Replies

The Catholic Church's position on Mary's sin is more complex and nuanced than some are assuming, it seems to me. See John A. Hardon, Jr., The Catholic Catechism.

The doctrone of the Immaculate Conception is synthesized in the statement:

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular priviledge and grace of the omnipotent God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved from all stain of original sin."

It affirms:
(1) this immunity was a special grace from God,
(2) through the foreseen merits of Christ,
(3) Mary was exempt from original sin contracted by the rest of mankind, and
(4) the exemption took place at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.

Exemption from original sin must have been an extraordinary grace because other human beings, except Christ, are conceived with sin on their souls. However, this does not mean that Mary was necessarily exempt from the universal necessity or need of being subject to sin, i.e., "the debt of original sin," where two kinds of debt are to be distinguished. The remote debt (necessity) simply means membership in the human race, derived by ordinary propagation from sexual intercourse. Christ, other than Mary, did not incur this necessity. Mary did, and therefore had to be redeemed. The proximate debt involves inclusion in the willful act by which Adam, as representative of mankind, sinned and thereby implicated human nature in his fall. As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary's soul had she not been miraculously preserved.

Christ's redemptive merits operated on his mother by anticipation. This preredemption is commonly taught to have consisted in the infusion of sanctifying grace into her soul at the moment of its creation, which was simultaneous with infusion into her body.

Excemption from original sin carried with it two corollary consequences: From the time of her conception, Mary was also free from all motions of concupiscence, and also (on attaining the use of reason) free from every personal sin during the whole of her life.

Like her divine Son, Mary was subject to the ordinary limitations of human nature, except those that involve moral defect. She was therefore free from the effect of inherited sin, which is the unreasoning drive of the appetites (sensual and spiritual), which are irrational precisely because they anticipate the dictate of reason and tend to perdure in spite of reason and free will telling a person that the urge in question is wrong. True, there is no actual sin in concupiscence unless a person consents to an inclination that he knows is morally bad. Nevertheless, concupiscence is incompatible with Mary's fullness of grace, even without consent, it implies excitation to commit acts that are materially against God's will.

If we ask how Mary could gain merit if she was not subject to concupiscence, the answer is the same as with Christ. Certainly the inner drive is an occasion for merit, but not an indispensable condition. Mary acquired merit not by struggling interiorly against a native irrationality, but by her love of God and a host of other virtues. She always had the option of choosing among various good actions; between action and inaction; and among numerous ways of perfoming acts of virtue--all of which are free choices and meritorious before God.

Long before Pius IX, the Council of Trent said that Mary "by a special privilege of God" was exempt from all sin, even venial ones, during her whole life. Like the Immaculate Conception, which is presupposes, Mary's personal sinlessness follows from the Church's constant belief in her spotless puirity and is founded on her dignity as the Mother of God. Some writers of the East, including Chrysostom, held that Mary was sometimes guilty of such minor defects as vanity, as when she urged Jesus to work the miracle of changing water into wine at Cana. They were misled by the notion of woman as inferior to man, and quite incapable of rising above the petty faults of human nature. Yet even they did not charge her with formal sin.

Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of human human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.

Concretely this quality may be identified with perseverance in grace as regards grave sin, and confirmation in grace for lesser sins. In either case, however, her incapacity for sin differed radically from that of Christ. Where his was based on the fact that he is a divine person, hers was an added prerogative. It was absolutely necessary that he could not sin, since God is sinless. It was a free gift of God's mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor.

“The Catholic Church’s position on Mary’s sin is more complex and nuanced than some are assuming, it seems to me.”

What you have presented is neither complex nor nuanced. It is straightforward and simple and about as nuanced as the Dictatus Papae. For Latins, the Most Holy Theotokos was not created like other human beings. She was, in effect, a goddess and her Son, therefore, not at all True Man. I’d be troubled by that, were I you because that’s heresy. I’d be even more troubled that this heresy is occasioned, more precisely necessitated, by an unnecessary misunderstanding of the Sin of Adam.

“As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary’s soul had she not been miraculously preserved.”

Infected indeed! Here’s your problem, bdeaner. Without that nonsense you wouldn’t need the IC nor would you be in the unenviable position of denying Christ’s humanity by making his mother either a goddess or perhaps a robot by papal fiat.

