Delivered From All Stain
Dec 6, 2010
David Mills
“Yeah, right” is the way the more irenic of my Evangelical friends react to the Immaculate Conception, the feast day of which (a holy day of obligation) we celebrate on Wednesday. A few will go so far as to say something like “Whatever floats your boat,” while others react with something like horror or disgust. Very few, in my experience, have a very good idea of the dogma to which they're reacting.
“It says that Mary doesn't need to be saved,” Evangelical friends with doctorates in theology from elite universities have told me, which is, you know, and I do hate to say this, kind of dumb. I can easily understand their believing the dogma made up out of thin air, but even then they should realize that what is made up is a statement about the way Jesus saved his own mother.
So it may be useful here to explain the teaching in first week of “Mary 101” form.
At least everyone will know where they stand. I thought of this when reading some of the bitter and cutting responses to David Hart's lovely reflection on holiness, “The Abbot and Aunt Susie,” and feeling like saying, in the tones of a mother whose children are trapped inside on a rainy day, “Why can't you just play nice?”
The word “Immaculate” doesn’t simply mean “perfectly clean,” as we tend to think from its use in real estate ads, but “unstained.” The doctrine emphasizes Mary’s freedom from moral corruption—not, and this is the crucial point, what she is in herself but what she is by the grace of God. Issued by Pope Pius IX in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus on December 8, 1854, the definition declares that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
She is, he wrote, “far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity.” Because God did this for her—because God did it—Mary, “ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity.”
Even very sympathetic Protestants think of it as a kind of devotional optional extra. But Pius thought it a very important doctrine to get right. Anyone who rejects it (he seems to be thinking only of Catholics here) is “condemned by his own judgment.” The dissenter should know “that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church.”
The pope explained it in terms of the fittingness that the Son of God should have such a mother, the Church’s liturgical practice in celebrating the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and the teaching and practice of previous popes, which he reviews at some length. He notes the agreement of religious orders, eminent theologians, and bishops, the “intimation” of the Council of Trent, and the testimony of “of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church.” He then summarizes the biblical arguments offered by “the Fathers and writers of the Church” and their “explicit affirmation” of the doctrine.
Pius's argument, such as it is, does not satisfy Protestants, who ask, and quite rightly given their beliefs, “Just where is this in Scripture?” It looks to them as if the Catholic Church is rationalizing a doctrine that had grown too big to fail. They can understand how the Catholic might get from Jesus' statements at the Last Supper to a belief in Transubstantiation, but not how he can get from apparently no evidence whatsoever to the Immaculate Conception. That doesn't look like a stretch but an invention.
Yet, in Ineffabilis Deus itself, Pius said that the Church “never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything.” The Church, he would insist, is a witness, not an inventor, a reporter, not a novelist. And he is not wrong in saying so, though the reason gets at a deeper difference between the traditions than their beliefs about the Virgin Mary.
Dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are “truth[s] revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse,” as Pope Pius XII said in 1950 in Munificentissimus Deus, which declared Mary's Assumption into Heaven a dogma. In the words of the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, the “divine deposit” includes “all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God as founding Scripture or Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”
The Church not only guards this deposit but knows what it contains. The better question to ask, the Catholic would say, is not “Is this in Scripture?” but “Is this in the Divine deposit of truth given to the Church?” As the Second Vatican Council's Dei Verbum put it: “sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” They work “all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit.”
All the dogma does, Pius might have said, is put into a shorter and more precise form the understanding of Mary that had been percolating in and shaping the Church’s thinking since the beginning of her life. We can look for a parallel at the development of the way the Church understands Jesus.
The heretics of the early third century (those we see in retrospect as heretics) could make plausible arguments, using Scripture, but the bishops gathered at the first Council of Nicaea saw what was the real teaching of Scripture, even though they had to invent a term not found in the Bible, homoousios, to define it exactly. They had not only the words of Scripture but their real meaning. There is no more to object to in the developed understanding of the Immaculate Conception being declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 than there is to object to in the developed understanding of the nature of Christ being declared in 325 by the Council of Nicaea.
This helps to explain why the Catholic can be, to the Protestant, so bewilderingly unconcerned with pointing to chapter and verse to defend the dogma. The Catholic answer to the objection that the doctrine is not found in Scripture is that some things the Church teaches can only be found in the Bible by looking backward from what the Church knows in other ways.
The belief in Mary’s sinlessness can be seen to be assumed in Gabriel’s “Hail Mary, full of grace.” If she was full of grace, she could not be sinful. There would not be any room for sin, grace having, so to speak, filled up the space. It can also be seen to be required by the story of “the woman” whose son would crush the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15. If she, taken to mean Mary, suffered even for a moment from the inherited stain of sin, she would not have had that “perpetual enmity” with the serpent of which the passage speaks.
That is a hit-and-run summary, but I hope it explains what the dogma says and how Catholics believe what is to their Evangelical brethren hopelessly unbiblical and therefore un-believable. We believe in man's need for grace as firmly as you. We do not exempt even the Mother of God from that need.
One final word. A possible ecumenical appeal of the dogma is that it teaches us something about human freedom. Mary had a choice whether or not to be the mother of the Savior. But Immaculately Conceived and free from sin, she freely chose to do God’s will. That the choice was inevitable, given her character, does not mean it was not free. Her “Be it done to me according to your word” was a perfectly free act, and yet a perfectly predictable one. Mary was doing what she wanted to do.
Mary the Immaculate One shows us what we ought to be and what we shall be: creatures who in perfect freedom choose God, and find the choice not binding but liberating. As Benedict XVI has said, God wants to be worshipped by creatures who are free. In Mary, the Catholic Church declares, he has shown us such a creature, as an example and a promise of what we may be like, when we, like her, have been delivered from all stain of sin.
David Mills is Deputy Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here. Much of the information in this article is taken from his book Discovering Mary.
RESOURCES
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus.
The Catholic Encylopedia's entry on the doctrine (from the first, 1910, edition).
David Mills' Sharing the Real Mary.
His How To Introduce Friends to Their Mother.
The Evangelical and Catholics Together statement Do Whatever He Tells You.
A collection of ECT papers, Sola Gratia and Mary's Immaculate Conception, by Fr. Edward Oakes, S.J., J. I. Packer, Matthew Levering, T. M. Moore, and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.
R. R. Reno's Mary and the Modern University.
Comments:
12.6.2010 | 5:07am
sanpietrini says:
Excellent, David. Frankly, I've never been able to understand Gabriel's statement ("...full of grace...") as anything OTHER than immaculate. In other words, the Immaculate Conception of Mary IS in the Bible.
12.6.2010 | 8:42am
Irenaeus says:
I used to think such things were utter nonsense, and then...2 things that started to make it make sense to me:
(1) Thinking of Mary as the New Eve, how Mary was in an Edenic state to be able to reverse what Eve had done (parallels with Christ and Adam)
(2) Comparing Zechariah's response to Gabriel with Mary's; the stories are somewhat parallel, but different enough to suggest that there's something special about Mary.
(1) Thinking of Mary as the New Eve, how Mary was in an Edenic state to be able to reverse what Eve had done (parallels with Christ and Adam)
(2) Comparing Zechariah's response to Gabriel with Mary's; the stories are somewhat parallel, but different enough to suggest that there's something special about Mary.
12.6.2010 | 8:45am
Craig Payne says:
Thank you for the easily followed explanation.
Before Jesus was made helpless and raised from the earth on the Cross, He was made helpless and raised from the earth in the arms of his Mother. Both are necessary to emphasize.
Before Jesus was made helpless and raised from the earth on the Cross, He was made helpless and raised from the earth in the arms of his Mother. Both are necessary to emphasize.
12.6.2010 | 9:06am
David Mills says:
A kind of update: I changed "none" in the first paragraph to "very few." I do know Evangelicals who know what the dogma says, but -- the reason I first used "none" -- they tend not to react to it in the three ways I describe.
They see it as a logical part of Catholicism and an expression of a deeper difference between the two ways of being Christian. So instead of reacting, they say "Of course you believe that," as the Catholic would say, "Of course you don't. And that way, of course, ecumenical friendship and understanding lies.
They see it as a logical part of Catholicism and an expression of a deeper difference between the two ways of being Christian. So instead of reacting, they say "Of course you believe that," as the Catholic would say, "Of course you don't. And that way, of course, ecumenical friendship and understanding lies.
12.6.2010 | 9:09am
Stuart Koehl says:
I have to say, David, that we Eastern Catholics, while we do not condemn the doctrine of the immaculate conception as heretical, for the most part do not accept it as "dogma", either. The Tradition says Mary was preserved from all sin. Nobody takes second place to we of the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition, whether in communion with Rome or not, on affirming that point. Our liturgical texts, our paraliturgical devotions such as the Akathistos Hymn, all of these continually reiterate the point.
But we do not go so far as the Latin Church in defining the means by which this mystery was accomplished, in large part because the Latin definition is founded on Latin assumptions about original sin and anthropology. While the Latin Tradition insists that man is born in a state of sin as a result of Adam's fall from grace, the Eastern Tradition does not believe man inherits Adam's sin, but only the mortality that resulted from Adam's severing of communion with God. Being subject to death and corruption, man has developed instincts for self-preservation which become distorted passions of the flesh that invariably lead man into sin, hence man became captive to sin and death. But all sin is personal, and man is not born into a state of sin.
From the Eastern Christian perspective, we are all thus "immaculately conceived", but unlike the Theotokos, we are doomed to fall into sin, for as the Panhida says, "There is not a man who lives and does not sin, in thought or word or deed".
Mary's sinlessness, then, is not something inherent in her nature; her conception was not unlike those of other men, but through divine grace and perfect "symphonia" with the indwelling Holy Spirit, she was preserved from actual sin throughout her life, which therefore does indeed make her the Second Eve, the Champion Leader, the perfect disciple.
The Paschal Hymn, "Having Beheld the Resurrection", includes the line "Let us adore the holy Lord Jesus, who ALONE is without sin". Yet, not five minutes later in Resurrection Matins, we are extolling Mary as being without sin. How shall we reconcile this seeming contradiction? If one assumes the doctrine of the immaculate conception as something extraordinary, it is difficult, if not impossible to do so. On the other hand, if Mary's conception is perfectly ordinary, Eastern Christian anthropology provides a solution: Mary is by grace what Christ is by nature; Mary's theosis is complete and accelerated both through her cooperation with the Holy Spirit and her special role as Theotokos.
For those of us who adhere to the Eastern Christian Tradition, there is the unavoidable fact that Mary died in the flesh. All the earliest texts pertaining to the Dormition of the Theotokos are explicit: Mary died, and was placed in a tomb. The tomb was sealed. When Thomas (always late to the party) arrived several days later (having to come all the way from Kerala in India), he asked that the tomb be unsealed, so that he might look upon the Mother of God one last time. It was, and the Apostles found the tomb empty.
As I noted, what man inherits from Adam is not any stain of sin or guilt, but mortality. That Mary died indicates that she shared in the ancestral curse as much as the rest of us. In that light, Mary's sinlessness appears more, not less of a miracle, since she did not have the advantage of a different nature from the rest of humanity.
It's clear from looking at the discussions within the Latin Church that the doctrine of the immaculate conception is fundamentally Christological, as are all Marian doctrines. Mary is important only in relation to her Son, and not in her own right. And the dilemma for the Latin Church was explaining how Christ could share fully in human nature without being subject to original sin according to the Latin understanding. Since that stain of sin was passed down from generation to generation, if Mary had a normal human nature, then she would have passed the stain of sin on to her son, which was theologically unthinkable. Logic, the bane of Western theology since the Middle Ages, dictated that somehow, Mary NOT pass on that stain, and the only way to do that was to exempt her from the stain herself. I don't think it's a coincidence that belief in the immaculate conception rose concurrently with the "new piety" of Bernard of Clairvaux, which incorporated an exaggerated and sentimentalized devotion to Mary.
From my perspective as a Greek Catholic, I have no problem with Latin Catholics believing the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is an organic development of theology within the Latin Tradition, in response to fundamental concepts of that Tradition. I do not see any reason, either, why an individual Greek Catholic, or even Orthodox Christian could not believe in it either. There is nothing inherently heretical in it and the Eastern Churches have never ruled definitively on how or when Mary became "sinless". I do have a major objection to dogmatizing what is essentially a theological opinion (theologumenon) particular to the Latin Church and Latin theology, and attempting to impose it upon Churches of other Traditions that do not share the same assumptions, methods or vocabulary as the Latin Church. Moreover, it does not strike me that the subject of Mary's conception, belonging as it does to the inner life of the Church, is a fit subject for "dogmatization", which properly applies only to those beliefs that directly affect the Church's kergyma. Unless we of the Eastern Churches accept all the underlying Latin assumptions about original sin and human nature, the doctrine of immaculate conception is entirely superfluous while creating all sorts of anomalies and ambiguities that distort the integrity of our Tradition.
We would all do better to go back to the first stratum of the Tradition, the theologia prima (or just theologia, if you prefer the Greek), that Mary was indeed preserved from all sin throughout her life, and leave the "how" and "when" of the theologia secunda (Greek theoria) to the realm of theologumena, whether personal or ecclesial. Nobody can doubt that Eastern Christians truly extol the Virgin as "more honorable than the Seraphim, and more glorious beyond compare than Cherubim", or proclaim her sinlessness to the world and the whole universe. What particular purpose is served by insisting that a divine mystery must needs be "defined" in accordance with the understanding of one particular Church, and then imposed upon all the Churches?
But we do not go so far as the Latin Church in defining the means by which this mystery was accomplished, in large part because the Latin definition is founded on Latin assumptions about original sin and anthropology. While the Latin Tradition insists that man is born in a state of sin as a result of Adam's fall from grace, the Eastern Tradition does not believe man inherits Adam's sin, but only the mortality that resulted from Adam's severing of communion with God. Being subject to death and corruption, man has developed instincts for self-preservation which become distorted passions of the flesh that invariably lead man into sin, hence man became captive to sin and death. But all sin is personal, and man is not born into a state of sin.
From the Eastern Christian perspective, we are all thus "immaculately conceived", but unlike the Theotokos, we are doomed to fall into sin, for as the Panhida says, "There is not a man who lives and does not sin, in thought or word or deed".
Mary's sinlessness, then, is not something inherent in her nature; her conception was not unlike those of other men, but through divine grace and perfect "symphonia" with the indwelling Holy Spirit, she was preserved from actual sin throughout her life, which therefore does indeed make her the Second Eve, the Champion Leader, the perfect disciple.
The Paschal Hymn, "Having Beheld the Resurrection", includes the line "Let us adore the holy Lord Jesus, who ALONE is without sin". Yet, not five minutes later in Resurrection Matins, we are extolling Mary as being without sin. How shall we reconcile this seeming contradiction? If one assumes the doctrine of the immaculate conception as something extraordinary, it is difficult, if not impossible to do so. On the other hand, if Mary's conception is perfectly ordinary, Eastern Christian anthropology provides a solution: Mary is by grace what Christ is by nature; Mary's theosis is complete and accelerated both through her cooperation with the Holy Spirit and her special role as Theotokos.
For those of us who adhere to the Eastern Christian Tradition, there is the unavoidable fact that Mary died in the flesh. All the earliest texts pertaining to the Dormition of the Theotokos are explicit: Mary died, and was placed in a tomb. The tomb was sealed. When Thomas (always late to the party) arrived several days later (having to come all the way from Kerala in India), he asked that the tomb be unsealed, so that he might look upon the Mother of God one last time. It was, and the Apostles found the tomb empty.
As I noted, what man inherits from Adam is not any stain of sin or guilt, but mortality. That Mary died indicates that she shared in the ancestral curse as much as the rest of us. In that light, Mary's sinlessness appears more, not less of a miracle, since she did not have the advantage of a different nature from the rest of humanity.
It's clear from looking at the discussions within the Latin Church that the doctrine of the immaculate conception is fundamentally Christological, as are all Marian doctrines. Mary is important only in relation to her Son, and not in her own right. And the dilemma for the Latin Church was explaining how Christ could share fully in human nature without being subject to original sin according to the Latin understanding. Since that stain of sin was passed down from generation to generation, if Mary had a normal human nature, then she would have passed the stain of sin on to her son, which was theologically unthinkable. Logic, the bane of Western theology since the Middle Ages, dictated that somehow, Mary NOT pass on that stain, and the only way to do that was to exempt her from the stain herself. I don't think it's a coincidence that belief in the immaculate conception rose concurrently with the "new piety" of Bernard of Clairvaux, which incorporated an exaggerated and sentimentalized devotion to Mary.
From my perspective as a Greek Catholic, I have no problem with Latin Catholics believing the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is an organic development of theology within the Latin Tradition, in response to fundamental concepts of that Tradition. I do not see any reason, either, why an individual Greek Catholic, or even Orthodox Christian could not believe in it either. There is nothing inherently heretical in it and the Eastern Churches have never ruled definitively on how or when Mary became "sinless". I do have a major objection to dogmatizing what is essentially a theological opinion (theologumenon) particular to the Latin Church and Latin theology, and attempting to impose it upon Churches of other Traditions that do not share the same assumptions, methods or vocabulary as the Latin Church. Moreover, it does not strike me that the subject of Mary's conception, belonging as it does to the inner life of the Church, is a fit subject for "dogmatization", which properly applies only to those beliefs that directly affect the Church's kergyma. Unless we of the Eastern Churches accept all the underlying Latin assumptions about original sin and human nature, the doctrine of immaculate conception is entirely superfluous while creating all sorts of anomalies and ambiguities that distort the integrity of our Tradition.
We would all do better to go back to the first stratum of the Tradition, the theologia prima (or just theologia, if you prefer the Greek), that Mary was indeed preserved from all sin throughout her life, and leave the "how" and "when" of the theologia secunda (Greek theoria) to the realm of theologumena, whether personal or ecclesial. Nobody can doubt that Eastern Christians truly extol the Virgin as "more honorable than the Seraphim, and more glorious beyond compare than Cherubim", or proclaim her sinlessness to the world and the whole universe. What particular purpose is served by insisting that a divine mystery must needs be "defined" in accordance with the understanding of one particular Church, and then imposed upon all the Churches?
12.6.2010 | 9:14am
Stuart Koehl says:
By the way, does anybody know why and when the Western Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on the 8th, when the original date of the Conception of the Theotokos was the 9th? Note that while there is a full nine months between the Feast of the Annunciation (25 March) and the Nativity of the Lord (25 December), in the original cycle of feasts the time was one day shy of nine months from the Conception of the Theotokos (9 December) and the Nativity of the Theotokos (8 September), specifically to signify the imperfection of Mary and her subordination to her Son.
12.6.2010 | 9:16am
Fr. George Rutler says:
This is an excellent summary. Christ's last words to the human race before his death were about His mother. He would not have given us an imperfect gift, nor would he have entrusted us in our imperfection to someone less than perfect. The Immaculate Conception celebrates what mankind is meant to be. As Aquinas says, "Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it." And it explains the paradoxical phrase of John Paul II: "Man, become what you are." Christ builds his Church on Peter, but he protects the Church through His mother. John was charged with caring for her temporal needs, as all of us are stewards of the temporal Church, while Mary encourages us as an example of the eternal Church. This is why a right understanding of Mary safeguards from heresy and it is also why a limited understanding of Mary cramps our understanding of the Church. I have a watch fob engraved as a gift from John Henry Newman to a Congregationalist minister in London. It contains a medal of the Immaculate Conception. It was the Blessed man's gracious way of saying, "Behold your mother."
12.6.2010 | 9:53am
Stuart Koehl says:
"This is why a right understanding of Mary safeguards from heresy and it is also why a limited understanding of Mary cramps our understanding of the Church. "
I entirely agree, Father, which is why I have to insist that the integrity of the Church's "other lung" in this regard must be respected--unless, of course, you would say that the Eastern Christian understanding of Mary is "cramped".
I am reminded of a story told by Father Lawrence Cross of the Russian Catholic Church, who was trying to explain his various ecumenical activities in which he was engaged to his elderly and staunchly Irish-Catholic mother, with very limited success. Finally, she asked him, "The Orthodox, do they love Our Lady?", to which he replied, "Yes, Mum, probably more than we do". She pondered for a moment, and then said, "Well, it's all right, then".
I entirely agree, Father, which is why I have to insist that the integrity of the Church's "other lung" in this regard must be respected--unless, of course, you would say that the Eastern Christian understanding of Mary is "cramped".
I am reminded of a story told by Father Lawrence Cross of the Russian Catholic Church, who was trying to explain his various ecumenical activities in which he was engaged to his elderly and staunchly Irish-Catholic mother, with very limited success. Finally, she asked him, "The Orthodox, do they love Our Lady?", to which he replied, "Yes, Mum, probably more than we do". She pondered for a moment, and then said, "Well, it's all right, then".
12.6.2010 | 10:18am
Eric Giunta says:
Stuart:
Speak for yourself. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox Christians: they are Catholic Christians and required to submit to the same dogmas as their Western Brethren, even though they for obvious reasons have different cultural frameworks in which they formulate these teachings.
God is not a racialist; He cares not where you were born or in what language you celebrate your Liturgy. Pius IX was very clearly addressing the universal Church, not merely the West.
If the Orthodox Church does not have a developed doctrine on this matter the way the Catholic Church does, that does not free Eastern Catholics to believe as their schismatic counterparts do. The fact that Latin theology has had a disproportionate influence on the formulation of universal Catholic doctrine is a consequence of the Orthodox being in schism from the Church for about a millenium or so -- this does not make the IC any less binding on Eastern Catholics, no more than the Hebrew character of the Old Testament or the very Easter character of the Christological definitions of the first millenium maake these any less binding on Western Catholics.
I don't know where you're getting your ideas of Catholic theology or ecclesiology from, Stuart. From your posts on the ByzCath forum and on here, it is clear it isn't from any authoritative Catholic sources, Please quit acting like you speak for Eastern Catholics. You don't.
Speak for yourself. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox Christians: they are Catholic Christians and required to submit to the same dogmas as their Western Brethren, even though they for obvious reasons have different cultural frameworks in which they formulate these teachings.
God is not a racialist; He cares not where you were born or in what language you celebrate your Liturgy. Pius IX was very clearly addressing the universal Church, not merely the West.
If the Orthodox Church does not have a developed doctrine on this matter the way the Catholic Church does, that does not free Eastern Catholics to believe as their schismatic counterparts do. The fact that Latin theology has had a disproportionate influence on the formulation of universal Catholic doctrine is a consequence of the Orthodox being in schism from the Church for about a millenium or so -- this does not make the IC any less binding on Eastern Catholics, no more than the Hebrew character of the Old Testament or the very Easter character of the Christological definitions of the first millenium maake these any less binding on Western Catholics.
I don't know where you're getting your ideas of Catholic theology or ecclesiology from, Stuart. From your posts on the ByzCath forum and on here, it is clear it isn't from any authoritative Catholic sources, Please quit acting like you speak for Eastern Catholics. You don't.
12.6.2010 | 10:21am
Grandpa Tom says:
Not all Catholic Dogma's are found in the Bible. All Christian religions believe in "Original Sin." The term "Original Sin" is not in the Bible. So use this lack of exact terminology on Original Sin to demonstrate not all beliefs are contained in the text of the Bible in the manner one would perfer to find a particular statement. Sometimes we have to act like detectives, and connect the clues, the dots. Original Sin, the Trinity, and Abortion, are not spelled out in those exact words, but there is the 'meaning' within the language of the message by which though reason we reach the conclusion we arrive at. Mary was Immaculate, and she is the only woman an Angel ever bowed to, and said "Hail, (Mary) ful of grace.
So ask the Protestant to show you where the language "Original Sin" is in the Bible. It is not there, but they too believe in the unwritten "dogma" of Original Sin.
So ask the Protestant to show you where the language "Original Sin" is in the Bible. It is not there, but they too believe in the unwritten "dogma" of Original Sin.
12.6.2010 | 10:25am
Eric Giunta says:
The rest of your post(s), Stuart, are filled with all manner of nonsensical non-sequitor. That Mary is by grace what God is naturally is not "Eastern" theology, it is Catholic. An Eastern Catholic may or may not adopt the Augustinian terminology vis-a-vis "original sin," but he is obligated--same as his fellow Catholics, whatever their race or nationality--to accepts that from the first moment of her spiritual existence (i.e., conception) the Theotokos was a partaker in the divine nature. She wasn't spiritually regenerated at some future event in her life, like the Annunciation (as some Orthodox today hold).
That Mary died is also not an "Eastern" distinctive, but the overwhelming consensus all throughout Catholic Christendom, the West included. This no more proves she was subjected to Adam's curse than Christ's own passion and death proves that He was.
That Mary died is also not an "Eastern" distinctive, but the overwhelming consensus all throughout Catholic Christendom, the West included. This no more proves she was subjected to Adam's curse than Christ's own passion and death proves that He was.
12.6.2010 | 10:29am
Alan says:
Please help me with something. Much is made of the fact that Mary said "yes" when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her at the annunciation. Yet she was immaculately conceived in preparation for this event. Is it at all possible that she could have said "no"?
12.6.2010 | 10:54am
Brian LeCompte says:
Thank you Stuart for affirmining the Eastern tradition of honoring Mary as Theotokos and as sharing most fully in the gift of grace merited by Jesus Christ.
It is a grace of God that the Eastern churches have so long labored under various occupations and perservered. Whereas we in the West have had the benefit of free of exercise of our Christian faith, and so often have let it grow decadent or faint.
I believe this is why Eastern Catholics are so eager to talk about their own traditions. Let's give them the respect and attention they deserve.
It is a grace of God that the Eastern churches have so long labored under various occupations and perservered. Whereas we in the West have had the benefit of free of exercise of our Christian faith, and so often have let it grow decadent or faint.
I believe this is why Eastern Catholics are so eager to talk about their own traditions. Let's give them the respect and attention they deserve.
12.6.2010 | 11:20am
Dan Deeny says:
David,
Well, I don't know. You mentioned the Protestants and their wish for evidence from Sacred Scripture. I thought you would give us chapters and verses, but I didn't see any. Maybe I missed them? As it happens, I talk with a former Catholic who now attends a Calvinist church. This person reads and studies the Bible on a daily basis. If I bring this up, she's going to want some scriptural evidence. Is there any?
Thanks.
Well, I don't know. You mentioned the Protestants and their wish for evidence from Sacred Scripture. I thought you would give us chapters and verses, but I didn't see any. Maybe I missed them? As it happens, I talk with a former Catholic who now attends a Calvinist church. This person reads and studies the Bible on a daily basis. If I bring this up, she's going to want some scriptural evidence. Is there any?
Thanks.
12.6.2010 | 11:21am
jason taylor says:
Grandpa Tom, the term Original Sin is not found in the Bible but the concept certainly is.
Sanpietrini if "full of grace" implies Immaculate Conception then all Christians are immaculately conceived.
Sanpietrini if "full of grace" implies Immaculate Conception then all Christians are immaculately conceived.
12.6.2010 | 11:39am
Chris Jones says:
Dr Mills,
You begin well, as long as you keep to your original goal of explaining to our evangelical friends what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is, and is not. When you go beyond that to explain and defend the truth, and the evidentiary basis, of that dogma, you soon find yourself on very thin ice indeed.
I yield to no man in my devotion to "our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed, and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary," but there is some sleight-of-hand going on here. There is more than a little conflict between a Church which never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything and the understanding of Mary [that] had been percolating in and shaping the Church’s thinking since the beginning of her life. Behind that evocative but somewhat sneaky little word "percolating" lies the pernicious notion of the "development of doctrine."
You cannot have it both ways: if this teaching is "contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse" then it is not revealed through "percolation" and the "shaping of the Church's thinking" over millennia; it is revealed by being proclaimed by the Apostles and handed down by them to the Church, and handed down from generation to generation in the Church from the Apostles' time until now -- unchanged. The Apostolic Tradition is that which was delivered to, through, and by the Apostles, not whatever inferences or meditations later generations have come up with.
I am not demanding, as the evangelicals surely would, a case for the Immaculate Conception on the basis of Scripture alone. I fully affirm that the Apostolic Tradition comes to us in both written and oral expressions (both of which are "of equal force for piety"). But Tradition does not change, and it does not consist of what the Pope says or what the theologians think. It must conform to the Vincentian canon, and all of the "percolating" and "shaping" in the world cannot change that.
You begin well, as long as you keep to your original goal of explaining to our evangelical friends what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is, and is not. When you go beyond that to explain and defend the truth, and the evidentiary basis, of that dogma, you soon find yourself on very thin ice indeed.
I yield to no man in my devotion to "our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed, and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary," but there is some sleight-of-hand going on here. There is more than a little conflict between a Church which never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything and the understanding of Mary [that] had been percolating in and shaping the Church’s thinking since the beginning of her life. Behind that evocative but somewhat sneaky little word "percolating" lies the pernicious notion of the "development of doctrine."
