Immaculate conceptions in the Bible, ...Mary?

[ConstantineTG]

Mary a descendant of David, is Human. Adam and Eve human, Christ Human and divine.

Now in Mary’s assumption, the Church does not State she died physically and then assumed in heaven, or that at the moment of death was assumed into heaven.
And that argument has never been used toward anyone else in history.

No, Mary did die. I have went through this discussion so many times in this board. The concept that Mary did not die is a modern invention. The Church solidly believed in her death throughout the ages, it is a Tradition of the Church. If you read the entire MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, you will see that Mary’s death has been mentioned several times quoting so many Church Fathers and saints both East and West. The Church certainly teaches she experienced death. The West just decided not to focus on that part, rather focusing on the Assumption and Queenship of Mary. On the other hand, the East regards Mary’s death as important because the Dormition and Assumption of Mary is our guarantee that the Resurrection is indeed coming for all mankind. Remember, Jesus Christ is God. Of course He can resurrect. Mary’s resurrection and assumption is Christ’s manifestation to the rest of us that indeed His promise is true.

And one more point about Mary’s death. There are two locations believed to be her tomb. The early Christians weren’t arguing about whether she died or not. They were arguing whether she was buried in Ephesus or Jerusalem.

Maybe you have human will mixed up w/sin in Jesus becoming incarnate

No, I have not. And this is why I stopped believing in the Latin definition of Original Sin. Because there’s just so much inconsistencies with its definition and how it affects the incarnation.

From about 640 on, he became the determined opponent of Monothelitism, the heretical teaching that Jesus Christ had only one will. In this, he followed the example of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, who was the first to combat this heresy starting in 634.

Maximus supported the Orthodoxy of Rome on this matter and is said to have exclaimed: "I have the faith of the Latins, but the language of the Greeks." He argued for Dyothelitism, the Orthodox teaching that Jesus Christ possessed two wills (one divine and one human), rather than the one will posited by Monothelitism.

Yes. As noted above, to end the heresies about Christ once and for all, St. Maximos taught that Christ assumed everything about our human nature to save us. The pre-fall Adam did not need saving, so certainly he did not assume a pre-fall humanity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, Mary did die.

Its not Biblical and there is “NO” eye witness. “Which” early church father would the EO like to use for this point?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And one more point about Mary’s death. There are two locations believed to be her tomb. The early Christians weren’t arguing about whether she died or not. They were arguing whether she was buried in Ephesus or Jerusalem…

Incorrect what we do know is the home where Mary lived with John still exists in Ephesus where its believe she lived and has been venerated there a very long time. The Dormition is the Dormition and the sight exist in Jerusalem. We have no witness to collaborate this. We have writings long after the fact and Very Pious at that.

No, I have not. And this is why I stopped believing ithe Latin definition of Original Sin. Because there’s just so much inconsistencies with itsdefinition and how it affects the incarnation…

Yet you argument is lacking as it is on this topic in the Eastern Forum. What you think is taught is incorrect. There is “no” difference in Original or Ancestral sin…its a fairy tale. Why was Church united till 1054 with the so-called different theology???

Yes. As noted above, to end the heresies about Christ once and for all, St. Maximos taught that Christ assumed everything about our human nature to save us. The pre-fall Adam did not need saving, so certainly he did not assume a pre-fall humanity.

This suggests Christ was born in a condemned state of death which the Saint never taught. This Saint completed St Athanasius work on the Incarnation, was exiled and tortured for the refusal to state Christ was not human. Christs human nature is human with pain, feelings. but not sin, or the inclination to sin.

If Christ assumed Adams state after the fall what would be the purpose? He came to correct the consequence of death not cooperate with it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then you tell us what Christ meant with words " My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me ?"

I haven’t followed this brb3 [your conversation on this verse]. I would only suggest Psalm 22.

 

[brb3]

Actually, it does. Take note that Easter/Pascha is called “The 8th Day”. The Resurrection is called “the new creation”. Why? Did God create a new man out of dirt? No. God simply could have created a new man out of dirt and free from sin, but that would have annihilated our race. And God is not a god of destruction. So Jesus Christ made things new. And how does He do this? By taking our current nature unto Himself and renewing it through the hypostatic union of His divinity with the humanity he shares with us through Mary. See, we inherit the effects of Adam’s sin because we are Adam’s physical descendants. Jesus Christ obviously did not have physical children to intermarry with our race for the renewed flesh he created to become part of us. So the only way for our own flesh to be saved is for Christ to take our entire human nature unto himself and renew it within himself. If he takes a flesh other than our flesh, that is one that is unstained like Adam, then how does He cleanse our flesh? But don’t confuse this statement to say that Christ is at any point stained. That is why I said, God is pure and all-holy. The moment He took our flesh, it was instantly and completely perfected. But He had to take our flesh, the one we inherited from Adam.

