www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Opinion is opinion. It is not teaching.

I agree that Mary is impeccable, if it is understood according to the Eastern/Oriental understanding of "sinlessness" as Grace that requires the free-will response of the one who receives the Grace. This is the understanding of many, if not most theologians, in the Latin Catholic Church. Grace never subordinates the free will of the creature - this was a major theological point of contention between the Latin Catholics and Protestants.

Impeccability as Grace is an obvious doctrine in the Latin Catholic Church. BUT ---
Did Grace PREVENT Mary from sinning?
OR
Did Grace AID Mary in not sinning?

The question is still out as far as the Latin Catholic Church is concerned. So it is still on the level of theologoumena.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is not one of the open questions in relation to this doctrine, because grace did both, that is, it prevented her from sinning and aided her in not sinning. It is not an "either / or" situation, but a "both / and."

What is open to question is whether or not Mary was impeccable from the first moment of her conception (i.e., her first sanctification) or only after the annunciation and conception of Christ in her womb (i.e., her second sanctification), although the decree on the "immaculate conception" has given greater weight to those who favor the former, because if she was truly free from the effects of the original sin, then she should have been impeccable from the first moment of her existence. Prior to the mid 18th century decree on the "immaculate conception" the predominant viewpoint was that Mary was able not to sin from her conception and birth (i.e., her first sanctification), but was not able to sin only after her conception of Christ during the annunciation (i.e., her second sanctification).

I've highlighted certain excerpts from your quote from St. Peter Eymard. If this is ALL that the Latins mean by the "impeccability" of Mary, then by all means, let it be their doctrine. There is nothing here that contradicts the Traditional Eastern/Oriental understanding of the sinlessness of Mary.

Blessings,
Marduk

Again, growth in holiness is from holiness to holiness. So your attempt to limit Mary's impeccability is contrary to the doctrine. The only limit on it is that it cannot be held to be essential to her being, but must always be seen as a grace which transcends nature.

Growth is from holiness to holiness, as I said above. In other words, it is not from unholiness to holiness. According to Roman Catholic teaching, sin had no dominion over Mary, which is why she must be impeccable. Notice also how the author of the quoted texts says "as if" she feared to lose her graces and virtues. He does not say that should could actually lose them, because that would be contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Your quotes explicitly indicate that the "extrinsic" vs. "intrinsic" debate is present in the Latin Catholic Church. By "PREVENTION," I meant the position of those who represent the "intrinsic" view. By "AID," I meant the position of those who represent the "extrinsic" view. The question is still out on that particular matter.

OK. I see your point. But I think the real issue here between the Eastern/Oriental/Latin positions is not what you propose (the relative chronological point of "impeccability") but a difference between what "sinlessness" itself means. Easterns and Orientals are more likely to understand "sinlessness" as what Latins refer to as "actual sin." But "sinlessness" to Latins has a broader applicability - it refers more generally to the spiritual relationship between the creature and God, not to the act of sinning itself (or lack thereof). I think understanding this will go a long way to healing the perceived discrepancies between the Latin understanding of "sin," on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental understanding of "sin," on the other.

Blessings,
Marduk

Give me a MAGISTERIAL document, and I will believe you. The writings of singular Latin theologians don't hold much weight to me. If it did, I would never have become Catholic. But I rested my decision to become Catholic on MAGISTERIAL Catholic documents. So you will have to do better than the statements of singular theologians and Saints to convince me that this is the actual official teaching (as opposed to being a popular belief) of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

The predominant Roman Catholic position is that Mary is extrinsically impeccable prior to the conception of Christ, and can only be qualified as intrinsically impeccable after His conception in her womb (see Fr. Juniper Carroll, Mariology; and Fr. Joseph Pohle, Dogmatic Theology VI). But even then, she cannot be thought of as intrinsically impeccable in the sense of her very nature (e.g., as Christ is impeccable), but only in relation to Christ. That is, her intrinsic impeccability is of a relational character. The same can be said about absolute impeccability, because God alone is absolutely impeccable, but the term "absolute" can be used in connection with Mary's impeccability as well, but only when that usage is fitted to its proper context, that is, to the recognition that Mary is never essentially impeccable (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia article Mary, Blessed Virgin, II).

Thus, she is both prevented and aided in not sinning.

This is the common "out" for modern Roman Catholics, but the vast majority of the faith is not to be found in magisterial documents. Where is it taught in a magisterial document that all the blood Christ bled upon the cross was restored to His body after His resurrection? Nowhere, and yet that is the common doctrine in the West based upon the reality of the hypostatic union. I have supplied over a dozen quotations from reputable Catholic sources and your response is: "I want a magisterial document." Sorry, but the faith does not work that way.

In the mean time, you have supplied nothing, that is right, absolutely NOTHING to support your viewpoint. While I have supplied texts written by approved Roman Catholic theologians. Heck, you are not even Roman Catholic, so why should I believe you?

I think I'm understanding what you are trying to say more. Thanks. I have two comments:

(1) AFAIK, that sin had no dominion over Mary is the position of the entire Catholic Church, not just the "Roman Catholics."

(2) The notion that Mary could actually lose them is an interesting concept. Mary could never lose them, if you mean by this that God could ever stop giving her Graces. God ALWAYS gives Grace, even to the sinner. But the actuation of the Grace depends on the volition of the person.