Tell us, bdeaner, since Panagia was “impeccable” because God made it impossible for her to sin, why should she, who could not sin, be an example of anything to those of us who can and struggle not to, much less be an object of our veneration?

I understand the Catholic teaching on the sinless nature of Mary; my contention is not with the teaching per se, but the foundation to make such a pronouncement in the first place. The section you quoted regarding the Catechism simply states it as such; it does not provide any basis for the claim.

Given this, I am arguing that the doctrinal position itself is unsupported. Most Catholics begin with the supposition that the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church is correct, and thus look to interpret writings and scripture in a way to support the Catholic Church's position. In other words use the Catholic Church's teachings to color the reading of scripture.

ASIDE: We have, in fact, addressed this earlier in this thread. You are free to interpret the scripture how you wish as long as you do so within the existing interpretations and pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Essentially, your conclusions must be the same, and must not contradict or even question other positions of the Catholic Church.

However, I am asking you to consider how the Catholic Church reached its position. To accept a position as correct you either accept it on faith (sola fide) or you see a firm, well supported basis for the position. Knowing the aversion within the Catholic Church for a sola fide position for doctrinal issues, let us look at to scripture and tradition - the pillars of doctrine within the Catholic Church - for formation of the foundation of this doctrine.

What is the basis for this position? My contention is that it cannot be scriptural, since in the case of the immaculate conception of Mary, the conclusion of the Catholic Church hinges on one, ill-defined and ambiguous verse (Luke 1:28). The scriptural basis is tenable to start - one verse which addresses Mary's CURRENT state, not her ever-existent nature. Furthermore, we find subsequent scriptural passages calling others full of grace and full of the Holy Spirit, and immaculate conception and sinless natures are not attributed to these other individuals. To the contrary, we find multiple scriptures in the Old and New Testament (and the Gospels and word of Christ as well) stating that all since Adam have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

Thus, given the thin nature of the scriptural basis, the Catholic Church must rely on tradition. If it cannot make an irrefutable case scripturally, then the Catholic Church turns to tradition and its own writings. This becomes a sticky morass as well, since early tradition supports both sides of the debate; it is only well into the middle ages at the Council of Trent that the issue is first strongly stated (though not ex cathedra, which would happen 300 years later). Note this is after the scism between the Catholic and Orthodox branches.

I would submit that the fact that the Orthodox Churches do not hold to the same conclusion (Mary's immaculate conception) shows that it is still not settled; in fact, given the parallel timelines and historical claims to primacy of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and the fact that the immaculate conception (Mary's sinless nature) only became irrefutable doctrine in the Catholic Church in 1854, one could argue that the Orthodox position (Mary was conceived with original sin) is actually the one with the stronger reliance on tradition!

Thus we are left with a difficult conclusion: the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception and her inherently sinless (incuding original sin) nature is simply accepted because it is stated; it is self-supporting and is by faith and faith alone.

Personally, as a protestant, I believe that one can hold positions of doctrine by faith and faith alone (for the entire foundation of Christianity is built on faith!). If this is the position, so be it. However, it should be stated as such, and appeals to "prove" this position should be avoided since it would only show a weaker measure of that same faith.

Exemption from original sin must have been an extraordinary grace because other human beings, except Christ, are conceived with sin on their souls. However, this does not mean that Mary was necessarily exempt from the universal necessity or need of being subject to sin, i.e., "the debt of original sin," where two kinds of debt are to be distinguished. The remote debt (necessity) simply means membership in the human race, derived by ordinary propagation from sexual intercourse. Christ, other than Mary, did not incur this necessity. Mary did, and therefore had to be redeemed. The proximate debt involves inclusion in the willful act by which Adam, as representative of mankind, sinned and thereby implicated human nature in his fall. As stated, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception certainly includes the Blessed Virgin in the remote debt, and probably also in the proximate necessity of contracting original sin, which would have infected Mary's soul had she not been miraculously preserved.

Nice story...It reads like a novel but it's no more than a fairy tale...

It's like the Three Musketeers, or Conan the Barbarian, or the Never Ending Story...

And we know that because that's what God said when He said ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God...

The scriptures did not give any religion or any person the authority to add to, subtract from or change the scripture...It's anathema to God...