You cannot have it both ways: if this teaching is "contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse" then it is not revealed through "percolation" and the "shaping of the Church's thinking" over millennia; it is revealed by being proclaimed by the Apostles and handed down by them to the Church, and handed down from generation to generation in the Church from the Apostles' time until now -- unchanged. The Apostolic Tradition is that which was delivered to, through, and by the Apostles, not whatever inferences or meditations later generations have come up with.
I am not demanding, as the evangelicals surely would, a case for the Immaculate Conception on the basis of Scripture alone. I fully affirm that the Apostolic Tradition comes to us in both written and oral expressions (both of which are "of equal force for piety"). But Tradition does not change, and it does not consist of what the Pope says or what the theologians think. It must conform to the Vincentian canon, and all of the "percolating" and "shaping" in the world cannot change that.
12.6.2010 | 11:56am
David Nickol says:
It seems to me difficult to say much meaningful about the Immaculate Conception without having an understanding of what Original Sin is, and it seems very unclear to me what Original Sin could possibly be. Also, if God could exempt one person from Original Sin, why could he not exempt others? Also, David Mills emphasizes that being Immaculately Conceived was not something Mary did. It was something God caused to happen. Mary would seem to be an extraordinary person not because she struggled with good and evil and chose good, but because God showered such favor on her that she was good from the outset and extraordinarily predisposed to the good. Of course, God can do anything he wants to, but it does seem unfair that some people struggle to be good and fail, while Mary was showered with such an abundance of grace that it is difficult to believe that she could have said anything other than, "Be it done unto me according to your word." (To answer Alan's question.)
Also, what would a sinless person be like in a sinful world? And how would poor old Joseph have felt being a sinful husband and foster father with a sinless wife and a sinless child?
Also, what would a sinless person be like in a sinful world? And how would poor old Joseph have felt being a sinful husband and foster father with a sinless wife and a sinless child?
12.6.2010 | 11:58am
Jon Rowe says:
I thought the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe in original sin. Likewise some fundamentalist free will Arminians don't believe in original sin.
12.6.2010 | 12:13pm
Ethan C. says:
Great article, David, thanks a lot. I hope we can discuss other things besides only the differences between the Eastern and Roman Catholic views, because I think there is indeed a lot more to discuss.
It seems to me that it's a little inaccurate to say that Protestant Christians object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception merely because we do not see how it can be found in the Bible.
Many of us also object to it on the basis that it seems to contradict doctrines which actually *are* found in the Bible, most notably Paul's statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
This, I think, is why you will find "Evangelicals with doctorates in theology" saying that the IC implies that Mary wouldn't need to be saved. I'm not a doctorate-holder by any means, but I'll take a stab at explaining it.
Protestant soteriology stresses the substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement. That is, that Christ atones for our sins by sacrificing Himself to take the punishment that is due to us. Christ's righteousness is then given to us, "imputed" or "infused," depending on the particular Protestant tradition, but nonetheless transferred unto us in a reciprocal manner to the way in which our sins are transferred onto Him.
We need this atonement because we inherit both the guilt of Adam's sin (yes, in contrast to the Eastern view) and his sinful nature within our flesh.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems -- though I'm open to correction -- to assert that God made a provision for Mary to never have these two inheritances. If this is so, then it would follow that she was not in need of any atonement. If she had no guilt, then she would not have any due punishment, and therefore no need of an atoning sacrifice to take that punishment for her.
If the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is true, then, it would seem from the Protestant perspective to represent an alternative system of reconciliation to God. Instead of us participating in Christ's righteousness as a result of His substitutionary sacrifice, Mary would seem to either have her own righteousness apart from Him (which is quite heretical, and I know is not what the Catholic position teaches), or else to participate in His righteousness through some other operation of grace.
The Protestant would assert that this runs contrary to the testimony of Scripture, which teaches that all men are saved through Christ's death and resurrection, and no one is saved apart from that sacrifice. If the Mary was Immaculately Conceived, then she would not be in need of any sacrifice, and therefore her salvation would be apart from it.
Her position would be analogous to the hypothetical position of Adam and Eve and their descendants had they never sinned in the first place. They would be righteous, indeed through the grace of God, but not because of Christ's death, because Christ never would have had to die.
This is why Protestants can argue that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus did not have to die for Mary, and is thus a serious doctrinal error.
I'm very interested in hearing how Catholic theologians respond to the various parts of this line of argumentation
It seems to me that it's a little inaccurate to say that Protestant Christians object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception merely because we do not see how it can be found in the Bible.
Many of us also object to it on the basis that it seems to contradict doctrines which actually *are* found in the Bible, most notably Paul's statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
This, I think, is why you will find "Evangelicals with doctorates in theology" saying that the IC implies that Mary wouldn't need to be saved. I'm not a doctorate-holder by any means, but I'll take a stab at explaining it.
Protestant soteriology stresses the substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement. That is, that Christ atones for our sins by sacrificing Himself to take the punishment that is due to us. Christ's righteousness is then given to us, "imputed" or "infused," depending on the particular Protestant tradition, but nonetheless transferred unto us in a reciprocal manner to the way in which our sins are transferred onto Him.
We need this atonement because we inherit both the guilt of Adam's sin (yes, in contrast to the Eastern view) and his sinful nature within our flesh.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems -- though I'm open to correction -- to assert that God made a provision for Mary to never have these two inheritances. If this is so, then it would follow that she was not in need of any atonement. If she had no guilt, then she would not have any due punishment, and therefore no need of an atoning sacrifice to take that punishment for her.
If the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is true, then, it would seem from the Protestant perspective to represent an alternative system of reconciliation to God. Instead of us participating in Christ's righteousness as a result of His substitutionary sacrifice, Mary would seem to either have her own righteousness apart from Him (which is quite heretical, and I know is not what the Catholic position teaches), or else to participate in His righteousness through some other operation of grace.
The Protestant would assert that this runs contrary to the testimony of Scripture, which teaches that all men are saved through Christ's death and resurrection, and no one is saved apart from that sacrifice. If the Mary was Immaculately Conceived, then she would not be in need of any sacrifice, and therefore her salvation would be apart from it.
Her position would be analogous to the hypothetical position of Adam and Eve and their descendants had they never sinned in the first place. They would be righteous, indeed through the grace of God, but not because of Christ's death, because Christ never would have had to die.
This is why Protestants can argue that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus did not have to die for Mary, and is thus a serious doctrinal error.
I'm very interested in hearing how Catholic theologians respond to the various parts of this line of argumentation
12.6.2010 | 12:16pm
Chris Jones says:
"I thought the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe in original sin."
Of course they do. They don't care for some Western ways of expressing or explaining the doctrine, and they don't care for some of the ridiculous lengths some Western Christians take the doctrine (e.g. Calvinist Total Depravity), but the teaching itself is believed and taught by the Orthodox Church.
"We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world." (Confession of Dositheos (against Calvinism), 1672)
Of course they do. They don't care for some Western ways of expressing or explaining the doctrine, and they don't care for some of the ridiculous lengths some Western Christians take the doctrine (e.g. Calvinist Total Depravity), but the teaching itself is believed and taught by the Orthodox Church.
"We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world." (Confession of Dositheos (against Calvinism), 1672)
12.6.2010 | 12:25pm
Ethan C. says:
Alan said:
"Yet she was immaculately conceived in preparation for this event. Is it at all possible that she could have said "no"?"
David Nikol said:
"...it is difficult to believe that she could have said anything other than, "Be it done unto me according to your word.""
Alan and David Nickol,
Though I suspect we share a great deal of common theological pespective, I don't find that a very strong argument. After all, Adam and Eve were sinless and uncorrupted, and they nevertheless ate of the forbidden tree. So maybe the lesson is, "Never underestimate the ability of people to disobey God."
"Yet she was immaculately conceived in preparation for this event. Is it at all possible that she could have said "no"?"
David Nikol said:
"...it is difficult to believe that she could have said anything other than, "Be it done unto me according to your word.""
Alan and David Nickol,
Though I suspect we share a great deal of common theological pespective, I don't find that a very strong argument. After all, Adam and Eve were sinless and uncorrupted, and they nevertheless ate of the forbidden tree. So maybe the lesson is, "Never underestimate the ability of people to disobey God."
12.6.2010 | 12:38pm
The Moz says:
Great lesson. Had not the full understanding until this morning. At least know I'll be able to point to the Bible and to Catholic reasoning when asked about the particular belief.
12.6.2010 | 1:17pm
sean carlson says:
Nice try, dear brother, but those of us on the reformation side of things will continue
to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sin
lessness & ascension). The end result for many Catholic laity (if not leadership) is to see our glorious
Lord as a distant figure while it is Mary & the saints who are perceived as close. This
inadvertant diminishment of Jesus is nothing if not tragic. I do not foresee a day when
this will change
to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sin
lessness & ascension). The end result for many Catholic laity (if not leadership) is to see our glorious
Lord as a distant figure while it is Mary & the saints who are perceived as close. This
inadvertant diminishment of Jesus is nothing if not tragic. I do not foresee a day when
this will change
12.6.2010 | 1:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Speak for yourself. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox Christians: they are Catholic Christians and required to submit to the same dogmas as their Western Brethren, even though they for obvious reasons have different cultural frameworks in which they formulate these teachings."
There are always people trying to tell us who and what we are or ought to be and what we must believe--whether it's the Orthodox telling us we're really Roman Catholics with a cabaret license, or Roman Catholics telling us. . . well, that we're Roman Catholics with a cabaret license.
I'll stand with my Patriarch, Gregorios III of Antioch, Jerusalem and All the East, who has said quite plainly that we are Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome, and that we observe the fullness of the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition. I note in passing that His Beatitude, Patriarch Lyubmir of Kyiv-Halich has said much the same thing: "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences".
For what it's worth, Rome has called upon the Eastern Catholics to recover the fullness of their Traditions in liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline, and I have not seen anything that says "Except where Latin beliefs differ from those of the East".
So, my karma has run over your dogma, but that's just what it means to be a Greek Catholic.
There are always people trying to tell us who and what we are or ought to be and what we must believe--whether it's the Orthodox telling us we're really Roman Catholics with a cabaret license, or Roman Catholics telling us. . . well, that we're Roman Catholics with a cabaret license.
I'll stand with my Patriarch, Gregorios III of Antioch, Jerusalem and All the East, who has said quite plainly that we are Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome, and that we observe the fullness of the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition. I note in passing that His Beatitude, Patriarch Lyubmir of Kyiv-Halich has said much the same thing: "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences".
For what it's worth, Rome has called upon the Eastern Catholics to recover the fullness of their Traditions in liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline, and I have not seen anything that says "Except where Latin beliefs differ from those of the East".
So, my karma has run over your dogma, but that's just what it means to be a Greek Catholic.
12.6.2010 | 1:41pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I thought the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe in original sin. Likewise some fundamentalist free will Arminians don't believe in original sin."
The various Eastern Traditions (not just the Byzantine) believe that Adam's sin sundered the perfect communion between man and God, so that Adam could no longer look God in the face or speak with him as he had in the Garden. Man was created in God's image and likeness, but some of the attributes Adam possessed were not intrinsically his, but were derived from his communion with God. Among these was Adam's immortality. When Adam broke communion with God, he could no longer share in that aspect of the divine nature, and thus became subject to corruption and death, awareness of which invariably leads man to sin.
We thus speak not so much of "original sin" in the Augustinian sense of man being born with a broken or corrupted human nature, as we do of the "ancestral curse", which is death--a permanent separation of the soul from the body. Christ voluntarily took on human nature, and thereby sanctified and healed it; he voluntarily submitted to the Cross, and thus broke the bonds of death, but until Christ comes again in glory, we are still subject to the "ancestral curse", but in mitigated form: death of the body is not permanent, and death itself is but a sleep until we are awakened at the Parousia, to be reunited with our glorified bodies in a restored universe.
The various Eastern Traditions (not just the Byzantine) believe that Adam's sin sundered the perfect communion between man and God, so that Adam could no longer look God in the face or speak with him as he had in the Garden. Man was created in God's image and likeness, but some of the attributes Adam possessed were not intrinsically his, but were derived from his communion with God. Among these was Adam's immortality. When Adam broke communion with God, he could no longer share in that aspect of the divine nature, and thus became subject to corruption and death, awareness of which invariably leads man to sin.
We thus speak not so much of "original sin" in the Augustinian sense of man being born with a broken or corrupted human nature, as we do of the "ancestral curse", which is death--a permanent separation of the soul from the body. Christ voluntarily took on human nature, and thereby sanctified and healed it; he voluntarily submitted to the Cross, and thus broke the bonds of death, but until Christ comes again in glory, we are still subject to the "ancestral curse", but in mitigated form: death of the body is not permanent, and death itself is but a sleep until we are awakened at the Parousia, to be reunited with our glorified bodies in a restored universe.
12.6.2010 | 1:42pm
WMH says:
Ethan C.
Good point. Let me add that being without Original Sin, the two Eves made their choices with clear eyes unclouded by all the ugliness that the death of Jesus exemplified and remedied. Perhaps this is why the first Eve's choice set such a discordant and contagious note in the symphony of the universe, reechoing, much magnified, all around us, while Mary's example was and is so healing.
Good point. Let me add that being without Original Sin, the two Eves made their choices with clear eyes unclouded by all the ugliness that the death of Jesus exemplified and remedied. Perhaps this is why the first Eve's choice set such a discordant and contagious note in the symphony of the universe, reechoing, much magnified, all around us, while Mary's example was and is so healing.
12.6.2010 | 1:43pm
Stuart Koehl says:
It's funny how the Protestants are more Augustinian than St. Augustine. From my perspective, it's not that the Roman Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong, or vice versa, but that both sides are not asking the right questions.
12.6.2010 | 1:58pm
Asa Kraut says:
Sean Carlson:
Do you believe Adam and Eve were born sinless? Why do you think it beyond God that Mary should have been allowed to derive from birth the full benefit of her son's sacrifice? That she should be so blessed? The trouble with many Protestants is that they see Christ as their personal buddy. They have no respect for distance, for everything is measured by the self and not within the communion of the children of God. They make the word glorious sound commonplace and have little appreciation for the notion of development.
Do you believe Adam and Eve were born sinless? Why do you think it beyond God that Mary should have been allowed to derive from birth the full benefit of her son's sacrifice? That she should be so blessed? The trouble with many Protestants is that they see Christ as their personal buddy. They have no respect for distance, for everything is measured by the self and not within the communion of the children of God. They make the word glorious sound commonplace and have little appreciation for the notion of development.
12.6.2010 | 2:04pm
J. A. Roelfsema says:
I'm with Ethan: I wonder how to reconcile "all have sinned" with the Immaculate Conception.
Though on the other hand, Ethan, I understand the Catholic teaching to be that Mary's fullness of grace was merited precisely by Christ's action yet given to her in such a way as to qualify her Immaculate Conception. That is, that she was, so to speak, granted atonement at conception. I also may misunderstand this.
Though on the other hand, Ethan, I understand the Catholic teaching to be that Mary's fullness of grace was merited precisely by Christ's action yet given to her in such a way as to qualify her Immaculate Conception. That is, that she was, so to speak, granted atonement at conception. I also may misunderstand this.
12.6.2010 | 2:18pm
What if the Pope never declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary as Infallible Dogma?
Speculating, what is and what was the benefit of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Speculating, what is and what was the noticeable downsides of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Why did the Pope declare the Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma in the first place? What were the doctrinal and practical concerns and controversies of the day that drove the Pope to declare it Ex Cathedra in the first place? What terrible heresy or practice was occuring that the Pope felt that it was so important to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary an Infallible Dogma of the Latin Church?
Speculating, what is and what was the benefit of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Speculating, what is and what was the noticeable downsides of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Why did the Pope declare the Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma in the first place? What were the doctrinal and practical concerns and controversies of the day that drove the Pope to declare it Ex Cathedra in the first place? What terrible heresy or practice was occuring that the Pope felt that it was so important to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary an Infallible Dogma of the Latin Church?
12.6.2010 | 2:24pm
Eric Giunta says:
Stuart:
Nice try to weasel out of your Catholic commitments. Platitudes are always simplistic and un-nuanced, and the ones you've cited are obviously not meant to be taken literalistically, and are in any event not incompatible with the fact that orthodox Eastern Catholics believe, with their Western counterparts, that the Theotokos was full og grace from the first moment of her existence. This isn't a "Latin" dogma, anymore than the Christological definitions of the earlier centuries are "Eastern" dogmas, and no more than the Old Testament is "Hebrew" dogma. These are Catholic dogmas, pure and simple.
Nice try to weasel out of your Catholic commitments. Platitudes are always simplistic and un-nuanced, and the ones you've cited are obviously not meant to be taken literalistically, and are in any event not incompatible with the fact that orthodox Eastern Catholics believe, with their Western counterparts, that the Theotokos was full og grace from the first moment of her existence. This isn't a "Latin" dogma, anymore than the Christological definitions of the earlier centuries are "Eastern" dogmas, and no more than the Old Testament is "Hebrew" dogma. These are Catholic dogmas, pure and simple.
12.6.2010 | 3:05pm
MacGabhann says:
@Truth Unites etc.
Through the Holy Spirit Catholic truth unfolds and is explicated over time. The explication of one truth at one point of time paves the way for the explcation of further truths at subsequent points in time. The explication of truth at any point of time never contradicts earlier explications, but ever developes them into greater wholeness. Protestants, having foresworn Tradition and the notion of the Church as embodying Tradition, always fail to understand this point.
Through the Holy Spirit Catholic truth unfolds and is explicated over time. The explication of one truth at one point of time paves the way for the explcation of further truths at subsequent points in time. The explication of truth at any point of time never contradicts earlier explications, but ever developes them into greater wholeness. Protestants, having foresworn Tradition and the notion of the Church as embodying Tradition, always fail to understand this point.
12.6.2010 | 3:05pm
Mike Linton says:
Dear David: Great article, thanks. Beautifully written (as always) and cleared up some points for me and reconfirmed my decision to be a Protestant (and no, I'm not being sarcastic or nasty). Guess that puts me just more deeply in that pool of "invincible ignorance" (and I'm guess I'm in there with Sean Carlson). But I can still write carols about Mary we can sing together.
12.6.2010 | 3:06pm
David Nickol says:
Surely Catholics (including those commenting here) no longer take the story of Adam and Eve literally. Even the Catechism says:
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
Of course, this almost amounts to saying the story of Adam and Eve is not really about Adam and Eve, but about a man and a woman with different names.
The characters of Adam and Eve seem very childlike. Hardly the two people we would want to have representing the human race and determining its fate. They appear to be at the moral stage of development of children who know enough to obey, but only when being watched.
I have no idea why the pope declared the Immaculate Conception to be dogma. Exactly what it means to us in 2010 is not clear to me, so it seems to be an infallible truth without much of a meaning. It is not difficult, of course, to think of Mary being in some sense spiritually spotless, but the idea of being conceived without Original Sin can only make sense if it is understood what Original Sin is. I have read a bit of what then-Cardinal Ratziner had to say regarding Original Sin, and it is difficult to understand the Immaculate Conception in the light of what he has said. Of course, some people claim his views are heretical!
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
Of course, this almost amounts to saying the story of Adam and Eve is not really about Adam and Eve, but about a man and a woman with different names.
The characters of Adam and Eve seem very childlike. Hardly the two people we would want to have representing the human race and determining its fate. They appear to be at the moral stage of development of children who know enough to obey, but only when being watched.
I have no idea why the pope declared the Immaculate Conception to be dogma. Exactly what it means to us in 2010 is not clear to me, so it seems to be an infallible truth without much of a meaning. It is not difficult, of course, to think of Mary being in some sense spiritually spotless, but the idea of being conceived without Original Sin can only make sense if it is understood what Original Sin is. I have read a bit of what then-Cardinal Ratziner had to say regarding Original Sin, and it is difficult to understand the Immaculate Conception in the light of what he has said. Of course, some people claim his views are heretical!
12.6.2010 | 3:16pm
@ MacGabhann,
Your response looks to be a non-sequitur to my inquiries in the 11:18am comment.
Your response looks to be a non-sequitur to my inquiries in the 11:18am comment.
12.6.2010 | 3:17pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Eric,
I find your tone insulting, and your ignorance of Catholic ecclesiology and papal policy regarding the reform and restoration of the Eastern Catholic Churches disqualifies you from making any informed comments on the matter. I will simply note that the OFFICIAL Eastern Catholic catechism promulgated jointly by all the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, makes absolutely no mention of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, nor does it take into account the Latin doctrine of original sin and all subsidiary doctrines that flow from it. In fact, this very nice three volume set (Light for Life: I--The Mystery Believed; II--The Mystery Celebrated; III--The Mystery Lived) could be used without any additions or deletions in any Eastern Orthodox religious education program in this country.
When I was a catechumen fifteen years ago, all of the texts used in my instruction were Eastern Orthodox. My formation is Orthodox in all ways, save that I recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. That does not mean I have to accept Latin definitions and concepts that are alien to the Tradition of my particular Church--quite the opposite, in fact: to be true to the vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, I must be Orthodox in all things, for how else can Rome be taken at its word that restored communion does not mean subordination and assimilation, if in fact Rome does not permit those Eastern Churches ALREADY in communion with it to live the fullness of their Tradition even when it differs from the Tradition of the Church of Rome?
And, for what it's worth, you can take up the issue with my boss, the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, and his brother in Christ, the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. I am merely doing what they have instructed me to do.
As of now, though, my intention is to ignore any further comments of yours that continue in this vein. Life's too short, and I have heard all these arguments before.
I find your tone insulting, and your ignorance of Catholic ecclesiology and papal policy regarding the reform and restoration of the Eastern Catholic Churches disqualifies you from making any informed comments on the matter. I will simply note that the OFFICIAL Eastern Catholic catechism promulgated jointly by all the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, makes absolutely no mention of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, nor does it take into account the Latin doctrine of original sin and all subsidiary doctrines that flow from it. In fact, this very nice three volume set (Light for Life: I--The Mystery Believed; II--The Mystery Celebrated; III--The Mystery Lived) could be used without any additions or deletions in any Eastern Orthodox religious education program in this country.
When I was a catechumen fifteen years ago, all of the texts used in my instruction were Eastern Orthodox. My formation is Orthodox in all ways, save that I recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. That does not mean I have to accept Latin definitions and concepts that are alien to the Tradition of my particular Church--quite the opposite, in fact: to be true to the vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, I must be Orthodox in all things, for how else can Rome be taken at its word that restored communion does not mean subordination and assimilation, if in fact Rome does not permit those Eastern Churches ALREADY in communion with it to live the fullness of their Tradition even when it differs from the Tradition of the Church of Rome?
And, for what it's worth, you can take up the issue with my boss, the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, and his brother in Christ, the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. I am merely doing what they have instructed me to do.
As of now, though, my intention is to ignore any further comments of yours that continue in this vein. Life's too short, and I have heard all these arguments before.
12.6.2010 | 3:22pm
NORMAN RAVITCH says:
This issue should be settled for Protestants by reading THE VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH IN LUKE'S GOSPEL.
12.6.2010 | 3:22pm
Renate Mross says:
Dear David
Thank you
A few things worth mentioning
Lets see for a moment what our Lady said at Lourdes:
"I am the Immaculate Conception"
In Paris she gave us the miraculous Medal which has the inscription " O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you," promising graces
to those who wear it. Millions of miracles have been reported.
St. Maximilian Kolbe had a great devotion to "Mary Immaculate "
I thank God for the grace he bestowed on Mary. In above apparitions God send Mary to earth with a message.
I challenge everyone to wear her medal and pray THIS prayer.
Miracles STILL happen !!!
Thank you
A few things worth mentioning
Lets see for a moment what our Lady said at Lourdes:
"I am the Immaculate Conception"
In Paris she gave us the miraculous Medal which has the inscription " O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you," promising graces
to those who wear it. Millions of miracles have been reported.
St. Maximilian Kolbe had a great devotion to "Mary Immaculate "
I thank God for the grace he bestowed on Mary. In above apparitions God send Mary to earth with a message.
I challenge everyone to wear her medal and pray THIS prayer.
Miracles STILL happen !!!
12.6.2010 | 3:28pm
M. L. Martin says:
The dogma was defined in large measure because it was already believed. To use just one example, the United States of America was dedicated to Mary under the title of the Immaculate Conception in 1846--eight years before the formal definition.
Sean Carlson--The Church attributes assumption to Mary, not ascension. The former is received passively, the latter is done actively. The same can be said of the grace possessed by Mary and Jesus, respectively.
Sean Carlson--The Church attributes assumption to Mary, not ascension. The former is received passively, the latter is done actively. The same can be said of the grace possessed by Mary and Jesus, respectively.
12.6.2010 | 3:28pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I'm with Ethan: I wonder how to reconcile "all have sinned" with the Immaculate Conception."
I tried to explain the apparent dichotomy from within the Eastern Christian Tradition, which, though it does not adhere to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, does consider Mary to have been preserved from sin throughout her life. We sing of this truth in every Divine Liturgy, as well as at Orthros and Vespers and just about any other liturgical service I can recall. We consider Mary's sinlessness an integral aspect of the Tradition, without attempting to explain how the mystery was accomplished.
At the same time, we constantly reiterate that only Christ is "without sin"--in the Paschal Hymn, in the funeral service, in our daily prayers. So, we have an apparent contradiction" Mary is preserved from sin, and Christ alone is without sin.
The concept of theosis and filial adoption resolves the impass. Eastern Christian soteriology sees salvation as a process of theosis--a partaking of the divine nature. As Saint Athanasius said (quite scandalously to some): "God became man so that man might become god", by which he meant through baptism, the sacramental life of the Church and through constant prayer and meditation, man might become, as Saint Peter said, a partaker in the divine nature, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature.
So it is with the Theotokos: through her perfect cooperation (synergia) with the divine will, and her unique role as Tabernacle of the Divine Logos, she was indeed preserved from all sin, and partakes of the divine nature in a way more full and perfect than that of any other mortal. She thus becomes for us not the Great Exception, but the Great Exemplar, the Champion Leader of the faithful, our All-Holy, All-Pure, most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.
Mary is sinless by grace as Christ is by nature, and thus we can hold simultaneously that the Theotokos is sinless and that Christ alone is without sin.
I tried to explain the apparent dichotomy from within the Eastern Christian Tradition, which, though it does not adhere to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, does consider Mary to have been preserved from sin throughout her life. We sing of this truth in every Divine Liturgy, as well as at Orthros and Vespers and just about any other liturgical service I can recall. We consider Mary's sinlessness an integral aspect of the Tradition, without attempting to explain how the mystery was accomplished.
At the same time, we constantly reiterate that only Christ is "without sin"--in the Paschal Hymn, in the funeral service, in our daily prayers. So, we have an apparent contradiction" Mary is preserved from sin, and Christ alone is without sin.
The concept of theosis and filial adoption resolves the impass. Eastern Christian soteriology sees salvation as a process of theosis--a partaking of the divine nature. As Saint Athanasius said (quite scandalously to some): "God became man so that man might become god", by which he meant through baptism, the sacramental life of the Church and through constant prayer and meditation, man might become, as Saint Peter said, a partaker in the divine nature, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature.
So it is with the Theotokos: through her perfect cooperation (synergia) with the divine will, and her unique role as Tabernacle of the Divine Logos, she was indeed preserved from all sin, and partakes of the divine nature in a way more full and perfect than that of any other mortal. She thus becomes for us not the Great Exception, but the Great Exemplar, the Champion Leader of the faithful, our All-Holy, All-Pure, most Blessed and Glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.
Mary is sinless by grace as Christ is by nature, and thus we can hold simultaneously that the Theotokos is sinless and that Christ alone is without sin.
12.6.2010 | 3:39pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Why do you think it beyond God that Mary should have been allowed to derive from birth the full benefit of her son's sacrifice? That she should be so blessed? "
I would ask Asa Kraut why he believes man is born in a state of sin. If one does not believe that man is born in sin, then what need is there for a doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary?
I'll also remind Asa that this doctrine, like all Mariological doctrines, is not about Mary at all, but about Christ--which makes Mariology just a subset of Christology. If one accepts the Latin doctrine of original sin, then Christ cannot be sinless and still be fully human (since the stain of Adam's sin is passed down from generation to generation). The sinlessness of Christ can only be affirmed under these assumptions if Mary herself were somehow exempt from original sin.
But, of course, I belong to a Church whose Tradition has a very different view both of human nature and the effects of Adam's fall, which, as I explained, renders the doctrine of immaculate conception utterly unnecessary, and from a number of perspectives, highly problematic. It ought to be enough for Latin Catholics that we believe Mary was preserved from all sin throughout her life, without attempting to impose upon us and our Orthodox brethren, a view of human nature we do not hold and have never held, and which was never--throughout a millennium of Catholic-Orthodox polemics--an issue of dispute between the two Churches.
I would ask Asa Kraut why he believes man is born in a state of sin. If one does not believe that man is born in sin, then what need is there for a doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary?
