did Mary have fallen human nature?

[VociMike]

Because this tradition did not start until the 5th century.

And your proof of that assertion is what? That that was when the Church denounced this new tradition? Oh no, the Church never did denounce this brand new 5th century tradition, did she?

 

[VociMike]

It was not decided upon for many hundreds of years period. It was not considered heresy or not heresy until the Church officially decided it as infallible.

The Church didn’t immediately act against all beliefs. Some took a long time to decide. Many were not decided until the Church decided what books would be included in Scripture and which ones would be declared heresy. The heretical books had been around for a long time before being declared heresy.

But the Church didn’t take a long time and then declare this belief to be a heresy! You would have us believe that a brand new claim appeared, one that went against the deposit of faith guarded by the Church, and she never bothered to mention that this claim went against the deposit of faith. Rather, she always behaved as if this claim did not go against the deposit of faith. Not one council spoke against it. According to you, the entire Church silently adopted a heresy and nobody noticed. That’s exactly the anti-historical view that Protestantism must take. Hundreds or thousands of bishops, and not one objected. Millions of Christians, and not one objected.

BTW, if the Church went off the rails in the 5th century (and this must include the Orthodox as well), where was the true Church to be found for 1000 years? And please don’t point me to the Trail of Blood.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

“And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’” Lk 1:28
In some Bibles it will say Gabriel said “Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favior”. In the greek the “*chaire kecharitomene” *.
Luke gives this greeting with an alliterative play on words. The basic root charis or ‘grace’ is present in both words luke uses (Rejoice and you who enjoy Gods favour). The words Luke uses chaire and kecharitomene are essentially interconected. Because God loves her and has filled Mary with grace in view of her divine motherhood, God invites her to rejoice.
“This fullness of grace indicates a condition or state of being, a gift signfying divine faviour. It implies a divine choice or election in relation to the Covenant. The Expressions ‘Full of grace’ and ‘you who enjoy God’s favior’ are renderings of the Greek word kecharitomene which is a passive participle. The verb utlized here by Luke (charitoun) is very rare in Greek. It is present only twice in the NT: in the text of Luke 1:28 ‘kecharitomene’ and in the epistle to the Ephesians (ep 1:6) echaritosen. These verbs convey the idea of a change of something in the person or the thing affected. Thus, since the root of the verb ‘charitoo’ is ‘charis’ or grace, the idea which is expressed is that of a change brought about by grace. In addition the verb used by Luke is in the past participle form. ‘Kecharitomene’ signifies then, in the person to whom the verb relates, that is Mary, that the action of the grace of God has already brought about a change. It does not tell us how that came about. What is essential here is the affirmation that Mary has been transformed by the grace of God. The perfect passive participle is used by Luke to indicate that the transformation by grace has alresdy taken place in Mary, well before the moment of the Annunciation” -The Mystery of Mary by Paul Haffner pg. 56-57

 

[adam_in_ohio]

There was a Aristotelian view called ensoulment that many of the early church fathers held. This view was held by many people even into the medieval ages. Ensoulment is the idea that the rational soul is received by the human embryo weeks after conception. This view of course is outdated. This view of the many early Church fathers is why they don’t explictly say that Mary was conceved without sin. They didn’t believe there was a soul at the moment of conception.

 

[Thing]

Are you kidding me? Please show me how this teaching is not contradictory to the plain language of the Scripture.

As far as the true Church, one must accept that there are many teachings, such as the one on Mary, that have come after the early Church gave us the Scripture. This teaching wasn’t known to have been circulated before the 5th century. So the question becomes, has the RCC remained faithful to the teachings of the Apostles or has it drifted. Basically, this is what Luther taught.

“…Martin Luther’s personal adherence to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (barring two lapses) seems to have been life-long . . .”

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/counter-reply-martin-luthers-mariology.html
(if you are Catholic why worry about what Martin Luther believed)

Originally Posted by expectthebest
Because this tradition did not start until the 5th century.

