Good stuff, Mark!

Thanks for this series Mark (from an interested Protestant). One thing I’ve wondered is, do Catholics believe that Mary was aware of her own sinlessness at the time of Christ’s birth, or was it a revelation that came (to her or others) later?

This is quite excellent.  Being a child of the 1970s, I had never heard that analogy before.

Deuce:

Interesting question. My assumption is that since it is sin, not sinlessness, that darkens the intellect and blinds us to reality, Mary was aware of her sinlessness just as Jesus was aware of his deity.  It’s not arrogant to know you are sinless when you actually are.  By way of analogy, I know that I am not a drug abuser or a gambler.  That’s just a fact about me.  I’m not particularly proud of that fact, just as I’m not proud of never having murdered anybody.  I’m grateful to God that of all the sins I have committed, at least I haven’t committed those.  I suppose something similar obtained with Mary, except that in her case it was every sin, not just some sins, that she never committed.  But it was all by grace.  And the Magnificat is most clear that she knew this was by grace and not due to her own awesomeness.

Beautiful explanation, Mark !

I stumble on this:  Mary is conceived without sin; pre-ordained to purity.  Why then would there be any doubt that she would consent to be the Mother of Christ?  Was she pre-ordained because God knew she would say yes?  What if she said no?  Does the Immaculate Conception still hold?  Was there a backup plan?  Anyone else immaculately conceived just in case?

@Daedalus- did you ever see the last season of Deep Space 9?  I think that the Loving Father of Christ would tell you the same thing the gods of the Bajoran Wormhole told Sisko- you’re thinking too linearly.  God isn’t constrained to time.

Because Mary said yes, she gave birth to Jesus Christ.  To be sinless himself, Jesus had to honor his mother (4th Commandment).  To honor his mother, he had to save her from original sin.

It’s only predestiny if time only flows one direction.  For God, all times are the present.  That’s why we’re not God.

Mark - Just Curious…why did God not save us all in the way he saved our Blessed Morhter?  Knowing that God works in ways that always have our best interest at heart, could it be that allowing us to “fall into the pitt” and then pull us out somehow provides us with the greatest benefit in the end?

Steve:

It would appear so, since he has, in fact, allowed the rest of us to fall into sin “so that he may have mercy on all”, says Paul.

Mark, your explanation to Deuce above is interesting.  If you wouldn’t mind please straightening me out here if you think I am wrong, I’d appreciate it.  While it is true that sin darkens the intellect I would think that being sinless would not prevent Mary from being ignorant of many things simply by virtue of her human finitude.  In the gospels Christ rebukes her a couple times at least.  She asks, ‘Son why have you treated us this way?’  She doesn’t know the answer, not because her intellect is darkened by sin, but because she is finite.

In order to know that she was sinless, I think Mary would have to be able to understand her own heart and the quality of her moral inclinations at every moment of her existence.  Is that possible for a human being, even one conceived without original sin and who never sinned?

Sometimes people mistakenly think that a particular impulse at a particular moment which is actually innocent, is sinful.  Is this entirely because their intellects are darkened by sin?  Isn’t part of the reason for their ignorance that the moral quality of our acts cannot be determined with complete specificity by the human mind?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

I’m not claiming Mary was omniscient, nor that she understood everything when Jesus behaved in ways that obviously confused her.  I don’t particularly see why one would need to have infinite knowledge to be aware of the fact that one does not live in conflict with the divine will.  So absent evidence to the contrary, I see no particular reason why Mary would have thought herself a sinner when she did not, in fact, commit any sins.  Scrupulousness about sins one has not committed is, itself, a form of concupiscence (typically a form of pride and/or despair, to be precise) and a mark of original sin (which Mary was not afflicted by).

@Steve (and a reply to Daedalus, also):

Steve I’ve no idea how Mark will reply, but my suspicion is that God does extraordinary, miraculous, overpowering acts in human history in a very constrained way because, were He to put forth His entire power, His graces would be overpowering and overwhelming, depriving all of humanity of any practically-exercisable free will, and making them effectively into God-following automatons.