I'll also remind Asa that this doctrine, like all Mariological doctrines, is not about Mary at all, but about Christ--which makes Mariology just a subset of Christology. If one accepts the Latin doctrine of original sin, then Christ cannot be sinless and still be fully human (since the stain of Adam's sin is passed down from generation to generation). The sinlessness of Christ can only be affirmed under these assumptions if Mary herself were somehow exempt from original sin.
But, of course, I belong to a Church whose Tradition has a very different view both of human nature and the effects of Adam's fall, which, as I explained, renders the doctrine of immaculate conception utterly unnecessary, and from a number of perspectives, highly problematic. It ought to be enough for Latin Catholics that we believe Mary was preserved from all sin throughout her life, without attempting to impose upon us and our Orthodox brethren, a view of human nature we do not hold and have never held, and which was never--throughout a millennium of Catholic-Orthodox polemics--an issue of dispute between the two Churches.
12.6.2010 | 3:42pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Norman Ravitch wrote:
"This issue should be settled for Protestants by reading THE VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH IN LUKE'S GOSPEL."
Funny, we read the same Gospel. The Eastern Fathers read the same Gospel. Why, then, have we not come to the same conclusion--indeed, why did it take 1900 years even for the Latin Church to come to this conclusion?
It is too typical of such discussions to break down into the old Catholic-Protestant polemics, in which the questions are agreed, and the answers well rehearsed. Yet we of the Christian East come to the table with a different set of assumption, a different set of questions, and, of course, a whole different set of answers.
Maybe the matter is not as cut and dried as you think?
"This issue should be settled for Protestants by reading THE VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH IN LUKE'S GOSPEL."
Funny, we read the same Gospel. The Eastern Fathers read the same Gospel. Why, then, have we not come to the same conclusion--indeed, why did it take 1900 years even for the Latin Church to come to this conclusion?
It is too typical of such discussions to break down into the old Catholic-Protestant polemics, in which the questions are agreed, and the answers well rehearsed. Yet we of the Christian East come to the table with a different set of assumption, a different set of questions, and, of course, a whole different set of answers.
Maybe the matter is not as cut and dried as you think?
12.6.2010 | 3:43pm
M. L. Martin says:
"Eastern Christian soteriology sees salvation as a process of theosis--a partaking of the divine nature."
A concept articulated first and most fully in the East, but by no means foreign to the West--St. Thomas affirms this as one of the purposes of the Incarnation (ST III.I.2), citing St. Augustine using the very same phrase as St. Athanasius.
A concept articulated first and most fully in the East, but by no means foreign to the West--St. Thomas affirms this as one of the purposes of the Incarnation (ST III.I.2), citing St. Augustine using the very same phrase as St. Athanasius.
12.6.2010 | 3:46pm
MacGabhann says:
@Truth Unite etc.
Not at all.The truth of the Immaculate Conception was explicated when it was because its time in the course of development and explication of all Catholic truth had arrived. In being explicated it cast its light in two directions: on the past, where it further enlightened previously explicated truths, and on tHe future where it adds its light to explications that are still to emerge, in part by virtue of this very light. To seek reasons as you do within the realm of profane history is to misconstrue Tradition and to subordinate it to the natural.
Not at all.The truth of the Immaculate Conception was explicated when it was because its time in the course of development and explication of all Catholic truth had arrived. In being explicated it cast its light in two directions: on the past, where it further enlightened previously explicated truths, and on tHe future where it adds its light to explications that are still to emerge, in part by virtue of this very light. To seek reasons as you do within the realm of profane history is to misconstrue Tradition and to subordinate it to the natural.
12.6.2010 | 3:53pm
Irenaeus says:
"I'm with Ethan: I wonder how to reconcile 'all have sinned' with the Immaculate Conception."
In my former way of life as a full-bore evangelical, I would have agreed. Two things:
(1) If Christ can be excepted -- he's fully human, after all -- in theory Mary could be too.
(2) Consider the New Perspective on Paul: Paul here isn't talking so much about each individual person; he's talking (as he's been talking throughout the letter) about Jews and Gentiles more in general: all -- whether Jew or Gentile -- have sinned and fallen short, all are justified by faith (not works of the Jewish law) and thus the Jew has no real advantage over the Gentile in matters of salvation.
In my former way of life as a full-bore evangelical, I would have agreed. Two things:
(1) If Christ can be excepted -- he's fully human, after all -- in theory Mary could be too.
(2) Consider the New Perspective on Paul: Paul here isn't talking so much about each individual person; he's talking (as he's been talking throughout the letter) about Jews and Gentiles more in general: all -- whether Jew or Gentile -- have sinned and fallen short, all are justified by faith (not works of the Jewish law) and thus the Jew has no real advantage over the Gentile in matters of salvation.
12.6.2010 | 4:03pm
brad says:
As a protestant, I've never heard of immaculate conception. So when I first read this article, it seemed trivial. But more than that, I think I can show it's unbiblical. Mark 3:21 says,
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
This disproves immaculate conception because not believing Jesus is who he says he is is in fact sin. Mark 3:31-35 establishes that Mary is included in 'his family', and Jesus indicates that she sinned again by saying,
"For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."
The implication is that those listening to him believed him (to some extent), whereas Mary (at least at the time) did not. The passage would have to be stretched to accommodate Pope Pius IX's claim.
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
This disproves immaculate conception because not believing Jesus is who he says he is is in fact sin. Mark 3:31-35 establishes that Mary is included in 'his family', and Jesus indicates that she sinned again by saying,
"For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."
The implication is that those listening to him believed him (to some extent), whereas Mary (at least at the time) did not. The passage would have to be stretched to accommodate Pope Pius IX's claim.
12.6.2010 | 4:04pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The dogma was defined in large measure because it was already believed."
There was a time when the Church was content to leave alone those things already believed, defining doctrinally and even dogmatically only that on which there was either doubt or disagreement. But in this case, the statement "it was already believed" is only valid under Tridentine ecclesological assumptions--specifically, that the Church of Rome is the one and only True Church of God, outside of which there are only heretics and aggregations of unrepentant schismatics. Thus, what Rome believed was universally true by default.
Of course, if Rome had bothered to ask the Orthodox Churches, or even those Eastern "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church which had escaped the worst forms of latinization, they might have gotten a very different answer.
The presumption that Latin theology, spirituality, liturgy and everything else is the most perfect and advanced expression of the Christian faith was widely held prior to Vatican II, and even had a name: praestantia ritus Latini. It was thus assumed wherever Latin belief or usage and that of a different rite diverged, the Latin usage was automatically "correct" and normative, while the divergent rite might be allowed to continue "by dispensation" until the unenlightened peasants come to their senses.
The Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches (Orientalium ecclesiarum), together with the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen gentium) represented a radical change of direction. First, the Catholic Church was recognized as a communion of particular Churches (ecclesiae sui juris) equal in grace and dignity; second, ecclesial status was extended to all the Eastern "rites", which now had to be regarded as true Churches, with their own unique Traditions being their by right and not dispensation; and third, the Catholic Church recognized the Orthodox Churches as being true Churches even if not in communion with Rome, and therefore possessing true sacraments, true holy orders, and authentic Traditions worthy of respect (on that respect, see John Paul II's pastoral letter Orientale Lumen).
If this situation had existed in 1864, it is doubtful the immaculate conception would ever have been declared an infallible dogma of the Church, for the simple reason it would fail the test of being something believed everywhere, always and at all times.
It is also safe to say that, had the present situation existed in 1871, we would have been spared Pastor aeternus, the only substantive doctrine standing between us and the restoration of communion between the Eastern and Western Churches.
But then, if there had not been a Trent or a Vatican I, there would have been no need for a Vatican II.
There was a time when the Church was content to leave alone those things already believed, defining doctrinally and even dogmatically only that on which there was either doubt or disagreement. But in this case, the statement "it was already believed" is only valid under Tridentine ecclesological assumptions--specifically, that the Church of Rome is the one and only True Church of God, outside of which there are only heretics and aggregations of unrepentant schismatics. Thus, what Rome believed was universally true by default.
Of course, if Rome had bothered to ask the Orthodox Churches, or even those Eastern "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church which had escaped the worst forms of latinization, they might have gotten a very different answer.
The presumption that Latin theology, spirituality, liturgy and everything else is the most perfect and advanced expression of the Christian faith was widely held prior to Vatican II, and even had a name: praestantia ritus Latini. It was thus assumed wherever Latin belief or usage and that of a different rite diverged, the Latin usage was automatically "correct" and normative, while the divergent rite might be allowed to continue "by dispensation" until the unenlightened peasants come to their senses.
The Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches (Orientalium ecclesiarum), together with the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen gentium) represented a radical change of direction. First, the Catholic Church was recognized as a communion of particular Churches (ecclesiae sui juris) equal in grace and dignity; second, ecclesial status was extended to all the Eastern "rites", which now had to be regarded as true Churches, with their own unique Traditions being their by right and not dispensation; and third, the Catholic Church recognized the Orthodox Churches as being true Churches even if not in communion with Rome, and therefore possessing true sacraments, true holy orders, and authentic Traditions worthy of respect (on that respect, see John Paul II's pastoral letter Orientale Lumen).
If this situation had existed in 1864, it is doubtful the immaculate conception would ever have been declared an infallible dogma of the Church, for the simple reason it would fail the test of being something believed everywhere, always and at all times.
It is also safe to say that, had the present situation existed in 1871, we would have been spared Pastor aeternus, the only substantive doctrine standing between us and the restoration of communion between the Eastern and Western Churches.
But then, if there had not been a Trent or a Vatican I, there would have been no need for a Vatican II.
12.6.2010 | 4:06pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"A concept articulated first and most fully in the East, but by no means foreign to the West--St. Thomas affirms this as one of the purposes of the Incarnation (ST III.I.2), citing St. Augustine using the very same phrase as St. Athanasius."
Mr. Martin is correct, but as a practical matter, deification or theosis as the objective of salvation as more or less slipped out of the Western Christian consciousness--which is a pity.
Mr. Martin is correct, but as a practical matter, deification or theosis as the objective of salvation as more or less slipped out of the Western Christian consciousness--which is a pity.
12.6.2010 | 4:10pm
harry says:
The Ark of the Covenant is a type -- a prefiguring -- of Mary.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume VI, Methodius (martryed around 311 A.D.), Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna:
V. Tremendous, verily, is the mystery connected with thee, O virgin mother, thou spiritual throne, glorified and made worthy of God. Thou hast brought forth, before the eyes of those in heaven and earth, a pre-eminent wonder. And it is a proof of this, and an irrefragable argument, that at the novelty of thy supernatural child-bearing, the angels sang on earth, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men," by their threefold song bringing in a threefold holiness. Blessed art thou among the generations of women, O thou of God most blessed, for by thee the earth has been filled with that divine glory of God; as in the Psalms it is sung: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory. Amen. Amen." And the posts of the door, says the prophet, moved at the voice of him that cried, by which is signified the veil of the temple drawn before the ark of the covenant, which typified thee, that the truth might be laid open to me, and also that I might be taught, by the types and figures which went before, to approach with reverence and trembling to do honour to the sacred mystery which is connected with thee; and that by means of this prior shadow-painting of the law I might be restrained from boldly and irreverently contemplating with fixed gaze Him who, in His incomprehensibility, is seated far above all. For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who art indeed a queen; to thee, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver; to thee, the heaven that contains Him who can be contained of none?
The Ark had to be pre-sanctified before items that had been touched by the finger of God, so to speak, were placed within it. (Manna, the rod of Aaron, the tablets of the law)
Exodus 30
25. And thou shalt make the holy oil of unction, an ointment compounded after the art of the perfumer,
26. And therewith thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the testimony, and the ark of the testament ...
29. And thou shalt sanctify all, and they shall be most holy: he that shall touch them shall be sanctified.
The New Covenant Ark had to be pre-sanctified as well before the very finger of God (and the rest of the body of the God-Man), not items merely items touched by the finger of God, could reside within it. Her Immaculate Conception was this pre-sanctification.
It is apparent Mary has no need of purification or sanctification. See Judges 13. The mother of Samson receives special instructions regarding her behavior before Samson is conceived. She must be made pure and remain pure. She and her husband also receive special instructions regarding how they should raise Samson. Note the similarity between this account and that of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1. Elizabeth, too, is barren. They, too, receive special instructions from an angel. They are told how to raise John the Baptist. Zechariah is a priest and is already doing what is needed for the purification of himself and Elizabeth. Note further on in Luke 1 that Mary doesn't receive any instructions on how to make herself clean. She is already completely pure, being immaculately conceived. Possessing the wisdom that comes with being "full of grace," she doesn't need any instructions on how to raise Jesus. She is only told what His name will be. Very uniquely in scriptural accounts of the dealings the Angels with mere mortals, and far from giving her instructions, Gabriel pays homage to Mary.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume VI, Methodius (martryed around 311 A.D.), Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna:
V. Tremendous, verily, is the mystery connected with thee, O virgin mother, thou spiritual throne, glorified and made worthy of God. Thou hast brought forth, before the eyes of those in heaven and earth, a pre-eminent wonder. And it is a proof of this, and an irrefragable argument, that at the novelty of thy supernatural child-bearing, the angels sang on earth, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men," by their threefold song bringing in a threefold holiness. Blessed art thou among the generations of women, O thou of God most blessed, for by thee the earth has been filled with that divine glory of God; as in the Psalms it is sung: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory. Amen. Amen." And the posts of the door, says the prophet, moved at the voice of him that cried, by which is signified the veil of the temple drawn before the ark of the covenant, which typified thee, that the truth might be laid open to me, and also that I might be taught, by the types and figures which went before, to approach with reverence and trembling to do honour to the sacred mystery which is connected with thee; and that by means of this prior shadow-painting of the law I might be restrained from boldly and irreverently contemplating with fixed gaze Him who, in His incomprehensibility, is seated far above all. For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who art indeed a queen; to thee, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver; to thee, the heaven that contains Him who can be contained of none?
The Ark had to be pre-sanctified before items that had been touched by the finger of God, so to speak, were placed within it. (Manna, the rod of Aaron, the tablets of the law)
Exodus 30
25. And thou shalt make the holy oil of unction, an ointment compounded after the art of the perfumer,
26. And therewith thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the testimony, and the ark of the testament ...
29. And thou shalt sanctify all, and they shall be most holy: he that shall touch them shall be sanctified.
The New Covenant Ark had to be pre-sanctified as well before the very finger of God (and the rest of the body of the God-Man), not items merely items touched by the finger of God, could reside within it. Her Immaculate Conception was this pre-sanctification.
It is apparent Mary has no need of purification or sanctification. See Judges 13. The mother of Samson receives special instructions regarding her behavior before Samson is conceived. She must be made pure and remain pure. She and her husband also receive special instructions regarding how they should raise Samson. Note the similarity between this account and that of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1. Elizabeth, too, is barren. They, too, receive special instructions from an angel. They are told how to raise John the Baptist. Zechariah is a priest and is already doing what is needed for the purification of himself and Elizabeth. Note further on in Luke 1 that Mary doesn't receive any instructions on how to make herself clean. She is already completely pure, being immaculately conceived. Possessing the wisdom that comes with being "full of grace," she doesn't need any instructions on how to raise Jesus. She is only told what His name will be. Very uniquely in scriptural accounts of the dealings the Angels with mere mortals, and far from giving her instructions, Gabriel pays homage to Mary.
12.6.2010 | 4:15pm
"The truth of the Immaculate Conception was explicated when it was because its time in the course of development and explication of all Catholic truth had arrived. In being explicated it cast its light in two directions: on the past, where it further enlightened previously explicated truths, and on the future where it adds its light to explications that are still to emerge, in part by virtue of this very light. To seek reasons as you do within the realm of profane history is to misconstrue Tradition and to subordinate it to the natural."
BOHICA.
On another blog that I participate in the blog owner titled one of his posts "BOHICA." I had no idea what this term meant until he explained that he listens to a sports radio host by the name of Jim Rome. And Mr. Rome defines BOHICA as "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."
When I read your further explanation to my initial inquiries, I thought "BOHICA."
BOHICA.
On another blog that I participate in the blog owner titled one of his posts "BOHICA." I had no idea what this term meant until he explained that he listens to a sports radio host by the name of Jim Rome. And Mr. Rome defines BOHICA as "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."
When I read your further explanation to my initial inquiries, I thought "BOHICA."
12.6.2010 | 4:18pm
David Nickol says:
Irenaeus,
You say: "If Christ can be excepted -- he's fully human, after all -- in theory Mary could be too."
But Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit." Mary had two ordinary parents. Original sin is "transmitted" with human nature. Jesus was unique in having two natures.
Of course, as anyone who has read Philip Roth's "The Conversion of the Jews" knows, God can do just about anything he wants. But if we assert it as infallibly true, it seems to me we have to have some inkling of what it actually means.
You say: "If Christ can be excepted -- he's fully human, after all -- in theory Mary could be too."
But Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit." Mary had two ordinary parents. Original sin is "transmitted" with human nature. Jesus was unique in having two natures.
Of course, as anyone who has read Philip Roth's "The Conversion of the Jews" knows, God can do just about anything he wants. But if we assert it as infallibly true, it seems to me we have to have some inkling of what it actually means.
12.6.2010 | 4:18pm
Bibbit says:
"I'm with Ethan: I wonder how to reconcile "all have sinned" with the Immaculate Conception."
Personally, I do not take that to be 100% literal. If I did, then I'd have to believe babies sin. I'd have to believe people who are mentally handicapped and without any ability to know right from wrong have sinned. Maybe even unborn babies have sinned too, since they are people and he did say all, he didn't qualify it by saying only born people.
Look what Paul says in Romans 1:8 - "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world." Look also at what he says in Colossians 1:6 - "All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth." Yet the faith was not being reported all over the world at that time, so it could not have been bearing fruit all over the work. For instance, there was nobody in the Americas preaching Christ. He meant the know world, or at least the Roman world. So if Paul could say something like he did in Romans and Colossians that is not 100% literal then maybe in your example he was doing the same?
Personally, I do not take that to be 100% literal. If I did, then I'd have to believe babies sin. I'd have to believe people who are mentally handicapped and without any ability to know right from wrong have sinned. Maybe even unborn babies have sinned too, since they are people and he did say all, he didn't qualify it by saying only born people.
Look what Paul says in Romans 1:8 - "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world." Look also at what he says in Colossians 1:6 - "All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth." Yet the faith was not being reported all over the world at that time, so it could not have been bearing fruit all over the work. For instance, there was nobody in the Americas preaching Christ. He meant the know world, or at least the Roman world. So if Paul could say something like he did in Romans and Colossians that is not 100% literal then maybe in your example he was doing the same?
12.6.2010 | 4:36pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"But Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit." Mary had two ordinary parents. Original sin is "transmitted" with human nature."
Is it? Says who?
"Jesus was unique in having two natures."
In a single hypostasis. Your explanation verges on diphysitism. Anathema sit!
It's the very fact that Christ is fully human within the hypostatic union that necessitates the doctrine of immaculate conception within the Latin system of theology.
Is it? Says who?
"Jesus was unique in having two natures."
In a single hypostasis. Your explanation verges on diphysitism. Anathema sit!
It's the very fact that Christ is fully human within the hypostatic union that necessitates the doctrine of immaculate conception within the Latin system of theology.
12.6.2010 | 4:39pm
Therese Z says:
Sean said:
"Nice try, dear brother, but those of us on the reformation side of things will continue to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sinlessness & ascension)."
Unless he was corrected somewhere in between and I missed it, he made a mistake: Mary did not ascend to Heaven under her own power. She was assumed into Heaven; her body was brought to Heaven.
Elijah and quite possibly Moses were also assumed. Remember when Jesus was seen on the mountaintop, dazzling in white, conversing with the two of them? There are some who would say that's why the two prophets could be seen by the Apostles who accompanied Jesus to the mountain, because their earthly bodies were available.
Nobody can raise themselves, put down their lives and take them up again, or ascend to the Father, except Jesus. That IS clear in Scripture.
"Nice try, dear brother, but those of us on the reformation side of things will continue to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sinlessness & ascension)."
Unless he was corrected somewhere in between and I missed it, he made a mistake: Mary did not ascend to Heaven under her own power. She was assumed into Heaven; her body was brought to Heaven.
Elijah and quite possibly Moses were also assumed. Remember when Jesus was seen on the mountaintop, dazzling in white, conversing with the two of them? There are some who would say that's why the two prophets could be seen by the Apostles who accompanied Jesus to the mountain, because their earthly bodies were available.
Nobody can raise themselves, put down their lives and take them up again, or ascend to the Father, except Jesus. That IS clear in Scripture.
12.6.2010 | 4:49pm
Ethan C. says:
Stuart,
I'm certainly not qualified to get into Greek grammar, but the phrase "all have sinned" would seem to be rather definite in asserting actual sin, rather than merely an inheritance of the Adamic curse of death apart from any guilt.
I suppose it would be easier to explicate this phrase within Catholic doctrine from an Augustinian standpoint, which asserts that it could refer to everyone partaking of the guilt of Adam's sin rather than each person committing particular sins themselves. Still, it seems to be a rather tough nut for the Catholic position to crack.
As far as us Protestants being more Augustinian than Augustine: I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty much true. At least for the Reformed positions, which is what I am most familiar with.
Mr. Roelfsema,
That does seem to me to possibly be a way to reconcile the IC with substitutionary atonement. Still, sounds like at least a very large stretch of the concept of atonement, to be sort of "pre-atoning" for hypothetical sins that would have occurred had she actually inherited original sin.
I think a Protestant might have a lot less trouble postulating that Mary was forgiven and purified from the guilt of original sin before she ever committed any sins of her own, and so sanctified by grace that when the angel came to her, she was of the same sort of spiritual purity as Eve had been in the garden. Though of course the reticence to assert anything beyond what appears specifically in Scripture would remain, such a formulation would not be a difficult to reconcile with Protestant teachings as the position that she was prevented from ever inheriting original sin.
I'm certainly not qualified to get into Greek grammar, but the phrase "all have sinned" would seem to be rather definite in asserting actual sin, rather than merely an inheritance of the Adamic curse of death apart from any guilt.
I suppose it would be easier to explicate this phrase within Catholic doctrine from an Augustinian standpoint, which asserts that it could refer to everyone partaking of the guilt of Adam's sin rather than each person committing particular sins themselves. Still, it seems to be a rather tough nut for the Catholic position to crack.
As far as us Protestants being more Augustinian than Augustine: I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty much true. At least for the Reformed positions, which is what I am most familiar with.
Mr. Roelfsema,
That does seem to me to possibly be a way to reconcile the IC with substitutionary atonement. Still, sounds like at least a very large stretch of the concept of atonement, to be sort of "pre-atoning" for hypothetical sins that would have occurred had she actually inherited original sin.
I think a Protestant might have a lot less trouble postulating that Mary was forgiven and purified from the guilt of original sin before she ever committed any sins of her own, and so sanctified by grace that when the angel came to her, she was of the same sort of spiritual purity as Eve had been in the garden. Though of course the reticence to assert anything beyond what appears specifically in Scripture would remain, such a formulation would not be a difficult to reconcile with Protestant teachings as the position that she was prevented from ever inheriting original sin.
12.6.2010 | 5:15pm
Suppose there was no doctrine of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, much less an Infallible Papal Declaration of such. What then?
Would Catholics worship, praise, and adore Jesus less because Mary did not have an Immaculate Conception?
Protestants worship, praise, and adore Jesus to God's Glory and Pleasure while also denying Mary's Immaculate Conception.
Would Catholics worship, praise, and adore Jesus less because Mary did not have an Immaculate Conception?
Protestants worship, praise, and adore Jesus to God's Glory and Pleasure while also denying Mary's Immaculate Conception.
12.6.2010 | 5:24pm
just saying says:
God is the author of time and all time is, in His view, "the eternal now". Every human from the beginning of time is given the potential to share in the death and resurrection of Christ. Mary, and all of us, are in need of the salvation that comes from Christ. Christ saved Mary from sin by His sacrifice before she was conceived. The rest of us get it at baptism.
12.6.2010 | 5:28pm
David Nickol says:
Stuart,
Are you asking who says Original sin is transmitted with human nature? The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
Are you asking who says Original sin is transmitted with human nature? The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
12.6.2010 | 5:36pm
Fr Alvin Kimel says:
Of relevance here is the argument advanced by Fr Edward Oakes. The dogmatic intent of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, argues Oakes, is to secure the sola gratia, the utter gratuity of the divine work of salvation:
"But if, as part of its logic, the cross itself is made possible only through Mary's consent at the Annunciation (which Luke clearly holds), then the implications of the denial of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should become clear. For such a denial would then make our very salvation dependent on Mary's free will operating independent of grace. Her Yes to God would have had to have been made, even if ever so slightly, under her own power, which would have the intolerable implication of making the entire drama of salvation hinge on a human work—the very apogee of Pelagianism."
Oakes's argument raises, in the context of this thread, an interesting question: Can Eastern Orthodoxy appreciate the anti-Pelagian intent of the Immaculate Conception doctrine?
"But if, as part of its logic, the cross itself is made possible only through Mary's consent at the Annunciation (which Luke clearly holds), then the implications of the denial of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should become clear. For such a denial would then make our very salvation dependent on Mary's free will operating independent of grace. Her Yes to God would have had to have been made, even if ever so slightly, under her own power, which would have the intolerable implication of making the entire drama of salvation hinge on a human work—the very apogee of Pelagianism."
Oakes's argument raises, in the context of this thread, an interesting question: Can Eastern Orthodoxy appreciate the anti-Pelagian intent of the Immaculate Conception doctrine?
12.6.2010 | 5:51pm
@Fr. Alvin Kimel: "The dogmatic intent of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, argues Oakes, is to secure the sola gratia, the utter gratuity of the divine work of salvation:"
I wrote earlier: "Protestants worship, praise, and adore Jesus to God's Glory and Pleasure while also denying Mary's Immaculate Conception."
I shall also add that Protestants affirm Sola Gratia whilst denying Mary's Immaculate Conception.
Again, suppose there was no doctrine of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, much less an Infallible Papal Declaration of such. What then? Would the Catholic understanding of sola gratia crumble without the Immaculate Conception?
Would Catholics worship, praise, and adore Jesus less because Mary did not have an Immaculate Conception?
I wrote earlier: "Protestants worship, praise, and adore Jesus to God's Glory and Pleasure while also denying Mary's Immaculate Conception."
I shall also add that Protestants affirm Sola Gratia whilst denying Mary's Immaculate Conception.
Again, suppose there was no doctrine of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, much less an Infallible Papal Declaration of such. What then? Would the Catholic understanding of sola gratia crumble without the Immaculate Conception?
Would Catholics worship, praise, and adore Jesus less because Mary did not have an Immaculate Conception?
12.6.2010 | 6:00pm
R.R. Reno wrote a recent post titled "Was the Reformation Necessary?"
Along the same line of questioning, Was the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary Necessary?
Was the Papal Declaration that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is to be Infallible Church Dogma Necessary?
Along the same line of questioning, Was the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary Necessary?
Was the Papal Declaration that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is to be Infallible Church Dogma Necessary?
12.6.2010 | 6:10pm
jm says:
To sin, one must have a choice.
(Most of us would say a conscious choice.)
The choice must be between doing God's will and not doing God's will.
God also gives each of us the wherewithal to choose His will.
He asks of us nothing that we cannot handle.
During one's life, one has many opportunities to choose God's will or to choose not to obey God's will. Adam and Eve had a choice, and they made a bad choice. Mary had a choice, and she made a good one.
She had just as much ability to choose evil as to choose good.
(I can easily see myself completely frightened by an angel, who told me that I'd be pregnant without a husband. And that all of this would be in the name of a God who hadn't been too kind to His people during much of the Old Testament. I know that at many times in my life I would have said "No, thanks.")
We all have many opportunities to choose to do God's will, and we often fall short.
Re: the Immaculate Conception:
What would be the advantages of not having Original Sin?
Remember, Adam and Eve didn't have Original Sin initially, and they didn't fare very well at all. A whole host of punishments befell them (mortality, pain in childbirth, toiling, shame at nakedness, etc.)
The advantages of not having Original Sin (for Mary) would be
1) Mary cannot die. Western tradition states that she was taken bodily into heaven at the moment she would have died. Eastern tradition, as I understand it, states that she didn't die, but fell into a deep sleep/repose.
2) Mary cannot have pain in childbirth. The details of this are not documented in Luke, but it seems to make sense if she was free of Original Sin.
Did Jesus have to gestate in a sin-free environment? Per Roman Catholic theology, and as was nicely explicated in David Mills's post, this was essential.