The Doctrine of the Trinity existed as a Tradition with some support in Sacred Scripture, but was probably defined, almost finally, in 381 (the 4th century), and again in 500 (the 6th century).

Tradition concerning Mary existed from just as early in the Church as Tradition of the Blessed Trinity, it is recorded in written form from at least 100 AD, but the Immaculate Conception Doctrine has less support from scripture (written stuff) than the Blessed Trinity Doctrine. ie. Mary’s role was thought about by the early Christian Fathers concurrently with the Trinity.

(The Sacred Scriptures were probably finished in 100AD)

"The early Church Fathers compared Mary to Eve. St. Justin Martyr (100–165) said that Mary was a kind of New Eve, “in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 100) Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) argued in a similar manner: “As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.” (On the Flesh of Christ, 17) St. Irenaeus (b. 2nd century; d. c 200) declared that Mary became “the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race,” because “what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” (Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 22, 4) St. Jerome (347 – 420) coined the phrase, “Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary,” (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21).
The Conception of Mary was celebrated as a liturgical feast in England from the ninth century (800), and the doctrine of her “holy” or “immaculate” conception was first formulated in a tract by Eadmer, companion and biographer of the better-known St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), "

expectthebest:

Because this tradition did not start until the 5th century. From what you are saying, a tradition could start tomorrow, and the Church could make this tradition infallible 500 years from now.

The fifth century is 400AD, not 500 AD.
The Tradition, the thoughts on Mary’s role in the story of our salvation, were put into writing just a few decades after the New Testament was finished. These thoughts about Mary’s role always existed in the Church’s mind, they are not new. About Mary herself, Scripture says, she; ‘kept all these words, pondering them in her heart.’

 

[mercygate]

I totally agree. One must be consistant on what the early belief was. The thing I am getting at here is it cannot be shown this was an early belief. Are you saying that this is one of the teachings Jesus didn’t think the Apostles could “bear”? That seems unlikely.

I also agree. I am not arguing this from a Catholic vs protestant Faith. I am simply discussing this one point.

Since the Catholic Church has the “disadvantage” of a two thousand year history, she has been in the unique position of being confronted by all of the major theological questions that have arisen throughout her past. This includes heresies, philosophical developments, devotional practices . . . She has not shirked the challenge

For the Church, Sacred Tradition is the Revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as lived out in the Church, past and present. It is the ongoing understanding of the MEANING of Revelation and how it applies to our lives.

Thus, when a teaching, such as that on Mary’s sinlessness arises, it arises from what has gone before. It is no more an “addition” to theology than is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is a clarification of the theology, just as the teaching on Transubstantiation does not CHANGE the teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist but clarifies it.

Doctrine does not expand or contract, but our UNDERSTANDING of it does.

 

[allhers]

Because this tradition did not start until the 5th century. From what you are saying, a tradition could start tomorrow, and the Church could make this tradition infallible 500 years from now.

You mean you think that Tradition didn’t start until the 5th century.
I’m beginning to understand more clearly all the time where your confusion is.

 

[mercygate]

You mean you think that Tradition didn’t start until the 5th century.
I’m beginning to understand more clearly all the time where your confusion is.

Mmm. Many people think that the first appearance of something in writing is the first appearance period. E.g., people often think the designation “Mother of God” for Our Lady turned up for the first time at the Council of Ephesus in 431, but there is written evidence of the title “Theotokos” being used in the liturgy as early as 250 A.D. You can be sure if something is being used in the liturgy, it is NOT a novelty.

 

[allhers]

Mmm. Many people think that the first appearance of something in writing is the first appearance period. E.g., people often think the designation “Mother of God” for Our Lady turned up for the first time at the Council of Ephesus in 431, but there is written evidence of the title “Theotokos” being used in the liturgy as early as 250 A.D. You can be sure if something is being used in the liturgy, it is NOT a novelty.

Yes, I know this, I was talking to expect the best when I said that. I agree with **you **totally!