And that’s not the kind of Father God wants to be. Sure, He could go around personally evangelizing everyone, personally feeding the poor, and all that…but that’d be a bit like an earthly father cleaning up his kids’ rooms and doing everything for them. God doesn’t want to raise spoiled brats who don’t know how to do anything, nor was He interested in a material universe filled with wind-up God-praising automatons. Instead, He wants to offer us challenges which mature us into a cooperative walk-of-faith in which we work with Him, alongside Him, participating in “the family business,” so-to-speak.

So, when God gives grace to a person, He gives them not an Irresistible Grace which overwhelms and destroys free will (which is a misunderstanding of providence and predestination) but rather gives them just enough grace to make free choice possible.

For we must remember that, in a fallen world, all the influences of biology and society and culture and temptation and spiritual wickedness are like a constant powerful headwind or crosswind, shoving our wills around almost helplessly. I believe that were it not for God’s grace, the powers of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil would be impossible for us weak-willed fallen human beings to resist: Our “free will” would not be destroyed, per se, but it would be effectively useless against such an onslaught.

But God’s grace works within us to strengthen us, to counter those crosswinds, to defend us, right up to the perfect balance-point. At that point of perfect balance, with all the crosswinds of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil cancelled out, it is truly up to us: Will we love God, or won’t we? Grace doesn’t determine that we will choose to love Him; it doesn’t cancel out free will; it makes free will possible by supplying the strength and goodness our weak fallen selves would never be able to supply on its own. If we have a choice, it is only because of God’s grace: His grace does not overwhelm or destroy our natural free will, but enables it.

And so, Daedalus, when you ask, with such fullness of grace, could Mary have had any option to reject the Incarnation? Well…did Even have any option to sin? Obviously she did have the option, since in point of fact she did sin! So too with Mary: But God with perfect foreknowledge knew that she would not, in fact, do so. But not because He forced her: Our God is no rapist. It was because He, from before the foundation of the earth, stood outside Time, watching her say, “May it be unto me according to Thy will,” that He knew she would say “Yes” to the divine plan. And, He gave her the fullness of grace that Eve had prior to the Fall, which is why the angel, after hailing her, could address her by the title “kecharitomene,” or “she who has been completely filled with grace.”

Or that, at least, is how it all looks to me.

By the way: I worry that, in some of my phrasing regarding grace and free will, I may have stated something just a little bit off which a serious theologian might criticize in one way or another. So please, don’t take my headwinds-crosswinds and “perfectly balancing grace” mental image to be authoritative or dispositive. I submit all my thoughts on this issue to the judgment of the Magisterium of Christ’s church. I only offer those mental images here because they help me to picture a way in which God’s grace makes possible free will, rather than overwhelming it.

@Mark- maybe it’s because I’m autistic, but I can most certainly see why one would need to have infinite knowledge to be aware of the fact that one does not live in conflict with the divine will.

You see, I daily live with a severe restriction on knowledge that normal people depend upon to communicate.  The divine will is not so easy for a finite mind to determine; one need not be limited by original sin to not understand the divine will and thus, have no knowledge of whether one is living in conflict or communion with the divine will at all.

Pius speculation, of course- but Mary isn’t God and thus may not have any knowledge of the divine will beyond simply having temptation miraculously removed from her path.

BTW, I was reading OSV’s Encyclopedia of Saints to my son last night as part of his RE homework; reading the stories of St. John the Baptist, St. John the Evangelist, and St. Anne (Grandmother of Christ and Mother of Mary).

An interesting tidbit I read in that is that in some traditions, St. John the Baptist is also considered to be Immaculately Conceived.  Makes you wonder if there’s something genetic in the line of the Messiah that even touched a cousin.

Mark, if you don’t want to get further into this topic, no problem.  But here is my response to your response, and thanks again for your thoughts.  It is interesting to think about these things.