The most troublesome conesquence of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (and the idea that Mary must have remained sin-free if she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly time) as it was explained to me by an Evangelical Christian friend, is the idea that there was one person who chose was saved due to a combination of God's grace and her own merits and not through the merits of Jesus Christ alone. Her salvation was contingent on Jesus's existence (otherwise she would not have been conceived without Original Sin in the first place), but to stay Original Sin-free, she would have to choose to do God's will at each opportunity, lest the Original Sin-free period be revoked. Roman Catholic tradition holds that Mary remained sin-free through her entire life, thus she could never die. Thus, she had to be bodily assumed into heaven. She merited heaven through her own works - by remaining sin free each day she lived on earth. She did what Adam and Eve could not do. Jesus helped, of course His inspiration and love is probably what helped her to keep choosing God's will. But she got to heaven by remaining sin-free and not by Christ taking her sins onto him and saving her (like he does all of us).
(Most of us would say a conscious choice.)
The choice must be between doing God's will and not doing God's will.
God also gives each of us the wherewithal to choose His will.
He asks of us nothing that we cannot handle.
During one's life, one has many opportunities to choose God's will or to choose not to obey God's will. Adam and Eve had a choice, and they made a bad choice. Mary had a choice, and she made a good one.
She had just as much ability to choose evil as to choose good.
(I can easily see myself completely frightened by an angel, who told me that I'd be pregnant without a husband. And that all of this would be in the name of a God who hadn't been too kind to His people during much of the Old Testament. I know that at many times in my life I would have said "No, thanks.")
We all have many opportunities to choose to do God's will, and we often fall short.
Re: the Immaculate Conception:
What would be the advantages of not having Original Sin?
Remember, Adam and Eve didn't have Original Sin initially, and they didn't fare very well at all. A whole host of punishments befell them (mortality, pain in childbirth, toiling, shame at nakedness, etc.)
The advantages of not having Original Sin (for Mary) would be
1) Mary cannot die. Western tradition states that she was taken bodily into heaven at the moment she would have died. Eastern tradition, as I understand it, states that she didn't die, but fell into a deep sleep/repose.
2) Mary cannot have pain in childbirth. The details of this are not documented in Luke, but it seems to make sense if she was free of Original Sin.
Did Jesus have to gestate in a sin-free environment? Per Roman Catholic theology, and as was nicely explicated in David Mills's post, this was essential.
The most troublesome conesquence of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (and the idea that Mary must have remained sin-free if she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly time) as it was explained to me by an Evangelical Christian friend, is the idea that there was one person who chose was saved due to a combination of God's grace and her own merits and not through the merits of Jesus Christ alone. Her salvation was contingent on Jesus's existence (otherwise she would not have been conceived without Original Sin in the first place), but to stay Original Sin-free, she would have to choose to do God's will at each opportunity, lest the Original Sin-free period be revoked. Roman Catholic tradition holds that Mary remained sin-free through her entire life, thus she could never die. Thus, she had to be bodily assumed into heaven. She merited heaven through her own works - by remaining sin free each day she lived on earth. She did what Adam and Eve could not do. Jesus helped, of course His inspiration and love is probably what helped her to keep choosing God's will. But she got to heaven by remaining sin-free and not by Christ taking her sins onto him and saving her (like he does all of us).
12.6.2010 | 6:21pm
Kathleen Mulhern says:
In endless debates with Calvinist friends, always the issue of free will and choice rumble at the bottom. My Calvinist friends want absolutely unconditioned election, and believe that the movement of God so stirs the elect's heart that he or she in perfect free will chooses God.
My Catholic and Arminian friends balk at this, believing that it abrogates the will. Yet you write this: "Mary had a choice whether or not to be the mother of the Savior. But Immaculately Conceived and free from sin, she freely chose to do God’s will. That the choice was inevitable, given her character, does not mean it was not free. Her “Be it done to me according to your word” was a perfectly free act, and yet a perfectly predictable one. Mary was doing what she wanted to do."
Seems to me like Catholics want the Calvinist option for Mary alone. Elect, chosen, preserved -- grace was irresistible, yet of course it was a free act of her will.
My Catholic and Arminian friends balk at this, believing that it abrogates the will. Yet you write this: "Mary had a choice whether or not to be the mother of the Savior. But Immaculately Conceived and free from sin, she freely chose to do God’s will. That the choice was inevitable, given her character, does not mean it was not free. Her “Be it done to me according to your word” was a perfectly free act, and yet a perfectly predictable one. Mary was doing what she wanted to do."
Seems to me like Catholics want the Calvinist option for Mary alone. Elect, chosen, preserved -- grace was irresistible, yet of course it was a free act of her will.
12.6.2010 | 6:30pm
Perry Robinson says:
Mr. Mills,
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we met in the home of one Peter Moriarty in CA. He was then Episcopalian and I was in the REC in exile from TEC. I was a young pup and an avid reader of the Evangelical Catholic. Hullo from a long time ago.
Here are some things to consider regarding your post. For scriptural material, if I did believe in the IC, I’d point people to meditate on Ps 45.
You write though that there is no more to object to in the IC qua development than Nicea’s judgment on the full divinity of the Son. The two cases aren’t comparable and I’d argue you are begging a few questions. Nicea’s judgment isn’t an instance of development of doctrine. It only could be if the key terms were cataphatic, that is, they had conceptual content. But given that the divine essence is beyond being and which not even the angels can know since they veil their faces, homoousios is apophatic and so doctrinal development can’t be had here. And the development of terms isn’t tantamount to the development of conceptual content.
Second, Alexander’s doctrine upheld by Athanasius not only had strong scriptural support, but standing in the tradition. Arius’ had as much only by the warping intrusion of Hellenistic philosophy. The first is an apple and the other is an orange. Last I checked the IC has weak if any serious scriptural or patristic support.
As for your claim that if Mary suffered from inherited sin then there would not be perpetual enmity. This seems to depend on a specific notion of sin, as Stuart rightly noted. It only follows if we bind together guilt and corruption very tightly such that if one has one, then one has the other as well. Such was in fact the medieval worry which motivated the discussion among the Scholastics. This is why the question of Mary’s death has always been a problem in that tradition in that period forward. But such a notion seems to turn on a confusion of person and nature and if we distinguish them in such a way that one can have corruption qua nature without personal guilt, the worry becomes superfluous since it would be possible both for Mary to have an inherited corruption while leaving the question of any sinful acts committed by her person to one side, as well as allowing that Christ qua divine person took on our corrupted flesh even though he committed no sinful acts. (2 Cor 5:21) Sin then can be glossed narrowly in terms of a personal act or widely in terms of state of weakness relative to nature.
As for human freedom, everything depends on what the term means. Certainly a denial of alternative possibilities for Mary doesn’t pick out a notion of freedom such that Libertarians have in mind since they take alternative possibilities to be a necessary condition for freedom. More directly, I can’t see how your gloss doesn’t exclude the other cherished Libertarian condition on freedom, that of ultimate responsibility, where the agent is the ultimate source of their actions and character. If God conveys this character apart from her choice, then she certainly isn’t free in a libertarian sense. So saying that she freely chose to do God’s will must mean in some soft determinist sense that Calvinists, Scotists and Thomists have in mind. This is why saying that Mary was free because she did what she wanted to do would warm the heart of any Edwardian Calvinist since freedom for them is construed in terms of achieving one’s desired goals without obstruction of hindrance. For libertarians this confuses willing with free willing. For the question is not, can I achieve what I desire, but rather am I free to desire what I do?
And here comes the actual anti-ecumenical import of the doctrine. The reason why in the case of Christ that Christ’s human will is impeccable is that Christ as a divine person has no beginning and so he never beings doing good. Christ has no gnomic will because he’s a divine person and since Mary is not a divine person, she did have a gnomic will, which logically precludes the IC. There is no process then by which Christ achieves theosis qua person through his human willing, unlike all other agents. And this is so since all other agents have a beginning, that is, they aren’t God. Consequently, Christ’s recapitulation of human nature has a reconstituting function for human nature universally orienting it towards eternal existence (Jn 6:39), whereas our own individual recapitulation of the life of Christ is necessary, since it cannot be had by any other means than our co-operation. That is, we are creatures and the divine character had in theosis can only be had through synergism, not monergism. If it could be had on the latter, then not only is our co-operation in salvation superfluous, but so is Christ’s human activity relative to salvation, which is just another way of saying that Classical Protestantism and Monothelitism would be true. Human activity is then extrinsically related to grace on such a view, which not only warms the hearts of the Reformers, but Pelagius as well. Consequently, her choice was not inevitable since inevitability is a mark of determinism.
And here the Scotistic answer which was taken up by Rome undermines not only the praise worthiness of Mary’s choice, but God’s choice of her in the first place, for why does she find favor with God in the first place? A clue is to be had in reflecting on the parents of John the Baptist, which Scripture recoreds “were both righteous blameless.” Lk 1:6. And this, I’d argue is what Scripture picks out in saying that Mary found favor with God for she is the culmination of the working of the Law and the Covenants to bring about Messiah rather than a trumping of that historical process. The times were “full” as it were.
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we met in the home of one Peter Moriarty in CA. He was then Episcopalian and I was in the REC in exile from TEC. I was a young pup and an avid reader of the Evangelical Catholic. Hullo from a long time ago.
Here are some things to consider regarding your post. For scriptural material, if I did believe in the IC, I’d point people to meditate on Ps 45.
You write though that there is no more to object to in the IC qua development than Nicea’s judgment on the full divinity of the Son. The two cases aren’t comparable and I’d argue you are begging a few questions. Nicea’s judgment isn’t an instance of development of doctrine. It only could be if the key terms were cataphatic, that is, they had conceptual content. But given that the divine essence is beyond being and which not even the angels can know since they veil their faces, homoousios is apophatic and so doctrinal development can’t be had here. And the development of terms isn’t tantamount to the development of conceptual content.
Second, Alexander’s doctrine upheld by Athanasius not only had strong scriptural support, but standing in the tradition. Arius’ had as much only by the warping intrusion of Hellenistic philosophy. The first is an apple and the other is an orange. Last I checked the IC has weak if any serious scriptural or patristic support.
As for your claim that if Mary suffered from inherited sin then there would not be perpetual enmity. This seems to depend on a specific notion of sin, as Stuart rightly noted. It only follows if we bind together guilt and corruption very tightly such that if one has one, then one has the other as well. Such was in fact the medieval worry which motivated the discussion among the Scholastics. This is why the question of Mary’s death has always been a problem in that tradition in that period forward. But such a notion seems to turn on a confusion of person and nature and if we distinguish them in such a way that one can have corruption qua nature without personal guilt, the worry becomes superfluous since it would be possible both for Mary to have an inherited corruption while leaving the question of any sinful acts committed by her person to one side, as well as allowing that Christ qua divine person took on our corrupted flesh even though he committed no sinful acts. (2 Cor 5:21) Sin then can be glossed narrowly in terms of a personal act or widely in terms of state of weakness relative to nature.
As for human freedom, everything depends on what the term means. Certainly a denial of alternative possibilities for Mary doesn’t pick out a notion of freedom such that Libertarians have in mind since they take alternative possibilities to be a necessary condition for freedom. More directly, I can’t see how your gloss doesn’t exclude the other cherished Libertarian condition on freedom, that of ultimate responsibility, where the agent is the ultimate source of their actions and character. If God conveys this character apart from her choice, then she certainly isn’t free in a libertarian sense. So saying that she freely chose to do God’s will must mean in some soft determinist sense that Calvinists, Scotists and Thomists have in mind. This is why saying that Mary was free because she did what she wanted to do would warm the heart of any Edwardian Calvinist since freedom for them is construed in terms of achieving one’s desired goals without obstruction of hindrance. For libertarians this confuses willing with free willing. For the question is not, can I achieve what I desire, but rather am I free to desire what I do?
And here comes the actual anti-ecumenical import of the doctrine. The reason why in the case of Christ that Christ’s human will is impeccable is that Christ as a divine person has no beginning and so he never beings doing good. Christ has no gnomic will because he’s a divine person and since Mary is not a divine person, she did have a gnomic will, which logically precludes the IC. There is no process then by which Christ achieves theosis qua person through his human willing, unlike all other agents. And this is so since all other agents have a beginning, that is, they aren’t God. Consequently, Christ’s recapitulation of human nature has a reconstituting function for human nature universally orienting it towards eternal existence (Jn 6:39), whereas our own individual recapitulation of the life of Christ is necessary, since it cannot be had by any other means than our co-operation. That is, we are creatures and the divine character had in theosis can only be had through synergism, not monergism. If it could be had on the latter, then not only is our co-operation in salvation superfluous, but so is Christ’s human activity relative to salvation, which is just another way of saying that Classical Protestantism and Monothelitism would be true. Human activity is then extrinsically related to grace on such a view, which not only warms the hearts of the Reformers, but Pelagius as well. Consequently, her choice was not inevitable since inevitability is a mark of determinism.
And here the Scotistic answer which was taken up by Rome undermines not only the praise worthiness of Mary’s choice, but God’s choice of her in the first place, for why does she find favor with God in the first place? A clue is to be had in reflecting on the parents of John the Baptist, which Scripture recoreds “were both righteous blameless.” Lk 1:6. And this, I’d argue is what Scripture picks out in saying that Mary found favor with God for she is the culmination of the working of the Law and the Covenants to bring about Messiah rather than a trumping of that historical process. The times were “full” as it were.
12.6.2010 | 6:31pm
Perry Robinson says:
Stuart K,
While I agree with much of what you say regarding the Orthodox view of sin, I think you get one part of it wrong. While the distinction between corruption and guilt turns on the person/nature distinction, it is a mistake to say that we are not born with any corruption. This is true in terms of the guilt that accrues to personal acts, but not so with respect to weaknesses and mortality that is true of human nature. Hence we are not all conceived immaculately but in corruption. What is important to guard against is the Reformation (and Pelagian) notion that righteousness was natural to human nature such that the fall brought about a loss of the imago dei. The imago dei is intact in the fall, though the divine likeness and attending divine power was lost so that our natural powers remain but are disordered. Mortality is then part of the stain of sin widely glossed in terms of human nature.
As for your exhcnage with Eric, I find myself in the main agreeing with Eric. If you are in communion with Rome, per Florence, you are obligated to adhere to all of the dogmas defined as such by Rome, like it or lump it. Your reasoning seems specious to me and the Filioque is a perfect counter example. While some, not all, Eastern Catholics are permitted to use the creed without it, they are no less required to believe it. The same gos for the dogma of the IC.
It may also be true that the Orthodox have never ruled on how or why Mary became sinless, but that of itself doesn’t imply there is space open for the dogma of the IC. The Orthodox have never definitively ruled on lots of ideas which are in fact contrary to the tradition. This strikes me as an argument from ignorance and so fallacious.
As for the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch his words have meaning and standing only within the matrix of Catholic teaching and not apart from it. Consequently, if it contradicts say Florence or the teaching of the magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary, then it is to be dissented from by the faithful. So when he says there are no theological differences, not only does Rome seem to say otherwise but so do the Orthodox.
As for your argument form the official Catachism of Eastern Catholics, here is why I think your argument is a poor one. The fact that the Catachism makes no mention of something doesn’t of itself imply that the Easterners are not obligated to adhere to the IC. Those two ideas do not necessarily connect.
You write that you must be Orthodox in all things, which of course must exclude being in communion with the Orthodox, holding teachings as dogmas which the Orthodox do not, such as the Filioque and Papal Supremacy.
As for the Theotokos, you write that she was preserved from all sin through her synergia, but I can’t see given the IC how there is any room for synergism at all.
As for your anathema on dyophysitism, you may wish to rescind it since you just condemned the Synod of Chalcedon. Here I think you confuse dyophysitism with Nestoranism.
While I agree with much of what you say regarding the Orthodox view of sin, I think you get one part of it wrong. While the distinction between corruption and guilt turns on the person/nature distinction, it is a mistake to say that we are not born with any corruption. This is true in terms of the guilt that accrues to personal acts, but not so with respect to weaknesses and mortality that is true of human nature. Hence we are not all conceived immaculately but in corruption. What is important to guard against is the Reformation (and Pelagian) notion that righteousness was natural to human nature such that the fall brought about a loss of the imago dei. The imago dei is intact in the fall, though the divine likeness and attending divine power was lost so that our natural powers remain but are disordered. Mortality is then part of the stain of sin widely glossed in terms of human nature.
As for your exhcnage with Eric, I find myself in the main agreeing with Eric. If you are in communion with Rome, per Florence, you are obligated to adhere to all of the dogmas defined as such by Rome, like it or lump it. Your reasoning seems specious to me and the Filioque is a perfect counter example. While some, not all, Eastern Catholics are permitted to use the creed without it, they are no less required to believe it. The same gos for the dogma of the IC.
It may also be true that the Orthodox have never ruled on how or why Mary became sinless, but that of itself doesn’t imply there is space open for the dogma of the IC. The Orthodox have never definitively ruled on lots of ideas which are in fact contrary to the tradition. This strikes me as an argument from ignorance and so fallacious.
As for the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch his words have meaning and standing only within the matrix of Catholic teaching and not apart from it. Consequently, if it contradicts say Florence or the teaching of the magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary, then it is to be dissented from by the faithful. So when he says there are no theological differences, not only does Rome seem to say otherwise but so do the Orthodox.
As for your argument form the official Catachism of Eastern Catholics, here is why I think your argument is a poor one. The fact that the Catachism makes no mention of something doesn’t of itself imply that the Easterners are not obligated to adhere to the IC. Those two ideas do not necessarily connect.
You write that you must be Orthodox in all things, which of course must exclude being in communion with the Orthodox, holding teachings as dogmas which the Orthodox do not, such as the Filioque and Papal Supremacy.
As for the Theotokos, you write that she was preserved from all sin through her synergia, but I can’t see given the IC how there is any room for synergism at all.
As for your anathema on dyophysitism, you may wish to rescind it since you just condemned the Synod of Chalcedon. Here I think you confuse dyophysitism with Nestoranism.
12.6.2010 | 6:32pm
Perry Robinson says:
Eric Guinta,
While I in the main agree with your remarks re Stuart, your remark that the death of Mary is not an Eastern distinctive but a consensus of all of Catholicism. Here I would object. Rome has not defined one way or the other whether Mary in fact died and they have not done so since the wages of sin is death. This is why the official statements of the extra-ordinary magisterium speak ambiguously of completing the course of her life. This was and has been the sticking point. The tradition affirms her death while the Scotistic doctrine precludes it. If she did not inherit sin, then she did not inherit death either. If she had the corruption of death, then she had the guilt of sin.
While I in the main agree with your remarks re Stuart, your remark that the death of Mary is not an Eastern distinctive but a consensus of all of Catholicism. Here I would object. Rome has not defined one way or the other whether Mary in fact died and they have not done so since the wages of sin is death. This is why the official statements of the extra-ordinary magisterium speak ambiguously of completing the course of her life. This was and has been the sticking point. The tradition affirms her death while the Scotistic doctrine precludes it. If she did not inherit sin, then she did not inherit death either. If she had the corruption of death, then she had the guilt of sin.
12.6.2010 | 6:33pm
Perry Robinson says:
Ethan
You write that Protestant soteriology stresses the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement, but here I think you confuse Christ as substitute with the penal theory of the atonement. The two are not the same. Augustine’s ransom gloss on the cirstus Victor model is substitutionary, but it is not a penal model. Neither is Anselm’s Satisfaction model or that ofAquinas. Substitution is wider than the particular penal model of Protestantism.
You write that Protestant soteriology stresses the substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement, but here I think you confuse Christ as substitute with the penal theory of the atonement. The two are not the same. Augustine’s ransom gloss on the cirstus Victor model is substitutionary, but it is not a penal model. Neither is Anselm’s Satisfaction model or that ofAquinas. Substitution is wider than the particular penal model of Protestantism.
12.6.2010 | 6:38pm
Chris Jones says:
Fr Kimel,
Two points:
First, the "intent" of a teaching may be laudable, but that does not serve to insert a teaching into the Apostolic Tradition that was not there to begin with. The Immaculate Conception, as a pious opinion or theologoumenon, may be devotionally sound, good for the soul, or even true. But even if true it is not a truth actually handed down to us from the Apostles.
Second, Fr Oakes's analysis makes no sense (at least to me). To deny the Immaculate Conception is not equivalent to stating that our Lady consented to the Incarnation apart from grace. The Immaculate Conception is hardly the only occasion or manner in which grace could have been, or was, bestowed upon her. The choice of "either the Immaculate Conception or Mary's free will independent of grace" is a totally false choice.
Finally, even were Fr Oakes's logic impeccable, it would still be an instance of taking the inferences of fallen, finite human reason and making dogmas out of them. That is not permitted to us. Our inferences -- even the valid and true ones -- are not the stuff of dogma. Only the teachings actually handed down by and from the Apostles can be dogma.
Two points:
First, the "intent" of a teaching may be laudable, but that does not serve to insert a teaching into the Apostolic Tradition that was not there to begin with. The Immaculate Conception, as a pious opinion or theologoumenon, may be devotionally sound, good for the soul, or even true. But even if true it is not a truth actually handed down to us from the Apostles.
Second, Fr Oakes's analysis makes no sense (at least to me). To deny the Immaculate Conception is not equivalent to stating that our Lady consented to the Incarnation apart from grace. The Immaculate Conception is hardly the only occasion or manner in which grace could have been, or was, bestowed upon her. The choice of "either the Immaculate Conception or Mary's free will independent of grace" is a totally false choice.
Finally, even were Fr Oakes's logic impeccable, it would still be an instance of taking the inferences of fallen, finite human reason and making dogmas out of them. That is not permitted to us. Our inferences -- even the valid and true ones -- are not the stuff of dogma. Only the teachings actually handed down by and from the Apostles can be dogma.
12.6.2010 | 6:51pm
Perry Robinson says:
Fr Kimel,
I am sure Protestants can affirm the aim to protect sola gratia. On that score Proestants and Catholics agree, but disagree on the proper founding of doctrine, as I am sure you know well. They agree in principle but differ in application. Which is just to say that Protestantism and Catholicism differ only on the recipients of predestinating grace, not so much on the nature of it.
On the other hand, hard nosed Augustinians like Bernard also opposed the doctrine quite vociferously saying, “No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception.” Epistle 174. And Bernard was no Protestant to be sure.
On the other hand, the unity of principle between Protestants and Catholics on the way to secure sola gratia comes at the expense of libertarian free will for both of them. So while the Orthodox can appreciate the anti-Pelagian motivation, it is no answer to point out that one has moved closer to Charybdis to escape Scylla.
Oakes is right to say that a denial would make our salvation to depend on the free assent of Mary but wrong to say that this is implies that such a choice is apart from grace. It only follows if we assume grace to be determining. So we can reformulate Oakes’ objection to say that, our salvation would depend on Christ’s free human choice apart from grace if his human will wasn’t determined, which is of course to reproduce the old Monothelite dilemma. Oakes is assuming that grace determines or as Aquinas wrote, ““Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes…” Thomas Aquinas, ST, Ia. Q. 23, a.5.
So Oakes’ argument not only begs the question by assuming a non-Orthodox view of grace and predestination, but turns on a view of grace that imperils councilor Christology.
But the Orthodox do in fact affirm that not only our salvation depended on the free assent of the Theotokos, but so did the creation of the world, which is why she is called in the liturgy, the “co-cause” of creation. I do not see how the IC allows space for that liturgical expression.
I am sure Protestants can affirm the aim to protect sola gratia. On that score Proestants and Catholics agree, but disagree on the proper founding of doctrine, as I am sure you know well. They agree in principle but differ in application. Which is just to say that Protestantism and Catholicism differ only on the recipients of predestinating grace, not so much on the nature of it.
On the other hand, hard nosed Augustinians like Bernard also opposed the doctrine quite vociferously saying, “No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception.” Epistle 174. And Bernard was no Protestant to be sure.
On the other hand, the unity of principle between Protestants and Catholics on the way to secure sola gratia comes at the expense of libertarian free will for both of them. So while the Orthodox can appreciate the anti-Pelagian motivation, it is no answer to point out that one has moved closer to Charybdis to escape Scylla.
Oakes is right to say that a denial would make our salvation to depend on the free assent of Mary but wrong to say that this is implies that such a choice is apart from grace. It only follows if we assume grace to be determining. So we can reformulate Oakes’ objection to say that, our salvation would depend on Christ’s free human choice apart from grace if his human will wasn’t determined, which is of course to reproduce the old Monothelite dilemma. Oakes is assuming that grace determines or as Aquinas wrote, ““Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes…” Thomas Aquinas, ST, Ia. Q. 23, a.5.
So Oakes’ argument not only begs the question by assuming a non-Orthodox view of grace and predestination, but turns on a view of grace that imperils councilor Christology.
But the Orthodox do in fact affirm that not only our salvation depended on the free assent of the Theotokos, but so did the creation of the world, which is why she is called in the liturgy, the “co-cause” of creation. I do not see how the IC allows space for that liturgical expression.
12.6.2010 | 6:53pm
Maria V. says:
It was a surprise to hear from a Jewish tour guide , what i assumed was tradition - that Bl.Mother was concieved , in what would have been ( sort of ) the original plan ; that her parents Ann and Joachim had a nonsexual , holy embrace , at the holy temple gates and thus conception of their holy daughter .
Same is mentioned in the visions and writings of Bl.Emmerich - how Adam and Eve were made in such glory that they had beams of light for hair , how they would have brought forth children in perfect harmony through power of spoken word , just as their Father ..and into this power comes the voice of the enemy and its power ; years later the bl.Mother was destined to undo same - we read that when Elisabeth heard her voice , she was filled with the Holy Spirit and the baby leapt in her womb!
And The Word is Who comes to dethrone the enemy power , whose forebearer is the 'voice crying out in the desert ' - John The Baptist, who too might have been destined to be born the same way as Mother Mary , except that Zacharias , his father could not quite trust that his prayers were to be answered and interestingly , the consequence is that he is made unable to speak !
Thus , one would assume that he had to become a father , through plan B of carnal union , the reaity of fallen nature which is what we all are from too ..which in turn could explain the natural sense of shame in this area and the disposition for excesses !
Why would The Father send Bl.Mother to announce that she IS The Immaculate Conception ...and by His Spirit , tend His Church onto realms , to prepare her for the coming battles ...of the idolatry and excesses and perversions in area of sex , influenced by enemy voices and images ...to help her sons , the priests who, by power of the word is to consecrate bread and wine and to absolve sins and thus to rejoice in the seamless and timely truths that are revealed ..
The Dogmas as great gifts , to shore up trust and confidence in who our Lord is , who His Mother is ..this esp. , again considering the attacks in these areas .. and to serve as a gauge of how much trust one has in the earthly Father figure and authority ..after all , one can see Moses with that outstreched rod in his hands , the walls of water on either side and telling the Israrelites to pass ..that required trust in God's chosen one and his role ..
And the best part could be that one day soon , the power of the keys would be used, when there is enough trust in enough hearts , in her role , to declare her as Mother of all the living ...to invite her Mothelry authority and thus to throw down the enemy claims .. .
As to those words of St.Paul that 'all have sinned ' , St.Peter does warn how there are some things in St.Paul's writings that the ignorant and unstable can distort !
As to the occasion of how when the 'family ' of our Lord doubt Him - would not His Mother have gone there , to see to it that they did not mistreat him , not because she did not believe in Him but to show her Motherly support for Her Beloved Son and He inturn indirectly praises Her as the one who does His will perfectly ..could anyone ever come even distantly close and He would have known it ..and wanted us to know it too another such occasion is when He alludes to the greatness of John The Baptist when He said - 'Yet the least in the Kingdom is greater than him 'and we know who the greatest is , in His Kingdom - His Great Mother , whom He is even willing to share with us sinful children so that with every call - ' pray for us sinners' She listens , takes away our darkened areas , to be filled with His mercy so that the diabolical hatred that came with the fall gets removed from many hearts !
All honor and praise to our Lord and Father !
O Mary , concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee, pray for those who do have recourse to Thee, esp. the enemies of The Church !
Same is mentioned in the visions and writings of Bl.Emmerich - how Adam and Eve were made in such glory that they had beams of light for hair , how they would have brought forth children in perfect harmony through power of spoken word , just as their Father ..and into this power comes the voice of the enemy and its power ; years later the bl.Mother was destined to undo same - we read that when Elisabeth heard her voice , she was filled with the Holy Spirit and the baby leapt in her womb!
And The Word is Who comes to dethrone the enemy power , whose forebearer is the 'voice crying out in the desert ' - John The Baptist, who too might have been destined to be born the same way as Mother Mary , except that Zacharias , his father could not quite trust that his prayers were to be answered and interestingly , the consequence is that he is made unable to speak !
Thus , one would assume that he had to become a father , through plan B of carnal union , the reaity of fallen nature which is what we all are from too ..which in turn could explain the natural sense of shame in this area and the disposition for excesses !
Why would The Father send Bl.Mother to announce that she IS The Immaculate Conception ...and by His Spirit , tend His Church onto realms , to prepare her for the coming battles ...of the idolatry and excesses and perversions in area of sex , influenced by enemy voices and images ...to help her sons , the priests who, by power of the word is to consecrate bread and wine and to absolve sins and thus to rejoice in the seamless and timely truths that are revealed ..
