settled at the Council of Trent. There were hundreds of years of argumentation about it.

Council of Trent, Session VI, canon 23:
Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit…posse in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia:

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

 

[thinkandmull]

“as the Church holds” doesn’t mean infallibly taught

 

[thinkandmull]

I never said a human being is “body soul and grace”. I am on the other side of the fence. Death of the soul is when sanctifying grace LEAVES the soul. We were promised that we would receive sanctifying grace as descendants of Adam, but when he fell so did we. But the broken promise was on Adam’s side. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t leave a stain, sin, or death on the soul. We would just be born without grace, in a state of nature without preternatural gifts as well. What original sin is itself, we cannot know, because it is only analogous to sin. God could create a human out of thin air with the mark of original sin and God would not be at fault according to the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus”. I learned that today. Can God create something with a stain? The word stain is used by Pius IX’s definition, but it could be hyperbole. We can’t know what this stain is. The Fathers say we have it because we were in the loins of Adam

 

[Vico]

I never said a human being is “body soul and grace”. I am on the other side of the fence. Death of the soul is when sanctifying grace LEAVES the soul. We were promised that we would receive sanctifying grace as descendants of Adam, but when he fell so did we. But the broken promise was on Adam’s side. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t leave a stain, sin, or death on the soul. We would just be born without grace, in a state of nature without preternatural gifts as well. What original sin is itself, we cannot know, because it is only analogous to sin. God could create a human out of thin air with the mark of original sin and God would not be at fault according to the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus”. I learned that today. Can God create something with a stain? The word stain is used by Pius IX’s definition, but it could be hyperbole. We can’t know what this stain is. The Fathers say we have it because we were in the loins of Adam

Council of Trent

Denzinger 789

1. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since 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” [Rom. 5:12; see n. 175].

 

[thinkandmull]

You are proving my point. Death of the soul is when grace leaves the soul. Its not when the soul just doesn’t have it, because the soul has no right to grace.

 

[thinkandmull]

Upon reflecting on Ex omnibus afflictionibus, I realized that the Church was condemning (bauis?) him who was saying that grace was owed to us, and that we are now born without grace and that God could have created us without grace. It wasn’t addressing original sin at all. That’s the only way the decree makes sense. When dealing with condemnations, you have to see what was being said by the heretic

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know why this is being discussed on two threads. but the position I am opposing is basically saying that the haunting that there was a promise of grace is original sin, which doesn’t make any sense. A feeling of loss is not the stain

 

[Muzhik]

I’ve browsed a couple of pages of replies but don’t have the time (or desire) to slog through pages upon pages of debate. To get back to the OP’s question, I’ll refer to something our local Perpetual Adoration Chapel wrote about the issue, discussing the issue of Mary’s preservation from Original Sin and Mary’s connection to the Eucharist, and citing some writings of St. Augustine on the matter.

Simply put, Jesus, while conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, grew and developed in Mary’s womb in the normal, human way. The fertilized egg implanted into Mary’s vaginal wall, and a placenta developed. IOW, this new life developed “out of Mary’s flesh”.

We know now how much inter-transmission of blood as well as nutrients and waste products there is through the placenta. Antibodies from the mother’s blood provide some initial protection from various diseases until the baby can develop its own antibodies. While waste products can pass from the fetus to the mother (at least until the baby’s own kidneys can handle things), poisons can and do pass from the mother’s blood to the baby. It’s why we have crack babies being born to crack addicts – babies who are born already addicted to crack.

That example demonstrates not only the truth but the necessity of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Clearly, corrupt products can pass through the placenta. What’s more, if Jesus developed out of Mary’s flesh, then her flesh and blood must, by necessity, be free of corruption. Since we were all conceived with Original Sin, all of our flesh is “corrupted” in a spiritual way. G_D **could **take this corrupted flesh and blood and transform it to non-corrupted material for Jesus’s growth and development, but it’s **much **easier (i.e., less complicated) to have preserved Mary from Original Sin in the first place, and thus allowed her flesh and blood to directly produce the Flesh and Blood of Jesus.

Because of this, Mary’s flesh and blood are linked/connected to Jesus’s Flesh and Blood. Thus, at the Consecration, when the bread and wine are transubstantiated to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, some of Mary’s flesh and blood is included, simply because she provided her own flesh and blood to Jesus before His birth.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Vico
The soul is eternal but may be dead – without sanctifying grace the soul is spiritually dead, spiritually because the soul is immaterial.

I am explaining that is it not a physical soul so not a physical death.

I mean death of the soul as in the Catechism usage:
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.

What is the meaning of the abbreviation: T&M? Do you mean T of M (“Theodorus of Mopsuestia”)?

Yes that teaching was condemned at Carthage.

There are two speculative states: that of pure nature (without supernatural or preternatural gifts) and that of unimpaired nature (including preternatural gifts).

Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567 (Denzinger 1055)
55. God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now.

What you actually wrote and what you mean seem to be very different then.
CCC 403 mentions spiritual death but doesn’t say what you also said.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I never said a human being is “body soul and grace”. I am on the other side of the fence. Death of the soul is when sanctifying grace LEAVES the soul. We were promised that we would receive sanctifying grace as descendants of Adam, but when he fell so did we. But the broken promise was on Adam’s side. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t leave a stain, sin, or death on the soul. We would just be born without grace, in a state of nature without preternatural gifts as well. What original sin is itself, we cannot know, because it is only analogous to sin. God could create a human out of thin air with the mark of original sin and God would not be at fault according to the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus”. I learned that today. Can God create something with a stain? The word stain is used by Pius IX’s definition, but it could be hyperbole. We can’t know what this stain is. The Fathers say we have it because we were in the loins of Adam

The stain refers to absence of sanctifying grace as a state not as a verb (“leaves”).
It refers to the soul’s supernatural paralysis and inability to obtain more grace by its own efforts.

 

[Vico]

What you actually wrote and what you mean seem to be very different then.
CCC 403 mentions spiritual death but doesn’t say what you also said.

You mean “spiritually because the soul is immaterial”?

Originally Posted by Vico
The soul is eternal but may be dead – without sanctifying grace the soul is spiritually dead, spiritually because the soul is immaterial.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You mean “spiritually because the soul is immaterial”?

Originally Posted by Vico
The soul is eternal but may be dead – without sanctifying grace the soul is spiritually dead, spiritually because the soul is immaterial.

Sorry, this is too pedantic, painful and obvious to continue with you.

 

[Vico]

Sorry, this is too pedantic, painful and obvious to continue with you.

If if were obvious then I would know what you are asking about.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know why this is being discussed on two threads. but the position I am opposing is basically saying that the haunting that there was a promise of grace is original sin, which doesn’t make any sense. A feeling of loss is not the stain

Where did you get the idea that “the haunting that there was a promise of grace is original sin”? I have never heard such an idea.

 

[setarcos]

The stain refers to absence of sanctifying grace as a state not as a verb (“leaves”).
It refers to the soul’s supernatural paralysis and inability to obtain more grace by its own efforts.

Just wondering…how was a soul able to obtain more grace by its own efforts?