There is no one point that this happens, rather it happens throughout the life of Christ. From the incarnation to the passion to the resurrection. It is a process. Fr. John Behr, dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, had a talk that I attended. He was talking about this. He said, notice that in Genesis when God was creating, everything was created instantly. Let there be this, let there be that, and everything came into existence. But with man He didn’t do that. He did not say, “let there be man,” and man came into existence. Instead, God did work. He took clay and shaped and formed man and breathed life into man. Even as Adam and Eve walked around the garden, God was not finished with man. The completion of the creation of man came with Jesus Christ. When he took our flesh and he lived as a man and suffered and died as a man. Why do you think he cried out on the cross, “It is finished.” What is finished? Fr. John believes Jesus, the Creator, has completed the creation of man. Fr. John by the way is an expert on Patristics in the first 5 centuries.

I have read very little of him, but one point he made that is a big piece for the Sixth Ecumenical Council is that he taught that what is assumed by Christ is what is saved. The question in the 6th Council was whether Christ has a human will or only a divine will. St. Maximos said that everything a human being has, Christ has. Because if he did not assume one aspect of humanity, then that aspect is not saved. So if Christ did not have a human will, our own human wills is not saved. And you can say that it is a package deal, you can’t have humanity lacking. So if anything is left out then we are not saved at all. That is why it is important to believe and understand that Christ assumed the post-Fall humanity.

I never said they were not subject to time. I said they were not subject to death. Christ ate after His resurrection. There is no reason to believe that Adam and Eve did not age or anything. We don’t know if they were immortal, but for sure they were not subject to sin and death until after the fall.

l.

Wow …on your first point, response above. You have amazing insights/understandings !!

Now, because what u said is SO TRUE …when we are baptized Into Christ, and REBORN as NEW CREATIONS …losing the old man/woman sins, & becoming ‘washed clean’ by Christ
----- we can & do become UNIFIED & ACCEPTABLE to THE Godhead…via the NEW ADAM, the PERFECT ADAM & our PASCAL LAMB …into whose blood we were washed clean.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wow …on your first point, response above. You have amazing insights/understandings !!

Now, because what u said is SO TRUE …when we are baptized Into Christ, and REBORN as NEW CREATIONS …losing the old man/woman sins, & becoming ‘washed clean’ by Christ
----- we can & do become UNIFIED & ACCEPTABLE to THE Godhead…via the NEW ADAM, the PERFECT ADAM & our PASCAL LAMB …into whose blood we were washed clean.

Thank you but those were not my insights. As I mentioned, I listened to a talk by Fr. John Behr. He is indeed an amazing teacher and theologian. And I must also apologize if I am not able to relay his wisdom in the way he has delivered them to me (and those who were with me at that time).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Its not Biblical and there is “NO” eye witness. “Which” early church father would the EO like to use for this point?

Big-“T” Tradition. Like I said, read MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS and you will see that Mary’s death is mentioned many times. It wasn’t even a question. It was not part of the dogmatic statement because what needs to be dogmatized about someone’s death? Everyone dies. You don’t need a Pope to tell you ex cathedra that someone died.

Here’s a book from St. Vladimir’s Press if you want to read more into it: amazon.com/Dormition-Mary-Early-Patristic-Homilies/dp/0881411779

Also, the mere fact that the Eastern (Byzantine) Liturgical texts to profess Mary’s falling asleep, how can there be any doubt that it is the true Christian belief? It is not the habit of the Eastern Fathers and Saints to use Liturgical language that is not solid belief. It is as close as to a dogmatic proclamation the East will have, if the language of a Kontakion or Troparion is accepted into Liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Incorrect what we do know is the home where Mary lived with John still exists in Ephesus where its believe she lived and has been venerated there a very long time. The Dormition is the Dormition and the sight exist in Jerusalem. We have no witness to collaborate this. We have writings long after the fact and Very Pious at that.

We knew she lived there, we don’t know how long she stayed there. Traditions do point that she moved back to Jerusalem at some point.

Yet you argument is lacking as it is on this topic in the Eastern Forum. What you think is taught is incorrect. There is “no” difference in Original or Ancestral sin…its a fairy tale. Why was Church united till 1054 with the so-called different theology???