The Dogmas as great gifts , to shore up trust and confidence in who our Lord is , who His Mother is ..this esp. , again considering the attacks in these areas .. and to serve as a gauge of how much trust one has in the earthly Father figure and authority ..after all , one can see Moses with that outstreched rod in his hands , the walls of water on either side and telling the Israrelites to pass ..that required trust in God's chosen one and his role ..
And the best part could be that one day soon , the power of the keys would be used, when there is enough trust in enough hearts , in her role , to declare her as Mother of all the living ...to invite her Mothelry authority and thus to throw down the enemy claims .. .
As to those words of St.Paul that 'all have sinned ' , St.Peter does warn how there are some things in St.Paul's writings that the ignorant and unstable can distort !
As to the occasion of how when the 'family ' of our Lord doubt Him - would not His Mother have gone there , to see to it that they did not mistreat him , not because she did not believe in Him but to show her Motherly support for Her Beloved Son and He inturn indirectly praises Her as the one who does His will perfectly ..could anyone ever come even distantly close and He would have known it ..and wanted us to know it too another such occasion is when He alludes to the greatness of John The Baptist when He said - 'Yet the least in the Kingdom is greater than him 'and we know who the greatest is , in His Kingdom - His Great Mother , whom He is even willing to share with us sinful children so that with every call - ' pray for us sinners' She listens , takes away our darkened areas , to be filled with His mercy so that the diabolical hatred that came with the fall gets removed from many hearts !
All honor and praise to our Lord and Father !
O Mary , concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee, pray for those who do have recourse to Thee, esp. the enemies of The Church !
12.6.2010 | 7:23pm
norman ravitch says:
This discussion shows, as do all attempts at ecumenism, that the truths of Catholic Christianity will never cease to be opposed. Thus one should cooperate with outsiders when possible and forget it otherwise.
Controversy is not useful.
Controversy is not useful.
12.6.2010 | 8:08pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I'm certainly not qualified to get into Greek grammar, but the phrase "all have sinned" would seem to be rather definite in asserting actual sin, rather than merely an inheritance of the Adamic curse of death apart from any guilt."
Well, as Paul uses the word "hamartia", which literally means "falling short of the mark", I agree entirely with you: all sin is personal and actual, and all have fallen short of the perfection of Christ.
"I suppose it would be easier to explicate this phrase within Catholic doctrine from an Augustinian standpoint, which asserts that it could refer to everyone partaking of the guilt of Adam's sin rather than each person committing particular sins themselves. Still, it seems to be a rather tough nut for the Catholic position to crack."
Indeed. They do it by fiat. Yet there is no denying that the Church taught, from a very early time indeed, that Mary was preserved from all sin. We in the East believe it implicitly and proclaim it explicitly, though we have never bought into the idea of the immaculate conception.
Well, as Paul uses the word "hamartia", which literally means "falling short of the mark", I agree entirely with you: all sin is personal and actual, and all have fallen short of the perfection of Christ.
"I suppose it would be easier to explicate this phrase within Catholic doctrine from an Augustinian standpoint, which asserts that it could refer to everyone partaking of the guilt of Adam's sin rather than each person committing particular sins themselves. Still, it seems to be a rather tough nut for the Catholic position to crack."
Indeed. They do it by fiat. Yet there is no denying that the Church taught, from a very early time indeed, that Mary was preserved from all sin. We in the East believe it implicitly and proclaim it explicitly, though we have never bought into the idea of the immaculate conception.
12.6.2010 | 8:28pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG § 16)."
This is generally finessed by avoiding any definition of "original sin", thus leaving it to each Church to determine what this means. Call it "Trent Lite". I was present at an Orientale Lumen Conference with Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, when he was Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, and he was pretty clear that there is no requirement to define original sin in a Western manner. Which pretty much means original sin is whatever a particular Church wants it to be. For us, it would not be a shattering of human nature, but simply mortality. And we're back to square one. As I have noted elsewhere, the immaculate conception is no longer considered to be a substantive issue by theologians on either the Catholic or Orthodox side, largely as a result of its decoupling from an Augustinian understanding of original sin.
This is generally finessed by avoiding any definition of "original sin", thus leaving it to each Church to determine what this means. Call it "Trent Lite". I was present at an Orientale Lumen Conference with Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, when he was Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, and he was pretty clear that there is no requirement to define original sin in a Western manner. Which pretty much means original sin is whatever a particular Church wants it to be. For us, it would not be a shattering of human nature, but simply mortality. And we're back to square one. As I have noted elsewhere, the immaculate conception is no longer considered to be a substantive issue by theologians on either the Catholic or Orthodox side, largely as a result of its decoupling from an Augustinian understanding of original sin.
12.6.2010 | 8:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"For such a denial would then make our very salvation dependent on Mary's free will operating independent of grace."
I fail to see how this follows. Eastern Christians believe that grace is a gift freely given, and man, created in the image and likeness of God, is fully free, either to accept the gift, or to reject it. Where does the immaculate conception enter into this, unless one accepts the idea of the total depravity of mankind? It makes me wish that Augustine had tried to understand Pelagius, instead of ascribing to him views reflecting more on Augustine's conversion experience than on what the Greek Fathers actually believed.
I fail to see how this follows. Eastern Christians believe that grace is a gift freely given, and man, created in the image and likeness of God, is fully free, either to accept the gift, or to reject it. Where does the immaculate conception enter into this, unless one accepts the idea of the total depravity of mankind? It makes me wish that Augustine had tried to understand Pelagius, instead of ascribing to him views reflecting more on Augustine's conversion experience than on what the Greek Fathers actually believed.
12.6.2010 | 8:36pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"This discussion shows, as do all attempts at ecumenism, that the truths of Catholic Christianity will never cease to be opposed."
Catholic Christianity is not merely "Latin Christianity". It would help to remember that, and also to remember that true belief cannot be coerced, and that truth is self-affirming. If the immaculate conception is true, then it is true, regardless of who accepts it and who rejects it. I am agnostic, which is to say, I don't care whether the Latin Church believes it or not, as long as (a) it affirms that Mary was preserved from all sin throughout her life; and (b) does not attempt to oppose what is effectively a Western theological opinion upon the Churches of the East.
Catholic Christianity is not merely "Latin Christianity". It would help to remember that, and also to remember that true belief cannot be coerced, and that truth is self-affirming. If the immaculate conception is true, then it is true, regardless of who accepts it and who rejects it. I am agnostic, which is to say, I don't care whether the Latin Church believes it or not, as long as (a) it affirms that Mary was preserved from all sin throughout her life; and (b) does not attempt to oppose what is effectively a Western theological opinion upon the Churches of the East.
12.6.2010 | 9:16pm
STeve B says:
Why all the wordy comments? Our Lady was immaculately conceved, and there was nothing that hindred the flow of graces into her soul. The Catholic Church has declared it....case closed.
12.6.2010 | 9:46pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The Catholic Church has declared it....case closed."
The Latin Church declared it (in a highly irregular manner). The other lung begs to disagree. Non placet. Get over it.
The Latin Church declared it (in a highly irregular manner). The other lung begs to disagree. Non placet. Get over it.
12.6.2010 | 9:52pm
Perry Robinson says:
Stuart,
Let’s be fair to Augustine. He doesn’t think that the imago dei is lost at the fall. If he did, the virtues of the pagans would be an impossibility. Here it is important not to confuse Augustine with Lutheran or Calvinist views of anthropology. That is, Augustine didn’t hold to the doctrine of total depravity. For that doctrine holds that righteousness was constitutive of human nature and when lost the imago dei as such was lost. Augustine thinks grace is added to nature, not constitutive of it as the Pelagians did. Consequently, irony of ironies, Reformation anthropology sides with Pelagius as to the pre-lapsarian state.
Now there may be points at which Augustine’s critique distorts Pelagius’ or Julian’s position, but in the main, he represents their views correctly. Pelagius was a heretic as is evident if one reads his commentary on Romans or other Pauline works, even stating over and over again that salvation was by “faith alone.”
Let’s be fair to Augustine. He doesn’t think that the imago dei is lost at the fall. If he did, the virtues of the pagans would be an impossibility. Here it is important not to confuse Augustine with Lutheran or Calvinist views of anthropology. That is, Augustine didn’t hold to the doctrine of total depravity. For that doctrine holds that righteousness was constitutive of human nature and when lost the imago dei as such was lost. Augustine thinks grace is added to nature, not constitutive of it as the Pelagians did. Consequently, irony of ironies, Reformation anthropology sides with Pelagius as to the pre-lapsarian state.
Now there may be points at which Augustine’s critique distorts Pelagius’ or Julian’s position, but in the main, he represents their views correctly. Pelagius was a heretic as is evident if one reads his commentary on Romans or other Pauline works, even stating over and over again that salvation was by “faith alone.”
12.6.2010 | 10:13pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It was a surprise to hear from a Jewish tour guide , what i assumed was tradition - that Bl.Mother was concieved , in what would have been ( sort of ) the original plan ; that her parents Ann and Joachim had a nonsexual , holy embrace , at the holy temple gates and thus conception of their holy daughter ."
Maria,
Do not believe everything your Jewish tour guide told you. Start with this.
Maria,
Do not believe everything your Jewish tour guide told you. Start with this.
12.6.2010 | 10:17pm
Steve Cornell Cornell says:
Very interesting piece. I always assumed that the Catholic Church had two authorities: Scripture and Tradition. I also assumed that where the two conflicted, tradition would always win. Of course, I realized that efforts were often made to defend harmony between the two, even if it necessitated a large canon. On the present matter, Immaculate Conception belongs to the category of Tradition (being declared by Pope Pius IX) but, if I understand you properly, your argument is that such a view is at least consistent with Scripture (about grace) if not required by it (about the story of “the woman” whose son would crush the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15).
I understand your line of reasoning to look like this:
1. Gabriel ascribes to Mary the blessing/quality of "full of grace"
2. If Mary is full of grace, she cannot be sinful ("If she was full of grace, she could not be sinful. There would not be any room for sin, grace having, so to speak, filled up the space").
3. Since this is true, the Pope's declaration is more of a deduction from scripture and, on this account of things it is "kind of dumb" to talk of Mary's need to be "saved."
I couldn't help sensing that something really important was missing in the structuring of this in/deductive logic? Unless I am not getting the flow, it appears to jump from the wrong starting point.
One could argue with better support from Scripture and the finite/experiential order of salvation that God's grace is only given to those who see their need for grace and that they see it because of their undeserving condition (i. e. sin that separates them from God). Grace is unmerited favor on the undeserving. To speak of anyone deserving grace is to leave grace behind.
Or, to put the matter differently the kingdom of heaven is only for "the poor in spirit." Mary found "favor with God" (Lk. 1.30) because she saw her need for the grace of God-- she was poor in spirit, recognizing her spiritual bankruptcy apart from the gracious intervention of God in her life.
Mary understood God in terms related to salvation: "my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Lk. 1.47) because she needed to be saved. I do not mean to be contentious but you appear to "pick her up" in the narrative with a working assumption driven more by a presuppositional commitment to preserving a tradition.
It seems to be better to say that Scripture does not make a case for Mary being sinless but a Catholics believe a few things might point in that direction. It would also be helpful to say that the tradition declaring that Mary protected from original sin, and without a sin nature, and therefore sinless, would conflict with many other Scriptures declaring "all" who are born of Adam's race as under sin and condemnation. Wouldn't it also logically force us to argue Immaculate Conception for Mary's mother, grandmother, etc...
Clearly the virgin birth of Jesus (that Jesus was miraculously conceived inside the virgin Mary) is a matter of prophecy (Isa. 7;14; Lk. 1:35), and explicit reference (Mt. 1:18, 25; Lk. 1:26-38). And the significance of the virgin birth draws inferential attention to some important Scriptural themes:
1. The inability of man to introduce the savior to the human race (Mt. 19:26).
2. The wisdom of God over the wisdom of man (Gen. 18:14; Jn. 8:41; I Cor. 2).
3. Salvation as a free gift of God --not of works so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)
4. The uniqueness of Jesus as God-incarnate--thus as immune from sin by His nature.
5. The supernatural power of God-- Jesus being born of a virgin was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while inside Mary's womb.
Respectfully,
Steve Cornell
I understand your line of reasoning to look like this:
1. Gabriel ascribes to Mary the blessing/quality of "full of grace"
2. If Mary is full of grace, she cannot be sinful ("If she was full of grace, she could not be sinful. There would not be any room for sin, grace having, so to speak, filled up the space").
3. Since this is true, the Pope's declaration is more of a deduction from scripture and, on this account of things it is "kind of dumb" to talk of Mary's need to be "saved."
I couldn't help sensing that something really important was missing in the structuring of this in/deductive logic? Unless I am not getting the flow, it appears to jump from the wrong starting point.
One could argue with better support from Scripture and the finite/experiential order of salvation that God's grace is only given to those who see their need for grace and that they see it because of their undeserving condition (i. e. sin that separates them from God). Grace is unmerited favor on the undeserving. To speak of anyone deserving grace is to leave grace behind.
Or, to put the matter differently the kingdom of heaven is only for "the poor in spirit." Mary found "favor with God" (Lk. 1.30) because she saw her need for the grace of God-- she was poor in spirit, recognizing her spiritual bankruptcy apart from the gracious intervention of God in her life.
Mary understood God in terms related to salvation: "my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Lk. 1.47) because she needed to be saved. I do not mean to be contentious but you appear to "pick her up" in the narrative with a working assumption driven more by a presuppositional commitment to preserving a tradition.
It seems to be better to say that Scripture does not make a case for Mary being sinless but a Catholics believe a few things might point in that direction. It would also be helpful to say that the tradition declaring that Mary protected from original sin, and without a sin nature, and therefore sinless, would conflict with many other Scriptures declaring "all" who are born of Adam's race as under sin and condemnation. Wouldn't it also logically force us to argue Immaculate Conception for Mary's mother, grandmother, etc...
Clearly the virgin birth of Jesus (that Jesus was miraculously conceived inside the virgin Mary) is a matter of prophecy (Isa. 7;14; Lk. 1:35), and explicit reference (Mt. 1:18, 25; Lk. 1:26-38). And the significance of the virgin birth draws inferential attention to some important Scriptural themes:
1. The inability of man to introduce the savior to the human race (Mt. 19:26).
2. The wisdom of God over the wisdom of man (Gen. 18:14; Jn. 8:41; I Cor. 2).
3. Salvation as a free gift of God --not of works so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)
4. The uniqueness of Jesus as God-incarnate--thus as immune from sin by His nature.
5. The supernatural power of God-- Jesus being born of a virgin was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while inside Mary's womb.
Respectfully,
Steve Cornell
12.7.2010 | 12:07am
Dblade says:
This is one of the things Catholics don't get about protestants: they see the immaculate conception as yet another sign of the Mary worship the catholic church loves, like capitalizing Mother of God and talking more about her many times than Jesus.
It's not that they have difficulties with the idea itself that to have a sinless Jesus, she needed to be purified from sin. Although I've noticed that sin seems physical or genetic sometimes in Catholic doctrine. It's that it seems more a step to making Mary less the mother of Jesus, with all the faults of a human being (like snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party) and more a quasi-divine being.
I mean, Jesus indirectly praises Mary? According to Maria V. She is an Immaculate One who did what Eve couldn't and freely chose to follow God's will with no sin nature? Hinted by the OP.
That's what layman protestants worry about.
It's not that they have difficulties with the idea itself that to have a sinless Jesus, she needed to be purified from sin. Although I've noticed that sin seems physical or genetic sometimes in Catholic doctrine. It's that it seems more a step to making Mary less the mother of Jesus, with all the faults of a human being (like snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party) and more a quasi-divine being.
I mean, Jesus indirectly praises Mary? According to Maria V. She is an Immaculate One who did what Eve couldn't and freely chose to follow God's will with no sin nature? Hinted by the OP.
That's what layman protestants worry about.
12.7.2010 | 12:11am
Ignatius33 says:
Sean Carlson wrote:
"Nice try, dear brother, but those of us on the reformation side of things will continue
to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sin
lessness & ascension). The end result for many Catholic laity (if not leadership) is to see our glorious
Lord as a distant figure while it is Mary & the saints who are perceived as close. This
inadvertant diminishment of Jesus is nothing if not tragic. I do not foresee a day when
this will change."
Sean - As a Catholic, I don't understand the assertion that many Catholics "feel" further away from Jesus due to Mary and the saints. Rather, the whole centerpiece of our liturgy, i.e., our public act of worship, is Jesus Christ Himself, whom we receive in a tangible and sacramental way in the Mass, during "the breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:42).
God gave us Mary and the saints as a special gift to bring us closer to Him, because we can see Jesus reflected in their lives, just as He gave us the sacraments. The Catholic faith is not whitewashed, it is lush and beautiful; it is not intangible, it is tangible and fleshy; it is not monotone, it is vibrant and colorful; it is not distant, it is immediate and ever-present.
"Nice try, dear brother, but those of us on the reformation side of things will continue
to be grieved at attributing to Mary what rightly & only belongs to Christ the Lord (sin
lessness & ascension). The end result for many Catholic laity (if not leadership) is to see our glorious
Lord as a distant figure while it is Mary & the saints who are perceived as close. This
inadvertant diminishment of Jesus is nothing if not tragic. I do not foresee a day when
this will change."
Sean - As a Catholic, I don't understand the assertion that many Catholics "feel" further away from Jesus due to Mary and the saints. Rather, the whole centerpiece of our liturgy, i.e., our public act of worship, is Jesus Christ Himself, whom we receive in a tangible and sacramental way in the Mass, during "the breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:42).
God gave us Mary and the saints as a special gift to bring us closer to Him, because we can see Jesus reflected in their lives, just as He gave us the sacraments. The Catholic faith is not whitewashed, it is lush and beautiful; it is not intangible, it is tangible and fleshy; it is not monotone, it is vibrant and colorful; it is not distant, it is immediate and ever-present.
12.7.2010 | 5:05am
edmond says:
On Dec. 8, most, if not all here who have contributed wonderfully to the discussions
on the immaculate conception will be attending Holy Mass. Most, if not all will not
invoke his/her theosophical points during the eucharistic celebration where faith
will take precedence over all things. In my simple limited understanding, I wish you
all a deep, spirit-filled and happy celebration of God's will fully expressed in Mother mary. Finally, to all your brilliance and conciseness, may I quote St. Augustin:
"By faithfulness we are collected and wound up into unity within ourselves,
whereas we had been scattered abroad in multiplicity." Amen.
on the immaculate conception will be attending Holy Mass. Most, if not all will not
invoke his/her theosophical points during the eucharistic celebration where faith
will take precedence over all things. In my simple limited understanding, I wish you
all a deep, spirit-filled and happy celebration of God's will fully expressed in Mother mary. Finally, to all your brilliance and conciseness, may I quote St. Augustin:
"By faithfulness we are collected and wound up into unity within ourselves,
whereas we had been scattered abroad in multiplicity." Amen.
12.7.2010 | 5:49am
Sue Sims says:
Thank you for this article, David. One tiny modification you might want to make. When you changed "none" in the first paragraph to "very few", you neglected to pluralise the following verb!
12.7.2010 | 6:56am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Augustine thinks grace is added to nature, not constitutive of it as the Pelagians did. Consequently, irony of ironies, Reformation anthropology sides with Pelagius as to the pre-lapsarian state."
It's not at all clear that this is what Pelagius taught, though some of his less perceptive followers may have interpreted it in this manner. Pelagius seems to have had a fairly mainstream patristic view of grace as a gift freely given (and therefore something not inherent in human nature--why give that which is already there?) but which also requires the free acceptance of the gift and the active cooperation of the human person. Augustinian thought, if not Augustine himself, renders man a far more passive participant in the process of salvation, an issue that Vincent of Lerins and John Cassian pointed out. That synergia is essential for the efficacy of grace seems not to have been received in the West, witness the later classification of Cassian as "semi-Pelagian" (an accusation periodically tossed at the Eastern Churches in general in the second millennium), a doctrine denounced at the Council of Orange in 529. Of course, neither Cassian nor the Eastern Churches were ever "semi-Pelagian" (which held the first steps towards salvation could occur independent of divine grace), so the accusation was a canard from the outset. As Vladimir Lossky wrote, "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other."
It's not at all clear that this is what Pelagius taught, though some of his less perceptive followers may have interpreted it in this manner. Pelagius seems to have had a fairly mainstream patristic view of grace as a gift freely given (and therefore something not inherent in human nature--why give that which is already there?) but which also requires the free acceptance of the gift and the active cooperation of the human person. Augustinian thought, if not Augustine himself, renders man a far more passive participant in the process of salvation, an issue that Vincent of Lerins and John Cassian pointed out. That synergia is essential for the efficacy of grace seems not to have been received in the West, witness the later classification of Cassian as "semi-Pelagian" (an accusation periodically tossed at the Eastern Churches in general in the second millennium), a doctrine denounced at the Council of Orange in 529. Of course, neither Cassian nor the Eastern Churches were ever "semi-Pelagian" (which held the first steps towards salvation could occur independent of divine grace), so the accusation was a canard from the outset. As Vladimir Lossky wrote, "The Eastern tradition never separates these two elements: grace and human freedom are manifested simultaneously and cannot be conceived apart from each other."
12.7.2010 | 7:10am
Stuart Koehl says:
"It's not that they have difficulties with the idea itself that to have a sinless Jesus, she needed to be purified from sin."
That, of course, pertains only if you accept that man is born into a "state of sin", as opposed to inheriting Adam's mortality, which causes all men to sin.
"It's that it seems more a step to making Mary less the mother of Jesus, with all the faults of a human being (like snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party) and more a quasi-divine being."
Mary IS the mother of Jesus, but, as the Council of Ephesus (431) teaches, she is far more than that--she is Theotokos, the God-Bearer, a title bestowed upon her precisely to avoid the implicit diphysitism resulting from the view that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, whose divine nature is somehow separate and apart from his humanity.
Moreover, it's a fairly shallow exegesis to say that Mary's role in the Wedding at Cana is "snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party". Patristic interpretations have show this to be a critical moment in salvation history, in which Mary, speaking on behalf of all humanity (manifesting her role as intercessor for mankind before her Son) points out the need of man for salvation, a salvation that comes through Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and which is constantly re-presented to us in the Eucharist (the Wedding at Cana being a typos of the Last Supper and the bloodless sacrifice ).
Setting aside the matter of the immaculate conception, the undivided Church held, from an early date, that Mary was free of all sin. This is found in early prayers, in liturgical texts, in the titles assigned to her, in the graffiti scribbled by early pilgrims. Today, all the ancient Apostolic Churches--Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East--continue to hold Mary sinless. The Latin Church has a formal explanation of how this occurred, the rest leave it to the realm of mystery, but they believe it nonetheless.
Protestants today tend to forget Martin Luther's strong Marian devotion, and his acceptance of Mary not only as God-Bearer, but as all-pure as well. In their desire to be "un-Roman", they have abandoned the patrimony of the whole Church.
That, of course, pertains only if you accept that man is born into a "state of sin", as opposed to inheriting Adam's mortality, which causes all men to sin.
"It's that it seems more a step to making Mary less the mother of Jesus, with all the faults of a human being (like snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party) and more a quasi-divine being."
Mary IS the mother of Jesus, but, as the Council of Ephesus (431) teaches, she is far more than that--she is Theotokos, the God-Bearer, a title bestowed upon her precisely to avoid the implicit diphysitism resulting from the view that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus, whose divine nature is somehow separate and apart from his humanity.
Moreover, it's a fairly shallow exegesis to say that Mary's role in the Wedding at Cana is "snarkily telling her son to get off his butt and go get some wine for the party". Patristic interpretations have show this to be a critical moment in salvation history, in which Mary, speaking on behalf of all humanity (manifesting her role as intercessor for mankind before her Son) points out the need of man for salvation, a salvation that comes through Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and which is constantly re-presented to us in the Eucharist (the Wedding at Cana being a typos of the Last Supper and the bloodless sacrifice ).
Setting aside the matter of the immaculate conception, the undivided Church held, from an early date, that Mary was free of all sin. This is found in early prayers, in liturgical texts, in the titles assigned to her, in the graffiti scribbled by early pilgrims. Today, all the ancient Apostolic Churches--Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East--continue to hold Mary sinless. The Latin Church has a formal explanation of how this occurred, the rest leave it to the realm of mystery, but they believe it nonetheless.
Protestants today tend to forget Martin Luther's strong Marian devotion, and his acceptance of Mary not only as God-Bearer, but as all-pure as well. In their desire to be "un-Roman", they have abandoned the patrimony of the whole Church.
12.7.2010 | 7:19am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Sean - As a Catholic, I don't understand the assertion that many Catholics "feel" further away from Jesus due to Mary and the saints. Rather, the whole centerpiece of our liturgy, i.e., our public act of worship, is Jesus Christ Himself, whom we receive in a tangible and sacramental way in the Mass, during "the breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:42)."
I have to agree with this. Western liturgy, reflecting the history of the Western Church, is strongly Christocentric (as opposed to the Eastern Churches, which, because of their history, are strongly trinitarian). Moreover, anything that one wants to say about Latin devotion to Mary and the saints has to be said in spades for the Eastern Churches (you haven't seen Marian devotion until you attend an Akathist), yet I can tell you there is no distance between us and Christ the Savior. The most common prayer in Orthodoxy, the so-called Jesus Prayer, is also one of the shortest: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. The Divine Liturgy includes countless litanies in which we ask Christ to save us, to answer our prayers and fill our needs, to which we implore, "Lord have mercy" and "Grant it, O Lord".
We can hardly avoid Christ, as his image is everywhere within the church--staring down upon us from the dome as Pantocrator (Lord of All), looking out upon us from the right hand side of the iconostasis, looking beatifically and yet omnisciently at as as a child on his Mother's lap in the Icon of the Sign in the apse behind the Holy Table, and in the myriad smaller icons that depict the stories of the Gospels. When I, as a humble penitent, stand before the icon of Christ to make my confession, and look into its eyes, I am looking through a window into the infinite; the barrier between the image and the reality dissolves, and I am looking into the eyes of my Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The divine presence does not get more immediate than that.
I have to agree with this. Western liturgy, reflecting the history of the Western Church, is strongly Christocentric (as opposed to the Eastern Churches, which, because of their history, are strongly trinitarian). Moreover, anything that one wants to say about Latin devotion to Mary and the saints has to be said in spades for the Eastern Churches (you haven't seen Marian devotion until you attend an Akathist), yet I can tell you there is no distance between us and Christ the Savior. The most common prayer in Orthodoxy, the so-called Jesus Prayer, is also one of the shortest: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. The Divine Liturgy includes countless litanies in which we ask Christ to save us, to answer our prayers and fill our needs, to which we implore, "Lord have mercy" and "Grant it, O Lord".
We can hardly avoid Christ, as his image is everywhere within the church--staring down upon us from the dome as Pantocrator (Lord of All), looking out upon us from the right hand side of the iconostasis, looking beatifically and yet omnisciently at as as a child on his Mother's lap in the Icon of the Sign in the apse behind the Holy Table, and in the myriad smaller icons that depict the stories of the Gospels. When I, as a humble penitent, stand before the icon of Christ to make my confession, and look into its eyes, I am looking through a window into the infinite; the barrier between the image and the reality dissolves, and I am looking into the eyes of my Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The divine presence does not get more immediate than that.
12.7.2010 | 7:23am
Stuart Koehl says:
"n Dec. 8, most, if not all here who have contributed wonderfully to the discussions
on the immaculate conception will be attending Holy Mass. "
And a blessed feast to my Latin brethren. Though we do not celebrate the immaculate conception today, tomorrow we of the Christian East will celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Burning Bush, and Nymphe Anymphate through the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and the partaking of the Body and Blood of her only-begotten Son.
on the immaculate conception will be attending Holy Mass. "
And a blessed feast to my Latin brethren. Though we do not celebrate the immaculate conception today, tomorrow we of the Christian East will celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Burning Bush, and Nymphe Anymphate through the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and the partaking of the Body and Blood of her only-begotten Son.
12.7.2010 | 7:27am
Eric Giunta says:
Stuart:
Nice try, but no cigar. I'm familiar with the United States Eastern Catholic Catechism, but to my knowledge it does not endorse your racialist understanding of orthodox Catholicism. I have no idea whether the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is referred to by name, but I doubt you will find anything in that Catechism series that contradicts this Catholic (not "Latin") dogma; besides, the universal norm for all Catholic (not just "Latin") catechisms is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly teaches the dogma.
And even if these catechisms *didn't* teach this, it's *still* a dogma because it was promulgates as such by the Pope of Rome.
Real Catholicism does not know this theological racialism of yours. We know only one true religion, even while we allow and even encourage a diversity in theological and liturgical expression, and even diversity of theological opinions in those matters which have not been defined.
You will not find, nor will you be able to produce, a single Catholic authority for your theological racialism.
Perry Robinson:
I did note that Mary's death was the universal "consensus," not the universal doctrine, of the Church. And that is is; to my knowledge the overwhelming majority of even Latin theologians hold that the Theotokos did die, and the Latin iconographical and devotional patrimony largely presupposes this.