First, there is a big difference between suspecting that one lives in conformity with the divine will, and knowing it.  [Similar perhaps to the difference between the hope that one is saved, and the knowledge thereof.]  In your original post to Deuce you said that you knew you had not committed certain acts.  The problem with your example is that such acts are fully knowable in the ordinary course of human life.  Not all sins fall into this category.  So the analogy falls somewhat short when applying it to Mary’s knowledge of Mary’s inner life.  By what means would she be able to discern that every act of her life, interior and exterior, was in conformity with the divine will?  That is, I think, the crucial question that must be answered in finding a response to Deuce’s question.

Second, to say that scrupulousity is entirely a problem of sin is to argue your conclusion; it is quite possible that it is also a problem materially [in the Aristotelian sense] caused in part by simple ignorance.

Third, you say ‘I don’t particularly see why one would need to have infinite knowledge to be aware of the fact that one does not live in conflict with the divine will.’  Certainly infinite knowledge would not be required.  Let me say that I didn’t mean to juxtapose ‘infinite knowledge’ against ‘ordinary knowledge of sinful humans.’  Rather, I wanted to compare ‘ordinary knowledge of sinful humans’ with Mary’s knowledge, which, though not infinite, is not affected by sin.

My question I guess goes to the ordinariness of her ability to know her inner life.  Mary’s knowledge of the world around her came through her senses.  Her sinlessness did not give her a special ability to see in the dark, and therefore to know that a spider was coming down from the ceiling while she slept and was about to land on her arm.

Where I would begin, therefore, is with the assumption that Mary’s knowledge of her interior life was also constrained by the ordinary means by which we gain knowledge of our interior life and the moral quality of our acts.  That would include, in my opinion, some plain ignorance about the moral quality of each act of the soul at every moment.  I think your position then, would be that sinlessness removes this ignorance so that, interiorly, the light of self-knowledge is always on.  And that is just something I am not sure about, because I am not sure that sinlessness would have to do that, any more than it would have to give knowledge of the exterior world of the sinless person.  Sin darkens the intellect; but even without sin, the intellect is unaware of most things, most of the time, in the universe.  Is that not also true about its knowledge of what is within the human heart?  Would sinlessness change this reality by turning on the light of knowledge in the soul, whereas it does not turn on the light of knowledge in the physical world?  Is there no room for self-ignorance of any kind in a sinless soul?

Is your opinion too much influenced by Socrates’ emphasis upon the importance of self-knowledge, perhaps?

If you are not correct, then I still would think that at a minimum she might have a strong suspicion as a result of her life experience that she was different than other people and that perhaps she came to the conclusion that, as a reasonable probability, she was without sin.  But that is a hypothesis based upon inferences that she would have made from her experiences, and not direct knowledge.

JMO.  Peace.

Deuce thanks for the question.  I am a former Protestant as Mark is.  In talking with evangelicals about our Catholic faith there often seems to be an element present in the discussion which is critical of catholicism for presuming too much knowledge about what should be left to the individual conscience to decide for itself.  I think that this discussion we have been having is exemplary of what I have found to be true since becoming Catholic: my goodness but we know so little!

cheers.

Mr. Seeber and RC

Thanks so much for the perspective.  If it’s as simple as God knew Mary would say yes (as He is, of course, unconstrained by time) was filling her full of grace necessary?  Certainly I did not mean to imply Mary endured anything against her will.  I have no idea what Deep Space 9 is.  I appreciate that time is not a factor.  Maybe mine is a “chicken or egg” question.  Did Mary say yes because she was immaculately conceived?  Was she immaculately conceived because God knew she would (did, actually—outside time) say yes?

DS9 is a Star Trek (science fiction) series that explored some pretty dark philosophy.  I was hoping you had already seen it in my explanation.

Seeing it as a chicken and egg problem is a good way to go as well.  Or even just as a mystery, in the traditional sense of the word.