 

[expectthebest]

But the Church didn’t take a long time and then declare this belief to be a heresy! You would have us believe that a brand new claim appeared, one that went against the deposit of faith guarded by the Church, and she never bothered to mention that this claim went against the deposit of faith. Rather, she always behaved as if this claim did not go against the deposit of faith. Not one council spoke against it. According to you, the entire Church silently adopted a heresy and nobody noticed. That’s exactly the anti-historical view that Protestantism must take. Hundreds or thousands of bishops, and not one objected. Millions of Christians, and not one objected.

BTW, if the Church went off the rails in the 5th century (and this must include the Orthodox as well), where was the true Church to be found for 1000 years? And please don’t point me to the Trail of Blood.

Your point is well taken. However, nobody can say when this tradtion started. I could have been that nobody had really thought about it before. Then, when a theologen came up with the idea, it was well received which wouldn’t be surprising considering the prominance given to Mary (well deservedly may I add). This would not have automatically made it a tradition. The Church defines heresy. Therefore, anything it accepts would not be declared a heresy, right?

 

[expectthebest]

You mean you think that Tradition didn’t start until the 5th century.
I’m beginning to understand more clearly all the time where your confusion is.

It’s not what I think. I don’t know. The fact is, nobody knows. That’s my point. How can the Church take something to the level of infallibility without some evidence the this was even and initial beliefe within the Church. Sure, it can be speculated. But the Church has taken an ifallible stance on this. How can the Church take an infallible stance on something like this when they won’t take an infallible stance on limbo or the fate of unbaptised inocents?

I don’t think I am alone. This kind of stuff is extremely hard to understand. I think most people just don’t really ask the question.

 

[expectthebest]

“All have sinned” is a statement of active sinning, not a statement about original sin. And the Church teaches that we are not “held responsible” for the sin of Adam, but rather that we suffer the consequences of that sin.

CCC 405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

Now you, who speak about the plain language of scripture, how do you account for the phrase “and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”? Jesus died, does that mean he sinned? Or was subject to original sin? So again I ask, if all have sinned, what was the sin of a stillborn baby?

BTW, the Eastern Orthodox don’t even have the concept of original sin as we do, but they still maintain that Mary did not sin. How do explain that? Are they wrong about Mary too?

VociMike,

I can sense you are getting upset here. Please relax. This is a good discussion.

I agree that an inocent has not overtly sin but the punishment due from original sin is still there nonetheless. In a sense, the baby has sinned through no fault of it’s own simply by being conceived. So, what happens to unbaptised inocents? The Church hasn’t taken a decision on this so all we can do is guess, right?

 

[mercygate]

Your point is well taken. However, nobody can say when this tradtion started. I could have been that nobody had really thought about it before. Then, when a theologen came up with the idea, it was well received which wouldn’t be surprising considering the prominance given to Mary (well deservedly may I add). This would not have automatically made it a tradition. The Church defines heresy. Therefore, anything it accepts would not be declared a heresy, right?

Not bad, expectthebest! Very close.

But when a theological construct emerges, it is never just “well received” and then accepted. Nothing is more rigorous than the thinking, and praying, and scripture-examining that goes into the articulartion of a tenet that is proposed for acceptance by the Church as an article of faith. We don’t just slide into these things. We make the Holy Spirit work overtime to clinch the case.

 

[expectthebest]