For instance, this from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning the particular incidents of her life. St. Epiphanius [134] doubts even the reality of Mary's death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree with the private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary's death was not necessarily the effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die. There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation. [135] Nirschl relies on a tradition found in Clement of Alexandria [136] and Apollonius [137] which refers to a command of Our Lord that the Apostles were to preach twelve years in Jerusalem and Palestine before going among the nations of the world; hence he too arrives at the conclusion that Mary died A.D. 48."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
Nice try, but no cigar. I'm familiar with the United States Eastern Catholic Catechism, but to my knowledge it does not endorse your racialist understanding of orthodox Catholicism. I have no idea whether the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is referred to by name, but I doubt you will find anything in that Catechism series that contradicts this Catholic (not "Latin") dogma; besides, the universal norm for all Catholic (not just "Latin") catechisms is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly teaches the dogma.
And even if these catechisms *didn't* teach this, it's *still* a dogma because it was promulgates as such by the Pope of Rome.
Real Catholicism does not know this theological racialism of yours. We know only one true religion, even while we allow and even encourage a diversity in theological and liturgical expression, and even diversity of theological opinions in those matters which have not been defined.
You will not find, nor will you be able to produce, a single Catholic authority for your theological racialism.
Perry Robinson:
I did note that Mary's death was the universal "consensus," not the universal doctrine, of the Church. And that is is; to my knowledge the overwhelming majority of even Latin theologians hold that the Theotokos did die, and the Latin iconographical and devotional patrimony largely presupposes this.
For instance, this from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning the particular incidents of her life. St. Epiphanius [134] doubts even the reality of Mary's death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree with the private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary's death was not necessarily the effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die. There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation. [135] Nirschl relies on a tradition found in Clement of Alexandria [136] and Apollonius [137] which refers to a command of Our Lord that the Apostles were to preach twelve years in Jerusalem and Palestine before going among the nations of the world; hence he too arrives at the conclusion that Mary died A.D. 48."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
12.7.2010 | 9:59am
Artaban says:
Brad, Mark Ch 3 does not prove, as you suggest, that Mary sinned. Do a closer reading of the text. Mark 3:21, the section referencing "his relatives", is quite distinct from Mark 3:31--indeed a whole story on Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees interrupts the two.
"Relatives" in the ancient world included cousins. That Mary "called to him" does not suggest she denied his status as the Son of God. You are making some pretty big inferences to arrive at the conclusion you do. Maybe even slanderous inferences.
I'd be careful of even coming close to distorting Scripture so...
"Relatives" in the ancient world included cousins. That Mary "called to him" does not suggest she denied his status as the Son of God. You are making some pretty big inferences to arrive at the conclusion you do. Maybe even slanderous inferences.
I'd be careful of even coming close to distorting Scripture so...
12.7.2010 | 10:30am
Grigoris says:
I notice in these comments the recurrent theme that the phrase "full of grace" must imply immaculate conception. I would just point out that any discussion of that phrase should be based on the Greek term (kekharitomen), which is a perfect passive participle and means "greatly favored." The rendering of the Vulgate, gratia plena, misleads one into thinking that Mary is being described as "full of" some substance called "grace."
12.7.2010 | 11:28am
mtm says:
@Grigoris
Do look deeper into kecharitomene. "Full of grace" isn't just a Latin thing -- it's certainly a decent way of translating kecharitomene. Protestants explain it well; see below. And do keep us all in your prayers.
"The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201)."
Do look deeper into kecharitomene. "Full of grace" isn't just a Latin thing -- it's certainly a decent way of translating kecharitomene. Protestants explain it well; see below. And do keep us all in your prayers.
"The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201)."
12.7.2010 | 12:31pm
GlennB says:
It's always good for Protestants to learn what Roman Catholics actually believe rather than some of the distorted versions, such as "Catholics teach that we should worship Mary." While I think Mary should be more honored than she is in much of Protestantism - and the call to honor her is in Scripture quite clearly - it is hard to find a Scriptural basis for the focus placed on her as a mediator in light of "There is one God and one mediator"....found in Paul's letter to Timothy. The Catholic position seems to rest on Tradition. Protestants just don't think Tradition carries the same weight as the canon of Scripture. It helps inform and clarify, but is not authoritative and infallible.
My observation of Roman Catholics around the world, is that Mary is more of a focus than Jesus, even though very little is said of her in Scripture and the Apostle Paul's focus is on Christology rather than Mariology. It's not hard to see why Protestants use the word "Mariolatry" to describe it. Perhaps this behavior is also frowned on by the Catholic leadership, in the same way that Pentecostal excesses are by Protestants. In any case, with such focus on Mary, it's no wonder many Muslims think that what we mean by the Trinity is "God, Mary and Jesus." With the focus on Jesus, they can learn why we consider Him the Divine Son both from our Scriptures and hints from their own Koran and Tradition.....from Islam, Jesus can be shown as greater than Mohammad....he's sinless, works miracles etc. none of which are attributed to Mohammad.
It's easy to see how good philosophical thinking informed the exegesis of Scripture and led to doctrines such as "Original Sin" or "Trinity" etc. A good point is made about these words/doctrines not being in the Bible. But seeing the rationale for them versus our understanding of Mary is quite a difference.
I certainly have more in common with devout, orthodox Catholics than liberal Protestants who deny the Divinity of Christ. I find many benefits from reading Catholic writers, especially in apologetics and ethics. But the role of Mary, while a perspective I can try to understand, remains problematic for me on a number planes. It remains good that this difference does not preclude my joining my Catholic brothers and sisters in reciting with passion the "Apostles Creed."
My observation of Roman Catholics around the world, is that Mary is more of a focus than Jesus, even though very little is said of her in Scripture and the Apostle Paul's focus is on Christology rather than Mariology. It's not hard to see why Protestants use the word "Mariolatry" to describe it. Perhaps this behavior is also frowned on by the Catholic leadership, in the same way that Pentecostal excesses are by Protestants. In any case, with such focus on Mary, it's no wonder many Muslims think that what we mean by the Trinity is "God, Mary and Jesus." With the focus on Jesus, they can learn why we consider Him the Divine Son both from our Scriptures and hints from their own Koran and Tradition.....from Islam, Jesus can be shown as greater than Mohammad....he's sinless, works miracles etc. none of which are attributed to Mohammad.
It's easy to see how good philosophical thinking informed the exegesis of Scripture and led to doctrines such as "Original Sin" or "Trinity" etc. A good point is made about these words/doctrines not being in the Bible. But seeing the rationale for them versus our understanding of Mary is quite a difference.
I certainly have more in common with devout, orthodox Catholics than liberal Protestants who deny the Divinity of Christ. I find many benefits from reading Catholic writers, especially in apologetics and ethics. But the role of Mary, while a perspective I can try to understand, remains problematic for me on a number planes. It remains good that this difference does not preclude my joining my Catholic brothers and sisters in reciting with passion the "Apostles Creed."
12.7.2010 | 1:44pm
Maria V. says:
Just a few more thoughts on the topic at hand including the needed clarification from the previous post about a Jewish guide being familiar with the nature of the Immaculate Conception , how surprising it was , to make one wonder if such a belief has been traditional for it to to have reached him from the culture that he is familiar with ( unless he had read Bl.Emmerich ). It is good that the latter does describes enough on this topic and her credibility has been substantiated by the findings in Ephesus on the residence of the Bl.Mother , in her last days there .
One simple fact that persons not familiar with Catholic worship could get confused about is that Marian devotion is very well connected with reverence of God and just like in Jewish tradition,where there is reluctance to utter the Holy Name, out of reverence, Catholics often find it comfortable , to be in the Mother's arms and praise The Father for all the adornments He has given her !
All that love and praise is meant for The One who is the cause of it all !
It has been heard how Scripture writers did not extensivly mention her directly , out of reverence too !
As to words of St.Paul that 'all have sinned' - it could be taken that he is writing it as a letter that is meant to be read by the intended 'all' that have sinned ; it does not have to be taken as a strict narrative of all inclusive facts like the gospels are .
There is the mysterious verse in Book of Rev. - 13:8 - ' the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world ' ..apt numbers too - 13 , to signify the Queen Mother whom Esther foreshadowed and signified in the #13 ; 8 , to signify the New Day and creation !
May the guidance of the Holy Spirit lead us to trust and believe in all that He wants us to , through prayers of our beloved Mother , so generously given us by a Good Father !
One simple fact that persons not familiar with Catholic worship could get confused about is that Marian devotion is very well connected with reverence of God and just like in Jewish tradition,where there is reluctance to utter the Holy Name, out of reverence, Catholics often find it comfortable , to be in the Mother's arms and praise The Father for all the adornments He has given her !
All that love and praise is meant for The One who is the cause of it all !
It has been heard how Scripture writers did not extensivly mention her directly , out of reverence too !
As to words of St.Paul that 'all have sinned' - it could be taken that he is writing it as a letter that is meant to be read by the intended 'all' that have sinned ; it does not have to be taken as a strict narrative of all inclusive facts like the gospels are .
There is the mysterious verse in Book of Rev. - 13:8 - ' the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world ' ..apt numbers too - 13 , to signify the Queen Mother whom Esther foreshadowed and signified in the #13 ; 8 , to signify the New Day and creation !
May the guidance of the Holy Spirit lead us to trust and believe in all that He wants us to , through prayers of our beloved Mother , so generously given us by a Good Father !
12.7.2010 | 1:57pm
patricksarsfield says:
Stuart Koehl (an Eastern Catholic of some sort) writes:
"From my perspective as a Greek Catholic, I have no problem with Latin Catholics believing the doctrine of the immaculate conception. "
Thanks. Indeed, I had already been quite comfortable with the belief even before today's blog. Reason? Because the Pope of Rome teaches it. I am so happy Jesus gave us the Petrine Succession!
In all events, I know down deep in my soul that Mary is the Immaculate Conception on the strength of what she herself told Bernadette Soubirous.
"From my perspective as a Greek Catholic, I have no problem with Latin Catholics believing the doctrine of the immaculate conception. "
Thanks. Indeed, I had already been quite comfortable with the belief even before today's blog. Reason? Because the Pope of Rome teaches it. I am so happy Jesus gave us the Petrine Succession!
In all events, I know down deep in my soul that Mary is the Immaculate Conception on the strength of what she herself told Bernadette Soubirous.
12.7.2010 | 2:16pm
patricksarsfield says:
Glenn B writes:
"Protestants just don't think Tradition carries the same weight as the canon of Scripture."
Of course not. Can you imagine what would become of Protestants if they gave the same weight to Tradition as to the Canon of Scripture? Ipso facto, they would become Catholics.
Just think if Martin Luther had accepted the arguments that his debate opponents made from Tradition. He would not have been able to insist on the points that he was able to insist upon based on (his reading of) Scripture Alone. Scripture Alone was, in effect, his trump card.
And yet....the false dogma of Sola Scriptura comes apart quickly upon consideration of the term "Canon of Scripture" used by Glenn B. There was, of course, no Scriptural Table of Contents written by any of the bibical writers. Rather, the "New Testament" is an agglomeration of independent works done by a variety of First Century churchmen that was not accepted as a single entity with its current "table of contents" until after 367 AD when Saint Athanasius put together his list of the acceptable books. Prior to that time, several of the non-Pauline epistles and the Book of Revelation were disputed by significant parts of the Church, as Eusebius's 337 AD Ecclesiastical History establishes. It was not until the North African Councils of the 390 Decade adopted Athanasius's Canon that we can be said to have a "Canon of Scripture." And yet, the teaching of those Councils is a classic act of Tradition upon which the very term "Canon of Scripture" rests.
"Protestants just don't think Tradition carries the same weight as the canon of Scripture."
Of course not. Can you imagine what would become of Protestants if they gave the same weight to Tradition as to the Canon of Scripture? Ipso facto, they would become Catholics.
Just think if Martin Luther had accepted the arguments that his debate opponents made from Tradition. He would not have been able to insist on the points that he was able to insist upon based on (his reading of) Scripture Alone. Scripture Alone was, in effect, his trump card.
And yet....the false dogma of Sola Scriptura comes apart quickly upon consideration of the term "Canon of Scripture" used by Glenn B. There was, of course, no Scriptural Table of Contents written by any of the bibical writers. Rather, the "New Testament" is an agglomeration of independent works done by a variety of First Century churchmen that was not accepted as a single entity with its current "table of contents" until after 367 AD when Saint Athanasius put together his list of the acceptable books. Prior to that time, several of the non-Pauline epistles and the Book of Revelation were disputed by significant parts of the Church, as Eusebius's 337 AD Ecclesiastical History establishes. It was not until the North African Councils of the 390 Decade adopted Athanasius's Canon that we can be said to have a "Canon of Scripture." And yet, the teaching of those Councils is a classic act of Tradition upon which the very term "Canon of Scripture" rests.
12.7.2010 | 2:45pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ethan C writes:
"Many of us also object to it on the basis that it seems to contradict doctrines which actually *are* found in the Bible, most notably Paul's statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.""
This is a rather maximalist view of that "all" sentence. Read so maximally, Paul's sentence would contradict other sentences in Scripture such as Luke's statement about Zachary and Elizabeth: "They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."
Clearly, Paul's sentence must be read in context. Paul was not writing to Mary, Elizabeth or Zachary; he was writing to the Romans. How to reconcile Romans and Luke? Read Romans as limiting the "all" to those addressed.
"Many of us also object to it on the basis that it seems to contradict doctrines which actually *are* found in the Bible, most notably Paul's statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.""
This is a rather maximalist view of that "all" sentence. Read so maximally, Paul's sentence would contradict other sentences in Scripture such as Luke's statement about Zachary and Elizabeth: "They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."
Clearly, Paul's sentence must be read in context. Paul was not writing to Mary, Elizabeth or Zachary; he was writing to the Romans. How to reconcile Romans and Luke? Read Romans as limiting the "all" to those addressed.
12.7.2010 | 2:50pm
mtm says:
@GlennB, who wrote, "My observation of Roman Catholics around the world, is that Mary is more of a focus than Jesus, even though very little is said of her in Scripture and the Apostle Paul's focus is on Christology rather than Mariology."
Odd. My observation of practicing Roman Catholics around the world is that Jesus is more of a focus than Mary. Sure, they love Mary and honor her as their own mother, but nevertheless, Jesus takes the focus cake. But perhaps we both must meet more Catholics and issue another judgment at a later date.
It could be, perhaps, that Mary comes up more in discussions that you have with Catholics because they want to convince you of certain graces given to her -- important as it is to discuss our differences, we all tend to focus on our differences a tad too much, I suspect.
"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective," so be a saint and keep us all in your prayers.
Odd. My observation of practicing Roman Catholics around the world is that Jesus is more of a focus than Mary. Sure, they love Mary and honor her as their own mother, but nevertheless, Jesus takes the focus cake. But perhaps we both must meet more Catholics and issue another judgment at a later date.
It could be, perhaps, that Mary comes up more in discussions that you have with Catholics because they want to convince you of certain graces given to her -- important as it is to discuss our differences, we all tend to focus on our differences a tad too much, I suspect.
"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective," so be a saint and keep us all in your prayers.
12.7.2010 | 4:48pm
patricksarsfield says:
mtm writes:
"My observation of practicing Roman Catholics around the world is that Jesus is more of a focus than Mary. Sure, they love Mary and honor her as their own mother, but nevertheless, Jesus takes the focus cake. "
mtm is correct, of course. Architecturally, the focus of practically every Catholic Church is the hanging corpus of Christ on the Cross that hangs behind the Altar. I am particularly drawn to the gash on the left side of His Body which memorializes the thrust spear into His side. God so loved the World that He gave it His only begotten Son, Who suffered and died for our sins.
And during Mass, Jesus, Christ or God the Son is mentioned well over a hundred times while Mary is usually mentioned only three or four times. Clearly, our religion is the Christian Religion.
Of course, most of us practicing Catholics do love Mary deeply and devoutly. I am so happy that we Catholics have a relationship with the Ever Virgin Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I particularly love her appearance as Our Lady of Guadalupe. That appearance to Juan Diego won over an empire and gave our Church one of its sweetest peoples, the good people of Mexico. Now those people are exporting their love for la Morenita to our country and giving us another manifestation of the Love God has for His people!
"My observation of practicing Roman Catholics around the world is that Jesus is more of a focus than Mary. Sure, they love Mary and honor her as their own mother, but nevertheless, Jesus takes the focus cake. "
mtm is correct, of course. Architecturally, the focus of practically every Catholic Church is the hanging corpus of Christ on the Cross that hangs behind the Altar. I am particularly drawn to the gash on the left side of His Body which memorializes the thrust spear into His side. God so loved the World that He gave it His only begotten Son, Who suffered and died for our sins.
And during Mass, Jesus, Christ or God the Son is mentioned well over a hundred times while Mary is usually mentioned only three or four times. Clearly, our religion is the Christian Religion.
Of course, most of us practicing Catholics do love Mary deeply and devoutly. I am so happy that we Catholics have a relationship with the Ever Virgin Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I particularly love her appearance as Our Lady of Guadalupe. That appearance to Juan Diego won over an empire and gave our Church one of its sweetest peoples, the good people of Mexico. Now those people are exporting their love for la Morenita to our country and giving us another manifestation of the Love God has for His people!
12.7.2010 | 5:21pm
Eduardo says:
Hello everyone.
I'm no theologian and I'm no intellectual. I'm simply a man who struggled all his life with faith. At a particularly bad time in my life, I begged Christ for help and was disraught because I didn't think He heard me.....or that He even existed. Then an idea that was not really my my own came into my fevered head, and it was that I should ask His Mother to pray with me and pray for me. I had never thought much about Mary up to that point, but at that moment I begged her to ask her Son to hear me.
Well........He did hear me and He did help me.
Now I may be delusional and as I said I'm not smart enough to debate issues of immaculate conception, being full of grace, original sin and so on. All I wanted to share is that I asked this woman to help me...... by asking her to take up my case with Her Son, and she did. And tomorrow at Mass, I will again thank her for that, and I will thank my Master for listening to His mother's prayers made on my behalf. I love Mary and we pray together to her Som every day. She will lead you to her Son if you ask her to. May Chirst touch each of you today.
I'm no theologian and I'm no intellectual. I'm simply a man who struggled all his life with faith. At a particularly bad time in my life, I begged Christ for help and was disraught because I didn't think He heard me.....or that He even existed. Then an idea that was not really my my own came into my fevered head, and it was that I should ask His Mother to pray with me and pray for me. I had never thought much about Mary up to that point, but at that moment I begged her to ask her Son to hear me.
Well........He did hear me and He did help me.
Now I may be delusional and as I said I'm not smart enough to debate issues of immaculate conception, being full of grace, original sin and so on. All I wanted to share is that I asked this woman to help me...... by asking her to take up my case with Her Son, and she did. And tomorrow at Mass, I will again thank her for that, and I will thank my Master for listening to His mother's prayers made on my behalf. I love Mary and we pray together to her Som every day. She will lead you to her Son if you ask her to. May Chirst touch each of you today.
12.7.2010 | 7:10pm
Seeker 1 says:
From the artiicle above this statement is not quite accurate: "Yet, in Ineffabilis Deus itself, Pius said that the Church “never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything.” The Church, he would insist, is a witness, not an inventor, a reporter, not a novelist. And he is not wrong in saying so, though the reason gets at a deeper difference between the traditions than their beliefs about the Virgin Mary."
The Catholic church certainly has changed things significantly. There is not one word about the immaculate conception in the NT and is unknown for centuries. There were popes who state she was conceived just like everyone else.
The Catholic church certainly has changed things significantly. There is not one word about the immaculate conception in the NT and is unknown for centuries. There were popes who state she was conceived just like everyone else.
12.7.2010 | 7:42pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Patrick Sarsfield wrote: "Architecturally, the focus of practically every Catholic Church is the hanging corpus of Christ on the Cross that hangs behind the Altar."
Well, every ROMAN Catholic Church. For those of us who are Greek Catholics, the focus is the iconostasis or icon screen and the deisis row that includes icons of Christ, the Theotokos, John the Baptist, the Archangel Michael, the Protomartyr Stephen and the patron saint of the parish. Behind the altar, and overlooking the iconostasis, is the icon of the Theotokos of the Sign--Mary bearing the incarnate Logos within her womb. Above our heads, in the the dome, enveloping us in his gaze, is Christ Pantocrator, the Lord of All. Depending on the moment of the liturgy, any one of these might be the focus in turn; each has deep mystagogical significance; each reveals another facet of the divine economy of salvation.
It always annoyed me when Father Neuhaus would start writing about something "all Catholics do" and then proceed to discuss something specific to the Latin Church. There is an in-joke among us Greek or Byzantine Catholics, that RC stands for "Really Catholic", while BC stands for "Barely Catholic". The Church says that all the particular Churches that form the Catholic communion are equal in grace and dignity, but it seems pretty clear that some are more equal than others.
Well, every ROMAN Catholic Church. For those of us who are Greek Catholics, the focus is the iconostasis or icon screen and the deisis row that includes icons of Christ, the Theotokos, John the Baptist, the Archangel Michael, the Protomartyr Stephen and the patron saint of the parish. Behind the altar, and overlooking the iconostasis, is the icon of the Theotokos of the Sign--Mary bearing the incarnate Logos within her womb. Above our heads, in the the dome, enveloping us in his gaze, is Christ Pantocrator, the Lord of All. Depending on the moment of the liturgy, any one of these might be the focus in turn; each has deep mystagogical significance; each reveals another facet of the divine economy of salvation.
It always annoyed me when Father Neuhaus would start writing about something "all Catholics do" and then proceed to discuss something specific to the Latin Church. There is an in-joke among us Greek or Byzantine Catholics, that RC stands for "Really Catholic", while BC stands for "Barely Catholic". The Church says that all the particular Churches that form the Catholic communion are equal in grace and dignity, but it seems pretty clear that some are more equal than others.
12.7.2010 | 8:19pm
patricksarsfield says:
Stuart Koehl responds to me as follows:
"Patrick Sarsfield wrote: "Architecturally, the focus of practically every Catholic Church is the hanging corpus of Christ on the Cross that hangs behind the Altar."
Well, every ROMAN Catholic Church. For those of us who are Greek Catholics, the focus is the iconostasis or icon screen and the deisis row that includes icons of Christ, the Theotokos, John the Baptist, the Archangel Michael, the Protomartyr Stephen and the patron saint of the parish. Behind the altar, and overlooking the iconostasis, is the icon of the Theotokos of the Sign--Mary bearing the incarnate Logos within her womb. "
Despite Mr. Koehl's annoyance at purportedly overly broad statements, I was careful to write "practically every" Catholic Church. Whatever their ecclesiastical dignity vis-a-vis the Western Rite Church, the Eastern Rite Churches (all 22 or so of them) account for barely 2% of the Catholic Church in full communion with the Holy See of Rome. The Latin or Roman Rite, by contrast, comprises about 98% of Catholics, Eastern or Western (i.e, apprximatley 49 of 50 churches ceteris paribus). So, it is appropriate to write that "practically every" Catholic church is designed based on the Western praxis of focusing the church on the Cross of Christ.
Moreover, the Cross of Christ is an entirely appropriate focus for a Catholic Church. After all, Brother Paul taught us to preach Christ Crucified and the Western Church does that even in its architectural designs. I should nevertheless note that I find the iconostases in Eastern Catholic or Orthodox churches to be very inspiring and well worth contemplating.
"Patrick Sarsfield wrote: "Architecturally, the focus of practically every Catholic Church is the hanging corpus of Christ on the Cross that hangs behind the Altar."
Well, every ROMAN Catholic Church. For those of us who are Greek Catholics, the focus is the iconostasis or icon screen and the deisis row that includes icons of Christ, the Theotokos, John the Baptist, the Archangel Michael, the Protomartyr Stephen and the patron saint of the parish. Behind the altar, and overlooking the iconostasis, is the icon of the Theotokos of the Sign--Mary bearing the incarnate Logos within her womb. "
Despite Mr. Koehl's annoyance at purportedly overly broad statements, I was careful to write "practically every" Catholic Church. Whatever their ecclesiastical dignity vis-a-vis the Western Rite Church, the Eastern Rite Churches (all 22 or so of them) account for barely 2% of the Catholic Church in full communion with the Holy See of Rome. The Latin or Roman Rite, by contrast, comprises about 98% of Catholics, Eastern or Western (i.e, apprximatley 49 of 50 churches ceteris paribus). So, it is appropriate to write that "practically every" Catholic church is designed based on the Western praxis of focusing the church on the Cross of Christ.
Moreover, the Cross of Christ is an entirely appropriate focus for a Catholic Church. After all, Brother Paul taught us to preach Christ Crucified and the Western Church does that even in its architectural designs. I should nevertheless note that I find the iconostases in Eastern Catholic or Orthodox churches to be very inspiring and well worth contemplating.
12.7.2010 | 9:23pm
Ignatius33 says:
Seeker1 said "There were popes who state she was conceived just like everyone else."
Question: Which ones?
Question: Which ones?
12.8.2010 | 6:05am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Question: Which ones?"
Every one prior to the 14th century, and most of the others thereafter. The necessity of a doctrine of immaculate conception is a product of medieval scholastic theological speculation.
Every one prior to the 14th century, and most of the others thereafter. The necessity of a doctrine of immaculate conception is a product of medieval scholastic theological speculation.
12.8.2010 | 7:10am
Stuart Koehl says:
As I said, all Churches are equal in grace and dignity, but some are more equal than others. On the other hand, a Church that is exclusively Latin (or exclusively Byzantine, for that matter) can have no pretensions to ecumenicity.
As for the Christocentrism of the Latin Church, I pointed it out earlier. It is something the Protestants received as part of their inheritance from Rome, thus making it the common patrimony of Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity is more explicitly Trinitarian in its mindset, which was one of the things Pope John Paul II pointed out as one of the "treasures of the East" in his letter Orientale Lumen--something he urged all Latin Catholics to read. Too bad so few have followed his advice.
As for the Christocentrism of the Latin Church, I pointed it out earlier. It is something the Protestants received as part of their inheritance from Rome, thus making it the common patrimony of Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity is more explicitly Trinitarian in its mindset, which was one of the things Pope John Paul II pointed out as one of the "treasures of the East" in his letter Orientale Lumen--something he urged all Latin Catholics to read. Too bad so few have followed his advice.
12.8.2010 | 9:36am
James E Salise says:
Base on the argument presented, there is ground to declare the immaculate conception of Stephen, see Acts 6:8?
12.8.2010 | 10:10am
Artaban says:
The discussion on Catholics' emphasis on Mary raised a thought in my mind concerning many of our Protestant brothers and sisters...If the charge is often made that Catholic consideration of Mary seems to risk trumping consideration of Christ, I would say my (Catholic) perception of Protestants is that they tend to overemphasize Paul at the possible expense of Christ.
When disputes of doctrine have occurred between my Protestant friends and I, I've noticed a tendency of theirs to quote from the Pauline letters, while I tend to counter with verses from the Gospels. It has seemed to me at times that the words of Paul are given more shrift in some Protestant circles than the very words of Christ. Of course such a thing should be avoided, for Paul quite rightly includes himself among the score of sinful humanity, while Christ alone is Son and stainless.
Please notice that I use the word SEEM, as God alone can fully judge a Protestant or Catholic's fidelity to Christ. Perhaps it bears noting that when one is in love, they want to get to know everything about the person loved, and so it is perfectly natural to want to get to know their closest associates and family. So it is accurate to say that Mary and Paul can, when approached properly, naturally lead to Christ. Mary the moreso, but why get bent out of shape about it?
When disputes of doctrine have occurred between my Protestant friends and I, I've noticed a tendency of theirs to quote from the Pauline letters, while I tend to counter with verses from the Gospels. It has seemed to me at times that the words of Paul are given more shrift in some Protestant circles than the very words of Christ. Of course such a thing should be avoided, for Paul quite rightly includes himself among the score of sinful humanity, while Christ alone is Son and stainless.
Please notice that I use the word SEEM, as God alone can fully judge a Protestant or Catholic's fidelity to Christ. Perhaps it bears noting that when one is in love, they want to get to know everything about the person loved, and so it is perfectly natural to want to get to know their closest associates and family. So it is accurate to say that Mary and Paul can, when approached properly, naturally lead to Christ. Mary the moreso, but why get bent out of shape about it?
12.8.2010 | 11:01am
Stuart Koehl says:
As tomorrow (9 December) marks the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos according to the Byzantine rite, here are the propers for the Feast:
Troparion (Tone 4)
Today the bonds of barrenness are loosed:
God has heard the prayers of Joachim and Anne;
He promised against all hope the birth of the Maiden of God
From whom the Infinite Himself is to be born as man,
He who ordered the Angel to cry out to her,
"Hail O Woman full of grace!"
Kontakion (Tone Four)
Today the universe rejoices,
For Ann has conceived the Theotokos
In a manner provided by God himself;
For Anne has borne the one
Who is to give birth to the Word
In a manner incomprehensible.
