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

Good. So this source states that Mary's impeccability derives as much from her free volition, as well as the Grace given to her. If this is all that impeccability means, then by all means - as stated earlier - let it be a Latin doctrine. It seems no different from the Eastern/Oriental understanding of the sinlessness of Mary, except for terminology.

Blessings,
Marduk

Certain aspects are debated, but not in the way that you have been talking about it. For example, in the problem of extrinsic versus intrinsic impeccability, you only showed familiarity with Fr. Eamon Carroll's historical study of the topic, which I quoted, but you seemed to ignore Fr. Juniper Carroll's text (a far more important book because it was used in seminaries for many years), where he explained that one can speak of Mary's impeccability as intrinsic in a relational sense, but not as natural to her being (i.e., as essential).

The biggest point of contention, which has divided theologians for some time is whether Mary's impeccability was full and complete at her first sanctification or her second sanctification, but now the weight of magisterial authority (i.e., from Pius IX's decree on the "immaculate conception") has given the advantage to those who support the first sanctification as the source of Mary's impeccability. Another question that was basically open, but is less so now, is what Mary's impeccability is founded upon, prior to the 1854 decree it was almost universally founded - according to Catholic scholars - solely upon her divine maternity, while in the time since the "immaculate conception" decree it has been held to be founded upon both her divine maternity and her "immaculate conception." That Mary is impeccable is - from a Roman Catholic perspective a given - because it is connected to Mary's other privileges, and so to deny it would be to deny those other doctrines as well.

Because your quotes themselves indicate that how the term "impeccability" is defined is still an open question. If you cannot accept that your own quotes are contraindicative of your assignment of "doctrine" to this belief, well, that's your cup of tea.

Blessings,
Marduk

Again, a statement of your opinion, but I have seen no proof from you to make it so. You seem out of your depth.

Mardukm,

Why should I accept your opinion on this topic?

Mardukm,

Please keep up with the discussion. I already mentioned a text by Fr. Fehlner where he speaks about Mary not being able to sin, and yet he insists that she is still free. This is a common enough thing to find, and in fact it can be found in other of the quotations I have provided if my memory serves me. To my knowledge none of the authors I have quoted are saying Mary was not free. How they understand freedom when she has no ability to sin is another question altogether. That said, even Fr. Hardon, who you constantly attack, says something to that effect in one of his essays on Mary.

God bless,
Todd

Postscript: I have the essay where Fr. Hardon says this, and so I will transcribe the pertinent portion of the text and post it shortly.

Btw, another thing I appreciate about your posts is that I was never aware that Latin theologians spoke of a "second sanctification" at her divine maternity. I always thought that Latins generally believed that Mary was "full of grace" from her conception. I believe your quotes bring Latin theology into a closer relationship with Traditional Eastern/Oriental Mariology than I previously thought.

Thank you, once again.

Blessings,
Marduk

I know of no Eastern Orthodox authors who assert that Mary could not sin, but if you have access to a text by an Eastern Orthodox theologian that makes that claim, then by all means post it. I would be interested in reading the text.

The division of Mary's sanctification into two (at least two) parts is fairly common among the Scholastics. There has been a change in the approach of Roman theologians since the decree on the "immaculate conception" and that is probably why you were unaware of the older approach in the West that emphasized two sanctifications.

The most common way of approaching the division - at least that I have found so far - is to say that Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother in such a way that she was able not to sin, and this is her first sanctification; while from the moment that she conceived Christ in her womb she was not able to sin, and this is her second sanctification.

Why would you think I am trying to convince you to accept my opinion on a Latin matter that I believe is only a theologoumenon.

Blessings,
Marduk

As mentioned, the statement "she could not sin" could metaphysically/philosophically be the same thing as "she would not sin." Again, as mentioned, if God knew she WOULD sin, He would never have chosen her. So the fact that He did choose her means that in God's foreknowledge, she could never sin (i.e., would always freely respond positively to His Grace). That's how I understand it. So it's a matter of terminology, as far as I can see.

Blessings,
Marduk

I disagree. One term implies an impossibility of sinning, while the other implies a possibility (even if not acted upon).

I await the posting of texts by Eastern Orthodox authors who hold that Mary was not able to sin.

So do you believe that God would have chosen a person who would freely sin against Him at some point in time to be the Theotokos?
I disagree. One term implies and impossibility while the other implies a possibility. [/quote]

I do not normally read Eastern Orthodox authors, so I could not oblige.

I believe that God chose a woman, who like everyone born of Adam, could sin if she chose to, and so I do not believe that Mary was impeccable. But my belief is not the focus of this thread, the thread is instead focused upon texts written by Catholic authors in support of Mary's impeccability.