One of the big differences between a good portion of Protestantism and the Catholic Church is the idea of "irresistible Grace." The Catholic Church, the Latin Catholic Church in particular, opposes this error. So it cannot be the case that when St. Eymard stated what he did, he meant that Mary could not resist the Grace given to her. I believe what is meant by the Latin Saint's statement is simply that Mary NEVER WANTED to oppose God's will. THere's nothing doctrinally wrong with that.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sure, but if you claim it is their doctrine, you should be able to find some MAGISTERIAL documents to support your claim. You have given none. I'll accept a statement like "the majority of Latin Catholic believe...," but that does not mean it is their official teaching (i.e., doctrine).

True, quotations that indicate rather explicitly that there is still debate going on about what "impeccability" actually means - hence, theologoumenon.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is not what I have been taught as a Melkite Catholic. I have been taught that Mary was sinless, but no one has ever taught (or discussed with me in private) the idea that Mary was outside of the dominion of this sinful world. But then as a Melkite I have never been taught that Mary was immaculately conceived either.

I see nothing wrong with this idea, but it is not what I was taught in my Mariology courses. I was taught that Mary always responded and that her response was predestined. Personally I agree with the comment, but I do not believe that it represents the common teaching of the Roman Church. I was taught - as a Roman Catholic while working on my MA degree - that it was not possible for Mary to voluntarily (or even involuntarily) turn away from God. Her will - by grace - was perfectly attuned to the divine will, and nothing could alter that, that is, nothing internal to her being or external to it could separate her from God.

This is one of those times when Catholics want to have it both ways. There is an article by Fr. Peter Fehlner in which he speaks about Mary's being incapable of sinning, but still being free. He thinks of it in paradoxical terms. Mary could not sin, it was something she did not have the ability to do, and yet she was still free in all her choices.

Not every doctrine - moral or dogmatic - has a magisterial text to back it up. In fact, magisterial texts are only issued when a doctrine that was peacefully accepted for centuries is questioned persistently. For example, the moral doctrine that abortion is grave crime was only mentioned in an authoritative magisterial document in the 1990s. Prior to that it was mentioned in some curial texts, but again only dating from the 1970s onward. It was only because of the prevalence of abortion (and the propaganda in support of it) that Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, so for 1990 years there had never been a definitive magisterial document on abortion until circumstances finally called for one.

Can you read. I told it that all of Christ's blood returning to his body in the resurrection has not been taught in any magisterial document, but the doctrine is a consequence of the dogma of the hypostatic union. The Word of God was hypostatically united to His human nature, which includes His blood, and so when He rose His blood was restored to Him. It is a common doctrine founded upon the prior dogma.

Mardukm, I have supplied a large number of texts, from approved Catholic theologians, while you have provided nothing to back up what you say. Please stop trying to hijack the thread I started. Either supply texts from approved authors that support your position, or leave the thread in peace.

"Infallibility differs essentially from impeccability, which consists in the inability to sin; this signal privilege, which was awarded to the Mother of God, has never been attributed to the sovereign Pontiff."

Fr. William Devivier, SJ
Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith
(New York: Benziger Brothers, 1903)
Page 404

"CHAPTER 2

On the multiple reasons and armour why the blessed Virgin could not sin

The second flame of the Virgin is called her inability to sin. Although, as is clear from what has been said, the blessed Virgin had received a strong restriction on the inclination to sin so that she could not be led into any sin, there still remained in her essence an inclination to sin. But her second sanctification in the conception of the Son of God added to her a total wiping away and eradication of the inclination to sin and a confirmation in good; so that while before she was not able to sin, now she could not sin. The Angel expresses these two effects in Luke 1:28-35 when he says firstly: Hail full of grace, and secondly: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you; these apply to the first effect. For the second effect he adds: and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you.

According to Bonaventure, in III, dist. 352:

The inclination to sin is seated in the flesh and rises up to the soul. In the first sanctification of the Virgin such a grace of perfection was given to her that it flowed over into her sensuality in such grace that it could repress the inclination to sin taking from it any effectiveness or enticement. But in the second sanctification the Holy Spirit came down not only into her soul but also into her flesh. The Spirit worked in a wonderful way on her flesh, by rendering that flesh without stain, thereby leaving her flesh immaculate by wiping from it both the inclination and every desire to sin, so that she was not able to sin. This is the opinion of Bernard, Magister Sententiarum, and Damascene.

For if the blessed Virgin could have sinned after the conception of the Son of God many incongruities would have ensued: firstly, it would have been a reproach against the child if his mother was a sinner; secondly, it would have been detrimental to the mother because she could then be damned; thirdly, it would have been a loss for the human race; fourthly, it would have inflicted harm on the whole divine plan because, with reason, it could have caused distrust in the work of the incarnation. Therefore, it must be accepted that in the conception of the Son of God, as has been said above, she was so perfected that her will could not afterwards be turned to evil, not because free will had been taken away nor because of a loss of some power, but because of the perfection and confirmation by grace of her free will and the taking away of the weakness."

St. Bernardine of Siena
Treatise on the Blessed Virgin
Sermon 4, Chapter 2
Translated by Campion Murray, OFM