From Vespers:
At the Lamplighting Psalms (Tone 4)
The barren Anne leaped for joy
When she gave birth to Mary the Virgin,
Who in turn will give birth in the flesh
To God the Word.
Overflowing with happiness, she cried out:
"Rejoice for me, O all tribes of Israel,
"For I have given birth according to the will of God,
"My Benefactor, who answered my prayers
"And wiped out my same.
"According to his promise, He has healed the pains of my heart
"Through the pains of birthgiving".
He who made the waters gush from a rock
Permitted your womb to carry Mary, the ever-virgin Ladym
Through whom salvation will come.
You were delivered from shame.
No longer will you be on earth as fruitless earth,
For you will give birth to an earth
Which will bring forth the Tree of Life.
According to his will, He delivered mankind from all shame
When He put on our human form and became man,
For He is rich in mercy.
Behold! The promises of the prophets are realized
For the Holy Mountain is planted n the womb,
The Divine Ladder is raised up,
The great Throne of the King is ready,
The place for the passage of the Lord is prepared.
The dry bush that fire cannot consume is blossoming
And the treasure-house of sanctifying grace
Is like an abundant flow of blessings
That heal the barrenness of Anne,
Whom we glorify in faith.
(Tone 2)
Today the great mystery which has been announced from eternity,
Whose depth angels and men cannot gauge, appears in the arms of Anne;
Mary, the Maiden of God, is prepared to be the dwelling of the King of Eternity,
Who will renew our human nature.
Let us entreat her with a pure conscience and say:
"Intercede for us with your Son and your God,
"That He may save our souls, for you are the intercessor".
At the Apostichon (Tone 5):
Anne (the name means Saving Grace),
Cried out once in her prayer, asking for a child,
And said to the God of all and our Creator:
"O Adonai Sabbaoth, You know the same it is to be barren.
"Heal the pain of my heart, open the flow of my womb,
"And make the fruitless one fruitful, so that we may offer You
"The child as a gift, blessing, praising, glorifying
"And singing a hymn to your love,
"Through which the world obtains great mercy!"
Once upon a time Anne was in prayer,
Beseeching the Lord with great fervor for a child.
She heard the voice of the angel who told her
That God has granted her wish, saying in plain words:
"Do not grieve, for your prayer has reached the Lord.
"Wipe out your tears, for you shall be an olive tree
"Sprouting a magnificent branch,
"The Virgin from whom will spring the Flower,
"Christ in the flesh, who will grant great mercy to the world!"
The honorable couple Joachim and Anne, have given birth to a lamb
Who wil in turn give birth in a manner incomprehensible
To the Lamb of God who is to be sacrificed for all mankind.
They offer the Lord an unceasing and humble praise.
Let us therefore glorify them with fervor and overflow with happiness
At the birth of the one was born of them in a miraculous way:
Mary the Mother of our God, through whom great mercy is granted to us all.
Troparion (Tone 4)
Today the bonds of barrenness are loosed:
God has heard the prayers of Joachim and Anne;
He promised against all hope the birth of the Maiden of God
From whom the Infinite Himself is to be born as man,
He who ordered the Angel to cry out to her,
"Hail O Woman full of grace!"
Kontakion (Tone Four)
Today the universe rejoices,
For Ann has conceived the Theotokos
In a manner provided by God himself;
For Anne has borne the one
Who is to give birth to the Word
In a manner incomprehensible.
From Vespers:
At the Lamplighting Psalms (Tone 4)
The barren Anne leaped for joy
When she gave birth to Mary the Virgin,
Who in turn will give birth in the flesh
To God the Word.
Overflowing with happiness, she cried out:
"Rejoice for me, O all tribes of Israel,
"For I have given birth according to the will of God,
"My Benefactor, who answered my prayers
"And wiped out my same.
"According to his promise, He has healed the pains of my heart
"Through the pains of birthgiving".
He who made the waters gush from a rock
Permitted your womb to carry Mary, the ever-virgin Ladym
Through whom salvation will come.
You were delivered from shame.
No longer will you be on earth as fruitless earth,
For you will give birth to an earth
Which will bring forth the Tree of Life.
According to his will, He delivered mankind from all shame
When He put on our human form and became man,
For He is rich in mercy.
Behold! The promises of the prophets are realized
For the Holy Mountain is planted n the womb,
The Divine Ladder is raised up,
The great Throne of the King is ready,
The place for the passage of the Lord is prepared.
The dry bush that fire cannot consume is blossoming
And the treasure-house of sanctifying grace
Is like an abundant flow of blessings
That heal the barrenness of Anne,
Whom we glorify in faith.
(Tone 2)
Today the great mystery which has been announced from eternity,
Whose depth angels and men cannot gauge, appears in the arms of Anne;
Mary, the Maiden of God, is prepared to be the dwelling of the King of Eternity,
Who will renew our human nature.
Let us entreat her with a pure conscience and say:
"Intercede for us with your Son and your God,
"That He may save our souls, for you are the intercessor".
At the Apostichon (Tone 5):
Anne (the name means Saving Grace),
Cried out once in her prayer, asking for a child,
And said to the God of all and our Creator:
"O Adonai Sabbaoth, You know the same it is to be barren.
"Heal the pain of my heart, open the flow of my womb,
"And make the fruitless one fruitful, so that we may offer You
"The child as a gift, blessing, praising, glorifying
"And singing a hymn to your love,
"Through which the world obtains great mercy!"
Once upon a time Anne was in prayer,
Beseeching the Lord with great fervor for a child.
She heard the voice of the angel who told her
That God has granted her wish, saying in plain words:
"Do not grieve, for your prayer has reached the Lord.
"Wipe out your tears, for you shall be an olive tree
"Sprouting a magnificent branch,
"The Virgin from whom will spring the Flower,
"Christ in the flesh, who will grant great mercy to the world!"
The honorable couple Joachim and Anne, have given birth to a lamb
Who wil in turn give birth in a manner incomprehensible
To the Lamb of God who is to be sacrificed for all mankind.
They offer the Lord an unceasing and humble praise.
Let us therefore glorify them with fervor and overflow with happiness
At the birth of the one was born of them in a miraculous way:
Mary the Mother of our God, through whom great mercy is granted to us all.
12.8.2010 | 12:33pm
Ignatius33 says:
Stuart wrote: "Every one prior to the 14th century, and most of the others thereafter"
Please provide one quotation from one pope stating that Mary was conceived "just live everyone else," as Seeker1 asserted. That'll do. Thanks.
Please provide one quotation from one pope stating that Mary was conceived "just live everyone else," as Seeker1 asserted. That'll do. Thanks.
12.8.2010 | 1:25pm
mtm says:
@James
Probably not. First, different Greek terms are used -- as a perfect participle, "kecharitomene" (refers to past event with continued effects to the present) is not the same as "plaras karitos" (refers only to a present state). Small difference, but important given the timing: It's surprising that an angel called Mary "kecharitomene" before the Incarnation even happened. It is not surprising that after the Incarnation happened, people show up who are full of grace like Stephen.
@Stuart
As a Latin Rite member, I think Eastern architecture is cool.
Probably not. First, different Greek terms are used -- as a perfect participle, "kecharitomene" (refers to past event with continued effects to the present) is not the same as "plaras karitos" (refers only to a present state). Small difference, but important given the timing: It's surprising that an angel called Mary "kecharitomene" before the Incarnation even happened. It is not surprising that after the Incarnation happened, people show up who are full of grace like Stephen.
@Stuart
As a Latin Rite member, I think Eastern architecture is cool.
12.8.2010 | 2:55pm
Is it possible for some Catholics to fall into and practice Mariolatry?
If so, how do Catholics identify Mariolatry and how do they get their Mariolatry-Catholic friends and family away from Mariolatry?
If so, how do Catholics identify Mariolatry and how do they get their Mariolatry-Catholic friends and family away from Mariolatry?
12.8.2010 | 3:39pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Please provide one quotation from one pope stating that Mary was conceived "just live everyone else," as Seeker1 asserted. That'll do. Thanks."
Silly boy. When in doubt, look at your liturgical texts--which is why I posted those from the Byzantine rite (these have not yet appeared, for reasons unknown).
Silly boy. When in doubt, look at your liturgical texts--which is why I posted those from the Byzantine rite (these have not yet appeared, for reasons unknown).
12.8.2010 | 4:19pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"If so, how do Catholics identify Mariolatry and how do they get their Mariolatry-Catholic friends and family away from Mariolatry?"
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
12.8.2010 | 5:22pm
"If so, how do Catholics identify Mariolatry and how do they get their Mariolatry-Catholic friends and family away from Mariolatry?"
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
----------
There's not a small amount of pornography out there. Hopefully, there's not as much Mariolatry as there is pornography.
But given that Catholics know Mariolatry when they see it in their fellow Catholics, what do Catholics do to wean their fellow Catholics from making a false idol out of Mary?
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
----------
There's not a small amount of pornography out there. Hopefully, there's not as much Mariolatry as there is pornography.
But given that Catholics know Mariolatry when they see it in their fellow Catholics, what do Catholics do to wean their fellow Catholics from making a false idol out of Mary?
12.8.2010 | 5:28pm
"If so, how do Catholics identify Mariolatry and how do they get their Mariolatry-Catholic friends and family away from Mariolatry?"
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
----------------
Stuart Koehl, let's assume that you've seen Mariolatry practiced among your fellow Catholics. Did you do anything to pull them away from Mariolatry? If so, what did you do or what did you say to get them away from their Mariolatry?
Like porn--we know it when we see it.
----------------
Stuart Koehl, let's assume that you've seen Mariolatry practiced among your fellow Catholics. Did you do anything to pull them away from Mariolatry? If so, what did you do or what did you say to get them away from their Mariolatry?
12.8.2010 | 6:51pm
sam says:
While I did not read all the comments herein, I would like to make this one comment re the primary reasonableness for Mary's sinlessness at conception and in order to become the Mother of Jesus Christ. Mary is the new Eve, i.e, the new beginning of mankind. As such it quite reasonable that like Eve who was created totally innocence to be mother of all humankind; said "no" to God in her disobedience; Mary, who was to be mother of all the living, was conceived totally innocence, and by her "yes" to God assisted in His plan to re-create the world, through the Incarnation of her son, Christ Jesus.
Both Eve and Mary were free from sin at the beginning. The change took place in accordance to their personal response to God' plan for mankind. So why is this so
difficult to believe re Mary Immaculate, when Eve herself was thus, until she sinned by willful disobedience; requiring a new order of things in the future if mankind was to be obedient to their Creator. Mary's YES is all important not only initially, but because she never disavowed her obedience to God throughout her life - regardless of the consequences.
Both Eve and Mary were free from sin at the beginning. The change took place in accordance to their personal response to God' plan for mankind. So why is this so
difficult to believe re Mary Immaculate, when Eve herself was thus, until she sinned by willful disobedience; requiring a new order of things in the future if mankind was to be obedient to their Creator. Mary's YES is all important not only initially, but because she never disavowed her obedience to God throughout her life - regardless of the consequences.
12.8.2010 | 8:40pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Stuart Koehl, let's assume that you've seen Mariolatry practiced among your fellow Catholics. Did you do anything to pull them away from Mariolatry? If so, what did you do or what did you say to get them away from their Mariolatry?"
Usually I do nothing, because people who develop an exaggerated veneration for the Mother of God invariably fall into other sorts of error as well, and tend to be immune both to reason and to an exposition of the true teaching of the Church.
The solution is proper catechesis beginning at an early age and continuing through adulthood. I seldom see what I would call "mariolatry" among the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox because, despite their deep and abiding love of the Theotokos, in Byzantine spirituality Mary is always shown in relation to her Son; her importance derives from Him, and is never independent of Him. You will never see a canonical icon of Mary alone; she is always depicted with Christ. The liturgical texts of the Marian feasts always stress Mary's cosmic role as Theotokos and the centrality of Christ as savior.
Take, for instance, the Kontakion of the Synaxis of the Theotokos (26 December):
Before the dawn of time
He was begotten of the Father
And without a mother.
Now on earth, He becomes man
Without a father,
Being virgin-born from you, O Theotokos.
Therefore a star announces
The good news to the Maji,
Whilst the angels and shepherds
Sing the glory of your giving birth,
O woman full of grace.
Or the Irmos of the Hypoponte (the Encounter, or Feast of the Presentation, 2 Feb)
We, the faithful,
See the figure of Christ in the shadow
And the letter of the law which says,
"Every male who opens the womb
"Shall be called holy to the Lord"
Therefore, we extol the first-born
Of the Father and the Virgin Mother.
It is difficult to deny that, from the later Middle Ages onward, in the Latin Church the cultus of the Virgin frequently loosened that connection, which could lead to imbalance and on occasion to an exaggerated Marian piety that could cross over into Mariolatry (it still arises on occasion, as with the movement to have Mary proclaimed "Co-redemptrix", rejected by Pope John Paul II).
The Second Vatican Council, in its reform of the Roman liturgy, also reformed the liturgical calendar, in the process eliminating many superfluous Marian feasts that lacked this necessary connection back to Christ. It also restored to their rightful prominence many of the older Marian feasts that were Christological at their core. This upset many Latin traditionalists, but it also helped restore the proper relationship between Mary and Christ that was sometimes forgotten. Because of this, it's pretty difficult to find a Roman Catholic under the age of fifty who was even exposed to the kind of exaggerated and deformed Marian piety that could be called mariolatry
Usually I do nothing, because people who develop an exaggerated veneration for the Mother of God invariably fall into other sorts of error as well, and tend to be immune both to reason and to an exposition of the true teaching of the Church.
The solution is proper catechesis beginning at an early age and continuing through adulthood. I seldom see what I would call "mariolatry" among the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox because, despite their deep and abiding love of the Theotokos, in Byzantine spirituality Mary is always shown in relation to her Son; her importance derives from Him, and is never independent of Him. You will never see a canonical icon of Mary alone; she is always depicted with Christ. The liturgical texts of the Marian feasts always stress Mary's cosmic role as Theotokos and the centrality of Christ as savior.
Take, for instance, the Kontakion of the Synaxis of the Theotokos (26 December):
Before the dawn of time
He was begotten of the Father
And without a mother.
Now on earth, He becomes man
Without a father,
Being virgin-born from you, O Theotokos.
Therefore a star announces
The good news to the Maji,
Whilst the angels and shepherds
Sing the glory of your giving birth,
O woman full of grace.
Or the Irmos of the Hypoponte (the Encounter, or Feast of the Presentation, 2 Feb)
We, the faithful,
See the figure of Christ in the shadow
And the letter of the law which says,
"Every male who opens the womb
"Shall be called holy to the Lord"
Therefore, we extol the first-born
Of the Father and the Virgin Mother.
It is difficult to deny that, from the later Middle Ages onward, in the Latin Church the cultus of the Virgin frequently loosened that connection, which could lead to imbalance and on occasion to an exaggerated Marian piety that could cross over into Mariolatry (it still arises on occasion, as with the movement to have Mary proclaimed "Co-redemptrix", rejected by Pope John Paul II).
The Second Vatican Council, in its reform of the Roman liturgy, also reformed the liturgical calendar, in the process eliminating many superfluous Marian feasts that lacked this necessary connection back to Christ. It also restored to their rightful prominence many of the older Marian feasts that were Christological at their core. This upset many Latin traditionalists, but it also helped restore the proper relationship between Mary and Christ that was sometimes forgotten. Because of this, it's pretty difficult to find a Roman Catholic under the age of fifty who was even exposed to the kind of exaggerated and deformed Marian piety that could be called mariolatry
12.8.2010 | 8:44pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Mary, who was to be mother of all the living, was conceived totally innocence"
Are you saying we are not conceived in total innocence?
"Both Eve and Mary were free from sin at the beginning."
Are you saying we are not free from sin at birth?
You see, here you take for granted that Latin anthropology and soteriology are either normative or the only doctrinal expressions that exist. Yet, as I have been pointing out, from the beginning the West had one point of view, and the East a very different point of view.
How important did the Fathers of the Church consider these differences? Not enough to consider them just cause for severing of communion, even though both sides knew of the differences and the secondary results flowing from them.
Are you saying we are not conceived in total innocence?
"Both Eve and Mary were free from sin at the beginning."
Are you saying we are not free from sin at birth?
You see, here you take for granted that Latin anthropology and soteriology are either normative or the only doctrinal expressions that exist. Yet, as I have been pointing out, from the beginning the West had one point of view, and the East a very different point of view.
How important did the Fathers of the Church consider these differences? Not enough to consider them just cause for severing of communion, even though both sides knew of the differences and the secondary results flowing from them.
12.9.2010 | 5:06am
Robin Sebastian says:
Mary is the new Eve. (Eve too was considered "immaculate") And Eve too was free of all sin when she was given the choice.
12.9.2010 | 10:02am
Grigoris says:
@mtm
I don't deny that "gratia plena" or "full of grace" are acceptable as approximate translations of "kekharitomene", simply that it leads one to think of grace as some thing that fills up the Virgin as a vessel. One of the comments above even mentioned that "full of grace" has to imply an immaculate conception because if she were full of grace, then there would be no room for sin. It is this reification of grace that I object to, mainly because it seems so foreign to Scripture and the Fathers.
I don't deny that "gratia plena" or "full of grace" are acceptable as approximate translations of "kekharitomene", simply that it leads one to think of grace as some thing that fills up the Virgin as a vessel. One of the comments above even mentioned that "full of grace" has to imply an immaculate conception because if she were full of grace, then there would be no room for sin. It is this reification of grace that I object to, mainly because it seems so foreign to Scripture and the Fathers.
12.9.2010 | 11:53am
"Stuart Koehl, let's assume that you've seen Mariolatry practiced among your fellow Catholics. Did you do anything to pull them away from Mariolatry? If so, what did you do or what did you say to get them away from their Mariolatry?"
Usually I do nothing, because people who develop an exaggerated veneration for the Mother of God invariably fall into other sorts of error as well, and tend to be immune both to reason and to an exposition of the true teaching of the Church.
-----------
You're probably right. Although it might be worth trying (and failing) anyways.
Usually I do nothing, because people who develop an exaggerated veneration for the Mother of God invariably fall into other sorts of error as well, and tend to be immune both to reason and to an exposition of the true teaching of the Church.
-----------
You're probably right. Although it might be worth trying (and failing) anyways.
12.9.2010 | 11:55am
"The solution is proper catechesis beginning at an early age and continuing through adulthood. I seldom see what I would call "mariolatry" among the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox because, despite their deep and abiding love of the Theotokos, in Byzantine spirituality Mary is always shown in relation to her Son; her importance derives from Him, and is never independent of Him. You will never see a canonical icon of Mary alone; she is always depicted with Christ. The liturgical texts of the Marian feasts always stress Mary's cosmic role as Theotokos and the centrality of Christ as savior."
In this particular regard I would have to say that the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox are superior to the Latin Rite.
In this particular regard I would have to say that the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox are superior to the Latin Rite.
12.9.2010 | 12:26pm
Seeker 1 says:
Ignatius33 asks-" ..Please provide one quotation from one pope stating that Mary was conceived "just live everyone else," as Seeker1 asserted..."
Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)
Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).
.N.D. Kelly comments:
"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)
Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).
.N.D. Kelly comments:
"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
12.9.2010 | 12:57pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"In this particular regard I would have to say that the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox are superior to the Latin Rite."
No, I would not say that. The revised Latin liturgy and calendar have gone a long way towards mitigating the problem. As I said, you would be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under 50 who believes anything even vaguely resembling mariolatry.
No, I would not say that. The revised Latin liturgy and calendar have gone a long way towards mitigating the problem. As I said, you would be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under 50 who believes anything even vaguely resembling mariolatry.
12.9.2010 | 12:59pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It is this reification of grace that I object to, mainly because it seems so foreign to Scripture and the Fathers."
I concur with Grigoris.
I concur with Grigoris.
12.9.2010 | 1:06pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Seeker 1 has made a good start on patristic attitudes towards the sinlessness of Christ and his Mother. I would also suggest looking at the various liturgical texts of the ancient Church. I already mentioned the Paschal Hymn "Having Beheld the Resurrection of Christ", which refers to Him as "the only sinless one" or "who alone is without sin". This sentiment is reiterated in the Byzantine funeral rite (Parastasis or Panahide), which says of Christ, "For you alone are without sin".
Again, this has to be juxtaposed against various texts which describe Mary as "all-holy", "all-pure", "without stain" and so on. As I said, the Eastern Churches believe as a matter of faith that Mary was indeed preserved from all sin, an apparent dichotomy which can only be reconciled by accepting that Christ alone is sinless "by nature", while Mary is sinless "by grace".
The Eastern Churches for the most part are, however, perfectly content to allow the dichotomy to stand and to accept it as one of the many mysteries which are inherent in the Tradition, rather than attempting to reconcile them by enshrining a theological speculation as "dogma". As Metropolitan Kallistos notes, too, Mary belongs to the Church's inner life, and thus is not a suitable subject for dogmatization.
Again, this has to be juxtaposed against various texts which describe Mary as "all-holy", "all-pure", "without stain" and so on. As I said, the Eastern Churches believe as a matter of faith that Mary was indeed preserved from all sin, an apparent dichotomy which can only be reconciled by accepting that Christ alone is sinless "by nature", while Mary is sinless "by grace".
The Eastern Churches for the most part are, however, perfectly content to allow the dichotomy to stand and to accept it as one of the many mysteries which are inherent in the Tradition, rather than attempting to reconcile them by enshrining a theological speculation as "dogma". As Metropolitan Kallistos notes, too, Mary belongs to the Church's inner life, and thus is not a suitable subject for dogmatization.
12.9.2010 | 2:46pm
Christopher Benson says:
I appreciate Mr. Mill's attempt to clarify a perplexing doctrine to Protestants. Despite his "crucial point" about God's grace being responsible for Mary's freedom from moral corruption, there is not biblical support for any human being who is "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Pope Pius IX) because our nature is shot through with sin, as the apostle Paul insists without exception or equivocation: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one even does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10-12). When Paul says "no one" that means no one, including the mother of Jesus. It will not satisfy sola Scriptura Protestants to hear "dogmas like the Immaculate Conception are 'truth[s] revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse'" because the Bible – not the Church – is the depository of these truths, otherwise we get enmeshed in the ugly "Which Church?" talk. To Protestant ears, this will sound like a tautology: "The Catholic answer to the objection that the doctrine is not found in Scripture is that some things the Church teaches can only be found in the Bible by looking backward from what the Church knows in other ways." Here, the Church functions as a guardian of gnosis rather than a beacon of truth. While the Church is charged to preserve and proclaim the truth, we should not think the truth is found exclusively within her walls. Truth, by its very definition, is public and not private, found throughout the cosmos and sometimes in the most unlikely places and spoken by the most unlikely voices, such as those Reformers who dared to challenge the guardian status of the Church. Scripture corrects the Church when the Church invents truth rather than preserves truth. Shalom.
12.9.2010 | 3:13pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Christopher Benson points out an interesting situation: Protestants object to the doctrine of the immaculate conception because it seems to circumvent the universality of original sin. On the other hand, Eastern Christians object to it precisely because it ascribes the universality of original sin.
By the way, for a classic exposition of the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin, see John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology", which makes a convincing case that the Western understanding results from an incorrect interpretation of Romans 5:12.
By the way, for a classic exposition of the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin, see John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology", which makes a convincing case that the Western understanding results from an incorrect interpretation of Romans 5:12.
12.9.2010 | 4:11pm
LUKE1732 says:
"because the Bible – not the Church – is the depository of these truths"
Reference please?
What about 1 Timothy 3:15: "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." New International Version (©1984)
Reference please?
What about 1 Timothy 3:15: "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." New International Version (©1984)
12.9.2010 | 4:28pm
Ethan C. says:
Stuart wrote:
"Protestants object to the doctrine of the immaculate conception because it seems to circumvent the universality of original sin. On the other hand, Eastern Christians object to it precisely because it ascribes the universality of original sin."
This Protestant thinks you're pretty much right! As I've been attempting to argue with other Catholic friends elsewhere, we Protestants view the doctrine as incoherent within the Western Augustinian view of original sin. It would make perfect sense within an Eastern view -- but then within an Eastern view, it isn't even necessary.
Now obviously, I find the Western interpretation much more convincing, but then that's what I've grown up with and am familiar with, so that's not exactly a surprise.
"Protestants object to the doctrine of the immaculate conception because it seems to circumvent the universality of original sin. On the other hand, Eastern Christians object to it precisely because it ascribes the universality of original sin."
This Protestant thinks you're pretty much right! As I've been attempting to argue with other Catholic friends elsewhere, we Protestants view the doctrine as incoherent within the Western Augustinian view of original sin. It would make perfect sense within an Eastern view -- but then within an Eastern view, it isn't even necessary.
Now obviously, I find the Western interpretation much more convincing, but then that's what I've grown up with and am familiar with, so that's not exactly a surprise.
12.9.2010 | 4:32pm
LUKE1732 says:
"Scripture corrects the Church when the Church invents truth rather than preserves truth."
Christopher, I'll bet that you trust the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I'll bet you don't put much stock in the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter. Why? Because the early church formally declared the former to be inspired and the latter, not so much.
Scripture derives its authority from the authority of Christ's church, not the other way around. If Jesus himself had written a manifesto and declared it to be the foundation of truth, your view might be correct. As it is, he founded a church whose members wrote and selected what you call the New Testament.
Christopher, I'll bet that you trust the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I'll bet you don't put much stock in the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter. Why? Because the early church formally declared the former to be inspired and the latter, not so much.
Scripture derives its authority from the authority of Christ's church, not the other way around. If Jesus himself had written a manifesto and declared it to be the foundation of truth, your view might be correct. As it is, he founded a church whose members wrote and selected what you call the New Testament.
12.9.2010 | 4:36pm
Seeker 1 says:
1 Timothy 3:15 is not about the church being the despository of the truth but rather the church is the pillar and support of the truth.
Secondly, when Paul wrote these words did he have in mind the idea that Mary was immaculately concieved and without sin? Something that was unknown to the church for centuries?
Secondly, when Paul wrote these words did he have in mind the idea that Mary was immaculately concieved and without sin? Something that was unknown to the church for centuries?
12.9.2010 | 4:56pm
LUKE1732 says:
Seeker 1, when Paul wrote those words, was he saying that the church was merely a support for the New Testament, something that was unknown to the church for centuries?
12.9.2010 | 5:23pm
Stuart Koehl: "As I said, you would be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under 50 who believes anything even vaguely resembling mariolatry."
I take it that this is a very good thing.
The logical conclusion of your statement is that Mariolatry is generally practiced by those Catholics who are 50 years old and higher.
I take it that this is a very good thing.
The logical conclusion of your statement is that Mariolatry is generally practiced by those Catholics who are 50 years old and higher.
12.9.2010 | 5:23pm
Corey McGee says:
Reasoning from the scriptures, we know that Jesus was both fully God and fully man; that Mary was fully human; that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God;" and that Jesus was sinless, and thus is our intercession with God against death (or, sin).
Now, in arguing against this scriptural basis, Mr. Mills posits a church tradition. Other commenters suppose that scripture must derive its authority from Church Tradition, and that the Church does not derive its authoriy from scripture. But surely there is a kind of dialectic here, because not even the most popish Catholic believes that what comes ex cathedra is above what comes ex deus.
Now, in arguing against this scriptural basis, Mr. Mills posits a church tradition. Other commenters suppose that scripture must derive its authority from Church Tradition, and that the Church does not derive its authoriy from scripture. But surely there is a kind of dialectic here, because not even the most popish Catholic believes that what comes ex cathedra is above what comes ex deus.
12.9.2010 | 5:32pm
Seeker 1 says:
Paul no doubt was referring to the truths that are contained in the Scriptures only. Some of the NT was in oral form for awhile until it was written down.
We can also know he would not have endorsed the idea that Mary was immaculately concieved and without sin becasue he writes in Romans 3:9-10 and 5:12 that all men (concieved of via a man and women) are sinners. He did not allow for any exception for this.
We can also know he would not have endorsed the idea that Mary was immaculately concieved and without sin becasue he writes in Romans 3:9-10 and 5:12 that all men (concieved of via a man and women) are sinners. He did not allow for any exception for this.
12.9.2010 | 6:37pm
LUKE1732 says:
Corey, you're begging the question. You consider the Gospel of Mark to be ex deus, but not the Gospel of Thomas because the church told you so. Can you discern the bible's table of contents apart from the church? On what basis do you affirm Mark and deny Thomas?
12.9.2010 | 6:40pm
LUKE1732 says:
Corey and Seeker 1: If as you say 1) Jesus was fully man, and 2) all have sinned, then how did you arrive at: 3) Jesus was sinless? Why didn't Paul make an exception for Jesus? Hebrews 4:15 does. Maybe you misunderstand Paul. In Romans 9:11 he refers to Jacob and Esau as "they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad". Do you believe that unborn/baby/toddler children have sinned?