You are assuming that the Church in the First Millennium is so tight knit and monitored clsoely by the Vatican that there is absolutely no differences in believe throughout the wider Communion of Churches within the Roman Empire. That is absolutely false. The problem of heresies was precisely that in the early Church most bishops had free reign to preach a lot of different things. There is no Congregation of Doctrine that tells other Churches what to teach and what they cannot teach. If a certain teaching becomes problematic, that is when they address it. The Latin concept of Original Sin didn’t take root in the East, but it was never seen as a problematic concept at the time. It took root in the West but only really grew in popularity after Aquinas and eventually the dogmatization at Trent. It floated around for so long after being taught by Augustine but it wasn’t a far-reaching teaching even though it did survive for centuries until it came to the limelight in the West.

So it is not my argument that is lacking, but instead your understanding of how the Church believes and lives in the First Millennium. It is false to think it was a golden age of the Church were people believed absolutely the same things everywhere. There were a lot of diversity in theology in a Church that was in communion with one another. Again going back to St. Maximos, he came from the East. If I remember correctly, Alexandria. But how did he end up with the Pope of Rome? There was no schism between Rome and Constantinople at this time, but Rome was basically dyothelitists while the Eastern Churches were monothelitists. So explain to me then, if my argument was weak and a fairy tale, how can a united Church believe on one end that Christ had only one will, and on the other end believes he has two wills? That is how the Church was in the First Millennium. That is why to this day we have a diversity of theology. Also, just look how East and West regards Tertullian. He’s a big influence in the West but not in the East. St. John Chrysostom is a doctor in the West but he is hardly quoted compared to the likes of Augustine and Aquinas. You wonder why there is a difference in theology, there’s your answer right there. The Church was diverse from the beginning.

This suggests Christ was born in a condemned state of death which the Saint never taught. This Saint completed St Athanasius work on the Incarnation, was exiled and tortured for the refusal to state Christ was not human. Christs human nature is human with pain, feelings. but not sin, or the inclination to sin.

It seems you are not reading what I said in full, and then you say what I argue with is faulty. Please read them completely, they are sound and solid. I never said Christ was born or even concieved in a condemned state. I reiterated so many times, as soon as Christ assumed the fallen humanity, it was perfected. Because nothing can defile the divinity of God. As soon as Christ put on human flesh, that human nature is perfected. Think of a dark room and you walk in with a candle. Was there ever a moment that it was still dark and the candle is already in the room? No. The very moment the candle comes into the room, the room brightens up. So I don’t get where you are taking this idea that Christ’s humanity was ever defiled even though he took on fallen humanity. Because Christ is redeeming us, it is important that He takes on what is us. There is another saint, I believe St. John Damacene, who affirms this. But I don’t have time to dig up his teaching on this right now, you can Google it if you want.

If Christ assumed Adams state after the fall what would be the purpose?

To redeem it.

He came to correct the consequence of death not cooperate with it.

And how do you correct something that doesn’t need correction? Pre-fall Adam needs no correction, post-fall humanity does.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The two traditions of the Church are unified through the Assumption. Its not two traditions its one which cannot be verified, which lead to the second. If we go with John the Theologian then to we must admit all the visionaries.

piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/heart_mary/mary_early_church_miravalle.htm

netplaces.com/virgin-mary/mary-in-the-apocrypha/marys-death.htm

Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, states…

'this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ."

Then…

“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

This is what is required in belief. The idea Mary was assumed alive into heaven is ambiguous as this is not specifically stated and is derived from this point…“having completed here earthly course.”

In short no-where does the encyclical state; “Mary was Assumed Alive into Heaven”. And its left open intentionally. We do not have a witness who documented the account with Mary, nor does physical evidence exit, St Helena searched for Marys remains unsuccessfully, what we have is “visionaries” such as John the Theologian who can be read on New Advent. This is centuries later though. And why would we believe that and not Lourdes? False path for the debate, for as Mark of Ephesus stated, they “might be delusions” at Florence.

Now many Catholics may believe in Mary assumed alive or not. I believe Mary died and would have had it no other way, and I also am convinced She was incorrupt and Assumed into Heaven…“body and soul”.

See how easy both traditions fit.

If Elijah flew a Chariot, I can’t quantify why Mary can’t be assumed in Heaven, body and soul.

Since God required a pure Ark, the question remains why wouldn’t this be the same with Mary? Was the Ark worshipped? Of course not but it was venerated. And those who had issues with the Ark can be read about in 1 Chronicles `13;10-11, and those who cared for the Ark were Blessed 1 Chronicles 13:14

Christ is the Word made flesh, Mary is the Ark made flesh.