But here’s where I think you’ve gone wrong:  Mary didn’t need to be immaculately conceived to say yes.  There’s a third person in the causality chain.  Mary said yes, so she became the mother of Jesus Christ, who to fulfill his OWN sinless nature, had to respect the 4th commandment, and thus, Mary is immaculately conceived.  Even divorced from time, the logic chain doesn’t work without Christ; Mary had a savior.

@R.C. “god-amatons”?

@Ted S.: re JTB: not conceived without original sin, but had the stain of original sin removed in utero during the Visitation, IIRC.

From Wikipedia:
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin and was filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism.[2][3] It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology. Mary is often called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic and cultural contexts.[4]

Mr. Seeber

Thanks.  I am perfectly content to accept that it is a Mystery.  I seek elucidation only to the extent it is taught by the Church.  Granting that Mary did not need to be immaculately conceived to say yes, what if she had been immaculately conceived and said no?  Am I merely begging the question?  God existing outside time, the immaculate conception and the fiat are simultaneous, or completely unrelated to each other in any temporal fashion? Both merely existing in God’s consciousness?  Sounds like a mystery to me!

I still say you’re missing a Scholastic Link in there- the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and the requirement that places on His responsibility to Mary.

If she had said no- if Christ had not been born- not only would she not have been immaculately conceived, there would be no reason to consider her any different than any other woman.  Without Christ- no immaculate conception.

Cause need not follow effect for God.  Cause and effect can be simultaneous, or might be reversed, from our perspective.

Mr. Seeber

Quite so.  Thanks.  Effect need not follow cause for God.  Enough said.  Appreciating the graces and efficacies of Christ, this is still quite a mystery to this clay-footed soul.

Daedalus:

In reply to your question, “Thanks so much for the perspective.  If it’s as simple as God knew Mary would say yes (as He is, of course, unconstrained by time) was filling her full of grace necessary?”

...I think the answer may depend on what you mean by “necessary”:

1. God knew that Mary would say “Yes,” provided that He gave her sufficient grace to counteract the impact of the fallen world in which she lived. Had He not given her at least that much grace, she would have been unable to say “Yes.” That necessary minimum amount of divine indwelling need not have been sufficient to overwhelm her free will and force her to accede to the divine plan; it need only have been sufficient to prevent the World, the Flesh, and the Devil from overwhelming her free will and preventing her from cooperating with the divine plan. So: It is certain that giving her a certain amount of grace is absolutely necessary, since grace is necessary for any human to do any supernatural good…and the Fiat certainly qualifies!

2. Was the “complete fullness” of grace required to allow her the freedom to say “Yes” to God? Or, would a lesser amount of grace been sufficient to enable her free will, so that she could freely say “Yes?” To that question, I can only answer: I don’t know. I know grace is required to do any (more-than-natural) good thing; and maybe some theologian has a good reason to say that, for the spectacular supernatural good of assenting to the Incarnation, only a person who is totally graced is sufficiently graced to give the right kind of assent. So, while it’s straightforward that grace was required, there’s a gap in which I myself don’t know why fullness of grace was required…if indeed it was. But if it was, someone else may know why.

3. However, we can see many reasons why complete fullness of grace was fitting. First, by giving this gift, Jesus glorifies His mother to the highest degree and thereby fulfills the commandment “Honor (lit. ‘glorify’) thy Father and thy Mother” to the fullest possible degree. Second, Jesus completes the symmetry of the second Eve and the second Adam in mirror-image: As the first Eve came out of the first Adam, so the second Adam comes out of the second Eve; as the first Adam and the first Eve are free of original sin prior to the Fall, so too the second Adam and the second Eve are free of original sin after the Immaculate Conception and the Incarnation. And Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, containing within her the Bread from Heaven, the High Priest of the New Covenant, and the Word of God in Flesh, just as the original Ark carried within it the Manna, the Rod of Aaron, and the Tablets. But the Ark was made of purest gold and incorruptible wood; so too Mary from her first moments of existence was made pure and incorruptible…and that requires freedom from the stain of original sin. The Ark didn’t start out its existence with a spot of rust or mildew, so neither could Mary.