12.9.2010 | 6:44pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The logical conclusion of your statement is that Mariolatry is generally practiced by those Catholics who are 50 years old and higher."
People hold dearest the faith they learn in their youth, and it might be a bit much to ask them suddenly to abandon what they believed all their lives and were encouraged to believe, and to believe instead something else. They do not bother me.
There are some younger people who get deeply involved with some of the more outre Marian apparitions, prophesies and the like. A lot of them are just bonkers. Overall, I do not consider mariolatry to be a problem in the Latin Church.
People hold dearest the faith they learn in their youth, and it might be a bit much to ask them suddenly to abandon what they believed all their lives and were encouraged to believe, and to believe instead something else. They do not bother me.
There are some younger people who get deeply involved with some of the more outre Marian apparitions, prophesies and the like. A lot of them are just bonkers. Overall, I do not consider mariolatry to be a problem in the Latin Church.
12.9.2010 | 6:54pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Seeker,
It is foolish to ascribe to Paul things "he would not have endorsed" unless he actually dealt with them. Mary is not even mentioned in the Pauline letters, and it is doubtful Paul ever met her. Yours is essentially an argument from silence: Paul did not endorse the immaculate conception, therefore he must have rejected it. The truth is, neither he nor anyone else at the time even gave it a moment's thought.
The same might also be said for the doctrine of the trinity, or of the nature of Christ, or myriad other doctrines which were universally held by the Church and are still held in common by both Protestants and Roman Catholics. The very doctrine of original sin which is touted by both sides as evidence for and against the immaculate conception is not found in Scripture, but was developed by the Fathers of the Church in the West from the second and third centuries onward, until given full form by St. Augustine in the fifth century.
Christ sent us the Paraclete, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that He might lead us into all truth, since Christ himself would no longer be physically present among us. And through the Paraclete, and the power to bind and loose that Christ bestowed upon his Disciples, and they upon their successors, elaborated the Tradition (Gr. Paradosis--that which is handed down) in response to the spiritual and pastoral needs of the Church.
Tradition is dynamic, not static. It is the activity of the Holy Spirit within the entire Body of Christ. Thus, the great scholar Jaroslav Pelikan (a Lutheran who became Orthodox in later life) could define Tradition as "the living faith of the dead", and condemn traditionalism as "the dead faith of the living". Whenever the Church ceases to respond to the challenges it faces from generation to generation, it will begin to die.
It is foolish to ascribe to Paul things "he would not have endorsed" unless he actually dealt with them. Mary is not even mentioned in the Pauline letters, and it is doubtful Paul ever met her. Yours is essentially an argument from silence: Paul did not endorse the immaculate conception, therefore he must have rejected it. The truth is, neither he nor anyone else at the time even gave it a moment's thought.
The same might also be said for the doctrine of the trinity, or of the nature of Christ, or myriad other doctrines which were universally held by the Church and are still held in common by both Protestants and Roman Catholics. The very doctrine of original sin which is touted by both sides as evidence for and against the immaculate conception is not found in Scripture, but was developed by the Fathers of the Church in the West from the second and third centuries onward, until given full form by St. Augustine in the fifth century.
Christ sent us the Paraclete, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that He might lead us into all truth, since Christ himself would no longer be physically present among us. And through the Paraclete, and the power to bind and loose that Christ bestowed upon his Disciples, and they upon their successors, elaborated the Tradition (Gr. Paradosis--that which is handed down) in response to the spiritual and pastoral needs of the Church.
Tradition is dynamic, not static. It is the activity of the Holy Spirit within the entire Body of Christ. Thus, the great scholar Jaroslav Pelikan (a Lutheran who became Orthodox in later life) could define Tradition as "the living faith of the dead", and condemn traditionalism as "the dead faith of the living". Whenever the Church ceases to respond to the challenges it faces from generation to generation, it will begin to die.
12.9.2010 | 8:41pm
Maria V. says:
Immaculate conception can be seen as God's mercy towards Mother Mary ; again we have the parallel account of the father of John The Baptist - Zacharias , priest on temple duty , who still did not have what it took , to trust that his prayers would be answered ! Such an account there , again in divine providence , to help us to recognise better the stupendous amount of trust it would take from the Bl.Mother ...esp. in the Jewish set up where holiness of God is recognised well or much better in most other traditions and thus the belief it took in the impossibilty that she , a virgin , is to be The Mother of The Word Incarnate !A merciful God , through the angel , shares the miraculous account of cousin Elisabeth , to help Mother Mary too !
If unwillingness to trust in God and His goodness is what the tempter brought to our first parents , God in His merciful wisdom, makes it possible that The New Eve is able to give a full consent , with the unblemished wisdom of knowing what she was consenting to ..
It could be that in early Church , where persons still had a better idea of the Incarnation, there was not that much need to focus upon the role of Mary ...as time passed and as more disbelief in incarnation came along , focusing on her role helps to magnify the truth ..
By the way , searching the internet on this topic, it was a surprise to know that Islam belives in the 'spotlessness ' of Mother Mary ...in our times , in His merciful providence , this could be the point of unity for both faiths ..and thus we see another reason for the timely focus on this truth and why The Church has been tended onto this better view of the ever prevailing fact !
and the Holy Spirit , through St.Paul , when speaking to all the sinners that need to learn these truths most likely did not have Bl.Mother in His focus !
If unwillingness to trust in God and His goodness is what the tempter brought to our first parents , God in His merciful wisdom, makes it possible that The New Eve is able to give a full consent , with the unblemished wisdom of knowing what she was consenting to ..
It could be that in early Church , where persons still had a better idea of the Incarnation, there was not that much need to focus upon the role of Mary ...as time passed and as more disbelief in incarnation came along , focusing on her role helps to magnify the truth ..
By the way , searching the internet on this topic, it was a surprise to know that Islam belives in the 'spotlessness ' of Mother Mary ...in our times , in His merciful providence , this could be the point of unity for both faiths ..and thus we see another reason for the timely focus on this truth and why The Church has been tended onto this better view of the ever prevailing fact !
and the Holy Spirit , through St.Paul , when speaking to all the sinners that need to learn these truths most likely did not have Bl.Mother in His focus !
12.9.2010 | 11:14pm
Seeker 1 says:
Stuart Koehl says:
"Seeker,
It is foolish to ascribe to Paul things "he would not have endorsed" unless he actually dealt with them. Mary is not even mentioned in the Pauline letters, and it is doubtful Paul ever met her. Yours is essentially an argument from silence: Paul did not endorse the immaculate conception, therefore he must have rejected it. The truth is, neither he nor anyone else at the time even gave it a moment's thought."
The argument from silence is not coming from me on the issue of immaculate conception but it comes from Roman Catholic church. Paul does not mention it nor does John (who Jesus entrusted Mary to) who wrote a gospel, 3 letters and the book of Revelation. Not once does he mention the immaculate conception. The argument from silence is being used by the Catholic church.
"Seeker,
It is foolish to ascribe to Paul things "he would not have endorsed" unless he actually dealt with them. Mary is not even mentioned in the Pauline letters, and it is doubtful Paul ever met her. Yours is essentially an argument from silence: Paul did not endorse the immaculate conception, therefore he must have rejected it. The truth is, neither he nor anyone else at the time even gave it a moment's thought."
The argument from silence is not coming from me on the issue of immaculate conception but it comes from Roman Catholic church. Paul does not mention it nor does John (who Jesus entrusted Mary to) who wrote a gospel, 3 letters and the book of Revelation. Not once does he mention the immaculate conception. The argument from silence is being used by the Catholic church.
12.9.2010 | 11:20pm
Seeker 1 says:
Luke1732 ask " Do you believe that unborn/baby/toddler children have sinned?"
They have not actively sinned but they have inherited the sin of Adam.
Everyone born has been born in a fallenness sinful state because of the sin of Adam. Romans 5:12
They have not actively sinned but they have inherited the sin of Adam.
Everyone born has been born in a fallenness sinful state because of the sin of Adam. Romans 5:12
12.10.2010 | 1:04am
patricksarsfield says:
Corey McGee writes:
"Now, in arguing against this scriptural basis, Mr. Mills posits a church tradition. Other commenters suppose that scripture must derive its authority from Church Tradition, and that the Church does not derive its authoriy from scripture. But surely there is a kind of dialectic here, because not even the most popish Catholic believes that what comes ex cathedra is above what comes ex deus...."
What Catholics believe is that Scripture is not some ex ante res that exists over and apart from the Church. Remember that Jesus did not waste a single moment of His precious time on Earth writing Word One of the New Testament.
Jesus had a much more important job to do in passing on the Truth of the Christian Religion: recruiting, training and commissioning His Church. And that Commission was NOT a "book commission," either. Rather, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Ever Living God, commissioned His Church to teach and baptize (Matthew 28:18-20) and left it up to the Church to decide how to accomplish that Teaching Commission.
In the fullness of time, church men ended up writing twenty seven teaching tools that Holy Mother Church eventually determined to be inspired by God. Yet those twenty seven books are a hodge-podge of at times repetitive teaching lessons that do not follow a predetermined syllabus.
What's more, no one has ever claimed that some inspired document contains a table of contents for the 27 books. Eusebius writing in 327 AD noted how at that very late date, a number of books now recognized as canonical were still contested by respectable elements of the Church Catholic. It was not until 367 AD, that Saint Athanasius first made a list of the twenty seven that is identical with the list almost universally accepted in the Church (except for Luther's ridiculous position on James, of course).
Why the relative lack of concern with the precise contents of the New Testament? Because, in the eyes of the Church, the assurance of right teaching in the Church is to be found in the lines of Apostolic Succession, and not in a precise corpus of books. Thus, Eusebius's History spends a lot more time listing the succession histories of the principal bishoprics than it does in setting forth the different positions on which books were deemed inspired and which not.
The issue was still open for decades after Athanasius drew up his list. Eventually, Holy Mother Church did resolve the definition of the New Testament Canon through the North African Councils of the 390s, but that Canon was a product of the Church's Teaching Mission rather than a pre-existent "Constitution" which defined the Teaching Mission for the Church.
SO: which came first: the chicken or the egg? The Church came first, and then the New Testament, as a product of the Church. And then a table of contents for the Canon, again as a product of the Church's Teaching Mission. thus, even the New Testament's Canon is a matter of the Tradition of the Church.
"Now, in arguing against this scriptural basis, Mr. Mills posits a church tradition. Other commenters suppose that scripture must derive its authority from Church Tradition, and that the Church does not derive its authoriy from scripture. But surely there is a kind of dialectic here, because not even the most popish Catholic believes that what comes ex cathedra is above what comes ex deus...."
What Catholics believe is that Scripture is not some ex ante res that exists over and apart from the Church. Remember that Jesus did not waste a single moment of His precious time on Earth writing Word One of the New Testament.
Jesus had a much more important job to do in passing on the Truth of the Christian Religion: recruiting, training and commissioning His Church. And that Commission was NOT a "book commission," either. Rather, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Ever Living God, commissioned His Church to teach and baptize (Matthew 28:18-20) and left it up to the Church to decide how to accomplish that Teaching Commission.
In the fullness of time, church men ended up writing twenty seven teaching tools that Holy Mother Church eventually determined to be inspired by God. Yet those twenty seven books are a hodge-podge of at times repetitive teaching lessons that do not follow a predetermined syllabus.
What's more, no one has ever claimed that some inspired document contains a table of contents for the 27 books. Eusebius writing in 327 AD noted how at that very late date, a number of books now recognized as canonical were still contested by respectable elements of the Church Catholic. It was not until 367 AD, that Saint Athanasius first made a list of the twenty seven that is identical with the list almost universally accepted in the Church (except for Luther's ridiculous position on James, of course).
Why the relative lack of concern with the precise contents of the New Testament? Because, in the eyes of the Church, the assurance of right teaching in the Church is to be found in the lines of Apostolic Succession, and not in a precise corpus of books. Thus, Eusebius's History spends a lot more time listing the succession histories of the principal bishoprics than it does in setting forth the different positions on which books were deemed inspired and which not.
The issue was still open for decades after Athanasius drew up his list. Eventually, Holy Mother Church did resolve the definition of the New Testament Canon through the North African Councils of the 390s, but that Canon was a product of the Church's Teaching Mission rather than a pre-existent "Constitution" which defined the Teaching Mission for the Church.
SO: which came first: the chicken or the egg? The Church came first, and then the New Testament, as a product of the Church. And then a table of contents for the Canon, again as a product of the Church's Teaching Mission. thus, even the New Testament's Canon is a matter of the Tradition of the Church.
12.10.2010 | 5:38am
Stuart Koehl says:
"The argument from silence is not coming from me on the issue of immaculate conception but it comes from Roman Catholic church. Paul does not mention it nor does John (who Jesus entrusted Mary to) who wrote a gospel, 3 letters and the book of Revelation. Not once does he mention the immaculate conception. The argument from silence is being used by the Catholic church."
I do not think you understand the concept of "argument from silence".
I do not think you understand the concept of "argument from silence".
12.10.2010 | 5:47am
Stuart Koehl says:
"The issue was still open for decades after Athanasius drew up his list. Eventually, Holy Mother Church did resolve the definition of the New Testament Canon through the North African Councils of the 390s, but that Canon was a product of the Church's Teaching Mission rather than a pre-existent "Constitution" which defined the Teaching Mission for the Church."
That's a very nice story, except is isn't really true, and there was never just one Canon of Scripture--See Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance", Oxford University Press (Oxford) 1997. Even today, the Latin and Byzantine Churches use one canon (albeit the status of Revelation is rather ambiguous in the Byzantine Tradition), the Syriac Churches use the Peshetta (before which they used Tatian's Diatessaron), which lacks 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelations. There was never a formal definition of the Canon Athanasius was not ruling, merely describing what was already accepted, as did the Council of Carthage (which, being local in any case, affected only the Western Church. Metzger has the best explanation for why certain books are in the canon: "Nobody could keep them out".
That's a very nice story, except is isn't really true, and there was never just one Canon of Scripture--See Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance", Oxford University Press (Oxford) 1997. Even today, the Latin and Byzantine Churches use one canon (albeit the status of Revelation is rather ambiguous in the Byzantine Tradition), the Syriac Churches use the Peshetta (before which they used Tatian's Diatessaron), which lacks 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelations. There was never a formal definition of the Canon Athanasius was not ruling, merely describing what was already accepted, as did the Council of Carthage (which, being local in any case, affected only the Western Church. Metzger has the best explanation for why certain books are in the canon: "Nobody could keep them out".
12.10.2010 | 6:00am
Stuart Koehl says:
"SO: which came first: the chicken or the egg? The Church came first, and then the New Testament, as a product of the Church."
This is correct, but I would disagree that some central magisterium sat down one day and decided what was in the canon. The process was long and organic, and involved an emerging consensus among all the Churches--but even then, differences remain. Yet it is clear that the Church--the body of all believers--formed the canon on the basis of the twin criteria of fidelity to the rule of faith and apostolic authorship. These criteria determined which books were suitable for reading in the liturgical services of the Church. Thus, some books were deemed consistent with the rule of faith, but lacked apostolicity--such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Apostolic Didache (all found in various early manuscripts and lists of New Testament books) and were eventually omitted. About others there were doubts about apostolicity which kept them out for a long time (2 Peter, 2-3 John), while many more books that claimed apostolic origin were omitted because they were not consistent with the Church's rule of faith, which, obviously, preceded the canon of Scripture.
What is the rule of faith? Nothing less than the liturgy of the Church, which was and remains the font and touchstone of theology, the most perfect expression of what the Church believes. The earliest Pauline epistle dates to the late 40s; the earliest Gospel to the late 50s or early 60s. Yet the Church was worshiping from the day after Pascha. In the New Testament, when a writer refers to Scripture, he means the Old Testament (usually in its Septuagint form). Nobody in the New Testament actually cites other New Testament books, for the simple reason the New Testament did not yet exist. Yet the Church still knew what it believed.
It is important to remember the words of St. John of Damascus, who told one of the Muslim rulers of Syria that "We [i.e., Christians] are not 'People of the Book', but children of the living God".
This is correct, but I would disagree that some central magisterium sat down one day and decided what was in the canon. The process was long and organic, and involved an emerging consensus among all the Churches--but even then, differences remain. Yet it is clear that the Church--the body of all believers--formed the canon on the basis of the twin criteria of fidelity to the rule of faith and apostolic authorship. These criteria determined which books were suitable for reading in the liturgical services of the Church. Thus, some books were deemed consistent with the rule of faith, but lacked apostolicity--such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Apostolic Didache (all found in various early manuscripts and lists of New Testament books) and were eventually omitted. About others there were doubts about apostolicity which kept them out for a long time (2 Peter, 2-3 John), while many more books that claimed apostolic origin were omitted because they were not consistent with the Church's rule of faith, which, obviously, preceded the canon of Scripture.
What is the rule of faith? Nothing less than the liturgy of the Church, which was and remains the font and touchstone of theology, the most perfect expression of what the Church believes. The earliest Pauline epistle dates to the late 40s; the earliest Gospel to the late 50s or early 60s. Yet the Church was worshiping from the day after Pascha. In the New Testament, when a writer refers to Scripture, he means the Old Testament (usually in its Septuagint form). Nobody in the New Testament actually cites other New Testament books, for the simple reason the New Testament did not yet exist. Yet the Church still knew what it believed.
It is important to remember the words of St. John of Damascus, who told one of the Muslim rulers of Syria that "We [i.e., Christians] are not 'People of the Book', but children of the living God".
12.10.2010 | 12:04pm
Seeker 1 says:
patricksarsfield writes-.."Why the relative lack of concern with the precise contents of the New Testament? Because, in the eyes of the Church, the assurance of right teaching in the Church is to be found in the lines of Apostolic Succession, and not in a precise corpus of books..."
How do know if your church is teaching correctly? Take the immaculate conception of Mary. There is not one shred of evidence in Scripture. To think that those who knew her best never make mention of this has got to be troubling. Secondly, we know popes who believed she was concieved in sin.
Claiming Apostolic Succession as some kind of safeguard to truth just does not cut it. If anything, it weakens the leadership of the Catholic church when it promotes doctrines for which there is no evidence for. The members of the Catholic church should heed the warning of 2 Peter 2:1.
How do know if your church is teaching correctly? Take the immaculate conception of Mary. There is not one shred of evidence in Scripture. To think that those who knew her best never make mention of this has got to be troubling. Secondly, we know popes who believed she was concieved in sin.
Claiming Apostolic Succession as some kind of safeguard to truth just does not cut it. If anything, it weakens the leadership of the Catholic church when it promotes doctrines for which there is no evidence for. The members of the Catholic church should heed the warning of 2 Peter 2:1.
12.10.2010 | 12:28pm
LUKE1732 says:
Luke1732 asks: "Do you believe that unborn/baby/toddler children have sinned?"
Seeker 1 says: They have not actively sinned but they have inherited the sin of Adam.
So what happens when they die without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?
Seeker 1 says: They have not actively sinned but they have inherited the sin of Adam.
So what happens when they die without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?
12.10.2010 | 1:04pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"So what happens when they die without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?"
How I loathe that trite formulation!
As an Eastern Christian, I would say a God who loves mankind and whose mercy endures forever and desires all men to be saved can be trusted to look after the souls of the innocent, who through no fault of their own have been denied access to new life in Christ that comes through baptism.
Sometimes I think St. Augustine had way too much time on his hands.
How I loathe that trite formulation!
As an Eastern Christian, I would say a God who loves mankind and whose mercy endures forever and desires all men to be saved can be trusted to look after the souls of the innocent, who through no fault of their own have been denied access to new life in Christ that comes through baptism.
Sometimes I think St. Augustine had way too much time on his hands.
12.10.2010 | 2:43pm
Seeker 1 says:
Luke1732 asks -"So what happens when they die without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?"
They go to heaven. If you look at the judgement passages in Scripture such as Matt 25:31-46 and Rev 20:11-15 you will find that a person is judged by their works. Infants do not have works by which they can be judged. David when he lost his infant son said that he expected to be with him someday.
Now, if I'm wrong about this then that would mean millions of babies are condemned because of not being bapitized.
They go to heaven. If you look at the judgement passages in Scripture such as Matt 25:31-46 and Rev 20:11-15 you will find that a person is judged by their works. Infants do not have works by which they can be judged. David when he lost his infant son said that he expected to be with him someday.
Now, if I'm wrong about this then that would mean millions of babies are condemned because of not being bapitized.
12.10.2010 | 3:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"They go to heaven. If you look at the judgement passages in Scripture such as Matt 25:31-46 and Rev 20:11-15 you will find that a person is judged by their works. Infants do not have works by which they can be judged. David when he lost his infant son said that he expected to be with him someday. "
It's just as fallacious to say that as it is to say that babies who die unbaptized are damned (which, really, nobody does say). In truth, the matter is a mystery that has not been revealed to us, and thus we have no choice but to place our trust in a God who is good and the lover of mankind.
It's just as fallacious to say that as it is to say that babies who die unbaptized are damned (which, really, nobody does say). In truth, the matter is a mystery that has not been revealed to us, and thus we have no choice but to place our trust in a God who is good and the lover of mankind.
12.11.2010 | 10:47am
Stuart Koehl says:
Whatever, Peter. You seem to think that quantity has a quality of its own, which somehow makes Roman Christianity normative. Forgive me if I do not concur. As for Metzger being disqualified because he was a Protestant, please note that even Catholic scholars at the Pontifical Biblical Institute defer to him. Truth is self-authenticating, and objective scholarship transcends confessional bounds. The fact remains, there has always been variation in the canon, and the canon was never formally closed.
As for the status of the Apocalypse in the Byzantine Churches, the critical mark of a canonical book is it is read in church during the liturgy. The Byzantine lectionary includes every book of the Old Testament (LXX version), and every book of the New Testament--except the Apocalypse. Our early exposure to Montanism made us rather leery of the apocalyptic genre (one look at the wilder boundaries of Pentacostalism and even charismatic Catholicism ought to be enough to prove that point). Moreover, the Byzantine liturgy is a florelegium comprised of various Scriptural citations glued together with descriptive prayer. And again, the one book from which it does not quote is the Apocalypse. On the other hand, most of our liturgical imagery, right down to our church architecture, draws upon the imagery of St. John.
As for the status of the Apocalypse in the Byzantine Churches, the critical mark of a canonical book is it is read in church during the liturgy. The Byzantine lectionary includes every book of the Old Testament (LXX version), and every book of the New Testament--except the Apocalypse. Our early exposure to Montanism made us rather leery of the apocalyptic genre (one look at the wilder boundaries of Pentacostalism and even charismatic Catholicism ought to be enough to prove that point). Moreover, the Byzantine liturgy is a florelegium comprised of various Scriptural citations glued together with descriptive prayer. And again, the one book from which it does not quote is the Apocalypse. On the other hand, most of our liturgical imagery, right down to our church architecture, draws upon the imagery of St. John.
2.8.2011 | 2:56am
Nerio Rhea says:
If this situation had existed in 1864, it is doubtful the immaculate conception would ever have been declared an infallible dogma of the Church, for the simple reason it would fail the test of being something believed everywhere, always and at all times. How important did the Fathers of the Church consider these differences? Not enough to consider them just cause for severing of communion, even though both sides knew of the differences and the secondary results flowing from them.
5.22.2011 | 11:33am
Leila Boats says:
What were the doctrinal and practical concerns and controversies of the day that drove the Pope to declare it Ex Cathedra in the first place? What terrible heresy or practice was occuring that the Pope felt that it was so important to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary an Infallible Dogma of the Latin Church? The presumption that Latin theology, spirituality, liturgy and everything else is the most perfect and advanced expression of the Christian faith was widely held prior to Vatican II, and even had a name: praestantia ritus Latini. It was thus assumed wherever Latin belief or usage and that of a different rite diverged, the Latin usage was automatically "correct" and normative, while the divergent rite might be allowed to continue "by dispensation" until the unenlightened peasants come to their senses.
12.8.2011 | 11:14am
harry says:
For whatever it is worth: The Immaculate Conception makes perfect sense to me. The first Adam was brought forth immaculate from dirt itself. The first Eve was brought forth from the flesh of the first Adam without a natural mother. The reverse must happen to undo the effects of sin: The New Eve, Mary, was brought forth immaculate from the “dirt” of original sin itself. The New Adam, Christ, was brought forth from the flesh of the New Eve without a natural father.
The Church Fathers, from the earliest times, speak of Mary doing the reverse of what Eve did, the “knot” tied by Eve being untied by Mary. God's creation of humanity was in an uncorrupted, sin-free environment, bringing about an immaculate humanity – yet He began with “dirt.” That was, I believe, a type of God's eventual restoration of humanity, which was a reversal of what had happened previously and began with God bringing about another immaculate human being, the New Eve, from the “dirt” of original sin, and the New Adam from her flesh without a natural father.
The Church Fathers, from the earliest times, speak of Mary doing the reverse of what Eve did, the “knot” tied by Eve being untied by Mary. God's creation of humanity was in an uncorrupted, sin-free environment, bringing about an immaculate humanity – yet He began with “dirt.” That was, I believe, a type of God's eventual restoration of humanity, which was a reversal of what had happened previously and began with God bringing about another immaculate human being, the New Eve, from the “dirt” of original sin, and the New Adam from her flesh without a natural father.
12.8.2011 | 1:26pm
harry says:
Forgive me for adding a few more thoughts on the matter. The Immaculate Conception is not without a Scriptural basis. A Scriptural indication that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant can be found in Revelation 11:19-12:1. While the “Woman” can be rightfully interpreted as the Church, the Scriptures make clear that the “Woman” can also be interpreted as Mary in the rest of Revelation 12, where we find that the Woman gives birth to a “male child” Who is to rule all nations with an iron rod. The Church is the bride of Christ, not His mother. His mother gives birth to the one Who is destined to “rule all nations with an iron rod,” the King of kings.
Mary being the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant Ark is not a novel way to interpret Scripture. Methodius, who was martyred in 311 A.D., in his *Oration concerning Simeon and Anna* explicitly mentions that the Old Testament Ark was a type of Mary and wonders how much veneration we owe her considering how much veneration was given the Old Covenant Ark. In 2 Sam. 6 Uzzah is struck dead by God for merely touching it, even though Uzzah did that with the best of intentions.
The Ark had to be pre-sanctified in consideration of what its contents would be. See Exodus 30:25-26, 29. Note also that in Judges 13 that Manoah's wife, who is told by an angel she is to become pregnant, receives instruction from the angel regarding her purification and how to raise Samson. In Luke 1, Zechariah receives instructions from an angel regarding how to raise John the Baptist. He, being a priest, is already doing what is required for the purification of himself and Elizabeth. Mary receives no instructions from the angel regarding her purification, instead the angel greets her as “Mary, full of grace.” She receives no instructions on how to raise Jesus – she has no need of that having the wisdom humanity had before the fall. The pre-sanctification of the Old Covenant Ark was a type of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, who was pre-sanctified in her Immaculate Conception.
How much more necessary was the pre-sanctification of the New Covenant Ark than that of the Old? If it was appropriate that the Old Covenant Ark be pre-sanctified, which was to contain sacred objects but not the very essence of the Sacred, and if the body of first Adam was brought into being by God in a sinless environment, it was much more fitting that the body of the New Adam, the Son of God, be brought about in an immaculate environment, one that had never, ever experienced any of the corruption that comes with sin. That environment was the Ark of the New Covenant, the immaculate humanity of Mary, the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Mary being the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant Ark is not a novel way to interpret Scripture. Methodius, who was martyred in 311 A.D., in his *Oration concerning Simeon and Anna* explicitly mentions that the Old Testament Ark was a type of Mary and wonders how much veneration we owe her considering how much veneration was given the Old Covenant Ark. In 2 Sam. 6 Uzzah is struck dead by God for merely touching it, even though Uzzah did that with the best of intentions.
The Ark had to be pre-sanctified in consideration of what its contents would be. See Exodus 30:25-26, 29. Note also that in Judges 13 that Manoah's wife, who is told by an angel she is to become pregnant, receives instruction from the angel regarding her purification and how to raise Samson. In Luke 1, Zechariah receives instructions from an angel regarding how to raise John the Baptist. He, being a priest, is already doing what is required for the purification of himself and Elizabeth. Mary receives no instructions from the angel regarding her purification, instead the angel greets her as “Mary, full of grace.” She receives no instructions on how to raise Jesus – she has no need of that having the wisdom humanity had before the fall. The pre-sanctification of the Old Covenant Ark was a type of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, who was pre-sanctified in her Immaculate Conception.
How much more necessary was the pre-sanctification of the New Covenant Ark than that of the Old? If it was appropriate that the Old Covenant Ark be pre-sanctified, which was to contain sacred objects but not the very essence of the Sacred, and if the body of first Adam was brought into being by God in a sinless environment, it was much more fitting that the body of the New Adam, the Son of God, be brought about in an immaculate environment, one that had never, ever experienced any of the corruption that comes with sin. That environment was the Ark of the New Covenant, the immaculate humanity of Mary, the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.