“And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’” Lk 1:28
In some Bibles it will say Gabriel said “Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favior”. In the greek the “*chaire kecharitomene” *.
Luke gives this greeting with an alliterative play on words. The basic root charis or ‘grace’ is present in both words luke uses (Rejoice and you who enjoy Gods favour). The words Luke uses chaire and kecharitomene are essentially interconected. Because God loves her and has filled Mary with grace in view of her divine motherhood, God invites her to rejoice.
“This fullness of grace indicates a condition or state of being, a gift signfying divine faviour. It implies a divine choice or election in relation to the Covenant. The Expressions ‘Full of grace’ and ‘you who enjoy God’s favior’ are renderings of the Greek word kecharitomene which is a passive participle. The verb utlized here by Luke (charitoun) is very rare in Greek. It is present only twice in the NT: in the text of Luke 1:28 ‘kecharitomene’ and in the epistle to the Ephesians (ep 1:6) echaritosen. These verbs convey the idea of a change of something in the person or the thing affected. Thus, since the root of the verb ‘charitoo’ is ‘charis’ or grace, the idea which is expressed is that of a change brought about by grace. In addition the verb used by Luke is in the past participle form. ‘Kecharitomene’ signifies then, in the person to whom the verb relates, that is Mary, that the action of the grace of God has already brought about a change. It does not tell us how that came about. What is essential here is the affirmation that Mary has been transformed by the grace of God. The perfect passive participle is used by Luke to indicate that the transformation by grace has alresdy taken place in Mary, well before the moment of the Annunciation” -The Mystery of Mary by Paul Haffner pg. 56-57

This is a very interesting breakdown of the words used in the Scripture. I always think to myself, boy, did Jesus intend religion to be this complecated?

Back to the point, it would be easy to accept the analysis that the words used incate a change of some kind. Was this a change of sinlessness? Was it a change that made it so Mary would never sin throughout her life? These passages do not seem to clarify either question beyond conjecture.

At the same time, I can see how one could very well believe that Mary was sinless by taking everything into consideration. In fact, I really don’t have a problem with believing it. My point is trying to make sense of how the Church can raise this to the level of infallibility.

 

[mercygate]

It’s not what I think. I don’t know. The fact is, nobody knows. That’s my point. How can the Church take something to the level of infallibility without some evidence the this was even and initial beliefe within the Church. Sure, it can be speculated. But the Church has taken an ifallible stance on this. How can the Church take an infallible stance on something like this when they won’t take an infallible stance on limbo or the fate of unbaptised inocents?

I don’t think I am alone. This kind of stuff is extremely hard to understand. I think most people just don’t really ask the question.

Are you familiar with Newman’s landmark work, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctriine?

 

[cpayne]

I think I’m going to start a thread called “Evolution, the Authority of the Church, Martin Luther, Sola Scriptura, and the Sinlessness of Mary.”

Just to cover all the bases.

 

[VociMike]

VociMike,

I can sense you are getting upset here. Please relax. This is a good discussion.

No problem here.

I agree that an inocent has not overtly sin but the punishment due from original sin is still there nonetheless. In a sense, the baby has sinned through no fault of it’s own simply by being conceived. So, what happens to unbaptised inocents? The Church hasn’t taken a decision on this so all we can do is guess, right?

So “all have sinned” is just a statement about original sin then? So you believe (against the teaching of the Church of which you are a member) that Mary had original sin. But do you also believe (against the teaching of the Church of which you are a member) that she sinned personally? They are two different teachings of the Church.

And you still haven’t demonstrated that any Church teaching regarding Mary was “invented” in the 5th century. All you have done is appeal to silence, which is no proof at all. But you seem to hold the lack of surviving (fallible) texts higher than you do the witness of the Church. There’s nothing stopping you from having such a view, but you cannot in all honesty hold such a view and still regard the canon of scripture, as pronounced by that same Church, as infallible. Nor can you hold any doctrine pronounced by the Church as infallible. It does no good to claim that the Church got everything right up until some date X, and then started adding heresies. You are left with beliefs built upon sand rather than stone.

And you still have not given a plausible explanation as to how a heretical doctrine could arise and be taken up by the entire Church without any opposition to the doctrine. You still have not given a plausible explanation as to why the dog did not bark.

 

[VociMike]

This is a very interesting breakdown of the words used in the Scripture. I always think to myself, boy, did Jesus intend religion to be this complecated?

A clue might be the laws given by God to the Jews. Not exactly a simple religion.

 

[allhers]

Hopefully expecthebest is reading all the material we have provided them with.

 

[mercygate]

Hopefully expecthebest is reading all the material we have provided them with.

Oh oh. If he gets into Newman’s Development we’ll be waiting a long time. Maybe he’ll invite one of us to sponsor him in RCIA!