4. So, if for these reasons it is fitting that Mary should be “full of grace” and freed from original sin, the question follows: Does God always do the most fitting thing? Or does God ever choose a lesser good in preference to a greater one? I don’t see how He could. I think He does what is most good, always, even though we sometimes don’t immediately see why it is the most good. So it seems to me that God’s very own character would lead Him to always do the most-good thing that He could do…and if the words of Gabriel are to be believed, Mary was in fact kecharitomene, “filled-with-grace-fully-and-in-a-completed-way.” So perhaps this was “necessary” not so much because if God hadn’t done it, something bad would have happened, but instead because God could do it, and, being free to do it, was inclined to do so by reason of His goodness. “Being Who You Actually Are” is, I suppose, a kind of “necessity,” even for God.

I hope some of that is helpful. I also hope I have made it adequately clear that I am up against the bleeding edge of what I know; a real theologian better-versed in the Fathers and Mystics might be able to say more, and with more certainty.

Dear Friends: For the Christian Truth about the Blessed Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, see Saint John Maximovitch. (1994). The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, the Birthgiver of God.  Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.
Mary had sin, original sin, from which she needed to be saved by Christ. If she had no original sin, she would be a member of the Godhead, and therefore Divine. Every one except Jesus has original sin.  See the Book of Romans for proof.  In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

RC

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks.  To your comments 1 and 3, I reply: clearly, and I agree.  As to item 2, yes, I perceive the gap as well.  The gap is manifest to me primarily when I hear or read gushing thanks to Mary for saying “yes.”  The implication is that she, being immaculately conceived, and full of grace, could still have just as easily said “no Thanks.”  Without diminishing the veneration we owe to Mary, must we really register great relief that she answered properly?  Was the matter still at issue?

I’m no theologian, and I am not too proud to bow to a mystery of the Faith.  But I don’t want to miss something fundamental for want of asking.

Mr. Harrington:

Excuse me?

Scott Harrington:

I’m afraid you’ve gotten hold of some bad theology, and bad scripture-reading, there.

You say, “Mary had sin, original sin, from which she needed to be saved by Christ.” But there is no scriptural reason to think so.

You say, “If she had no original sin, she would be a member of the Godhead, and therefore Divine.” What? You believe that Adam and Eve were divine? Were part of the Godhead? How odd.

You say, “Every one except Jesus has original sin.  See the Book of Romans for proof.” But the book of Romans says no such thing. The closest it comes is when Paul quotes the Old Testament saying “ALL have sinned.” But the quote from the Old Testament (a.) was discussing willful personal sin (not the deprivation of grace called “original sin” which implies no personal sin at all), and, (b.) was not making a statement about human beings intended to be understood as having no exceptions, but was instead making a generality about how the righteous were so few that they seemed almost gone from the earth…a generalization apparently loose enough that the author himself could refer, a few paragraphs away, to “the righteous” without contradiction.

In the end, if Mary is the new Eve, and moreover a New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant foreshadowing, and if the book of Hebrews is right to assert that the New Covenant fulfillments are, without exception, more glorious than their foreshadowings, then Mary would have to begin with a status at least as glorious as that of Eve. So what do you think? Was Eve initially created with, or without, original sin?

And if you really believe that “ALL have sinned,” without exception, then I suppose you believe that Christians were wrong, all along, to attributed perfect sinlessness to Jesus Christ? (Or do you not consider Him to be a true human being, perhaps?) And I think you’d have to assert that children, infants, even unborn babies, have already committed personal sin, as well.

In short, I think you’re in for some odd results if you don’t take a second look at how literally you’re construing that sentence. Watch out you don’t find yourself refusing to call clergy (and your own dad) “Father,” next, or gouging out your right eye, or making yourself a eunuch for the kingdom like poor old Origen.