300 years before the Dogma Luther stated.

“… so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin … And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther’s Works, vol 4, pg 694)

"God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, " (ibid. vol 52, pg 39)

“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.” (Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)

Luthers comments being Catholic of course indicate the existing theological condition in the Church at the time, as does Bl Duns Scotus and St Thomas. The East remained with its original theology which by large can be read from the past.

Who was the “first” Christian? Did Mary need a Savior? {this is where Thomas Aquinas argument fell apart]

Mary needed a Savior more than anyone I would argue, since it was Marys prayer who found favor with God.

Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” (D711); In the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary…" (Dr. Ludwigg Otto, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma 212-13)

“With God anything is possible”. Gospel X 2.

Jesus had to be born without Ancestral Sin transmitted to Mary. Or one is left to define how this was a completely human conception without the transmitting of Ancestral “sin”. We all fell. God chose Mary before She hit the ground.

Early Church Fathers. I don’t see the dispute.

It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called ‘full of Grace’…" (373 A.D., St. Athanasius)

Blessed Virgin, immaculate and pure you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the universe. You are holy and inviolate, the hope of the hopeless and sinful; we sing your praises. We praise you as full of every grace, for you bore the God-Man. We all venerate you; we invoke you and implore your aid…Holy and immaculate Virgin…be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment…you are holy in the sight of God, to Whom be honor and glory, majesty, and power forever (373 A.D., St. Ephrem of Edessa) (catholicharboroffaithandmorals)

and

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than the others; for here is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. (Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, 370)

No Spot or Stain = Immaculate which means no pre existing condition of Ancestral Sin as stated above. Are they all wrong?

 

[brb3]

Here is one interpretation that is not contrary to Catholic teaching and doctrine. It is taken from Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda, Volume III, Chapter XXII

Take it as you will. I will furnish other interpretations at a later time.

“Already the ninth hour of the day was approaching, although the darkness and confusion of nature made it appear to be rather a chaotic night. Our Savior spoke the fourth word from the Cross in a loud and strong voice, so that all the bystanders could hear it : “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” (Matth. 27, 46.) Although the Lord had uttered these words in his own Hebrew language, they were not understood by all. Since they began with : “Eli, eli,” some of them thought He was calling upon Elias, and a number of them mocked Him saying: “Let us see whether Elias shall come to free Him from our hands ?” But the mystery concealed beneath these words was just as profound as it was unintelligible to the Jews and gentiles ; and they have been interpreted in many ways by the doctors of the Church. I shall give the interpretation which has been manifested to me. The dereliction of which Christ speaks, was not one in which the Divinity separated from the humanity, dissolving the hypostatic union, nor including a cessation of the beatific vision in his soul ; for both of these He enjoyed from the first moment of his conception by the Holy Ghost in the virginal womb and could never lose. But certainly the sacred humanity was in so far forsaken by the Divinity as it did not ward off death or the most bitter sorrows of his Passion; though, on the other hand, the eternal Father did not forsake Him entirely, since He showed his concern by causing the changes in the visible creation in order to give witness for his honor at his Death. Christ our Savior intimated quite a different dereliction by these words of complaint, one which originated from his immense love for men; namely, from his love of the foreknown as lost and the reprobate, which during his last hour caused in Him the same anguish as it did during his prayer in the garden. He grieved that his copious and superabundant Redemption, offered for the whole human race, should not be efficacious in the reprobate and that He should find Him self deprived of them in the eternal happiness, for which He had created and redeemed them. As this was to happen in consequence of the decree of his Father s eternal will, He lovingly and sorrowfully complained of it in the words: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” that is, in so far as God deprived Him of the salvation of the reprobate.”

Lets hear another explanation…

…this one doesn’t match full reality. Christ truly suffered,… tears of blood, whipped with 30 lashes, nails into hands/ feet. The Romans were brutal killers, sadists… from physical & emotional perspective. And, Christ also had to bear the Sins & punishment of Billions of humanity. Truly, no death was ever as horrific !

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wait wait wait, are you saying that Mary could have been assumed spiritually and then bodily separately? That a dead body was assumed into heaven? It makes no sense! That is actually gnostic in the fact that it denies resurrection and a belief that the soul will go on without the human body.

Remember the Greek Fathers also taught “synergia”, or synergy. Our beliefs must be in synergy with all our other beliefs. Which means that even if you chose to ignore 98% of a well written document and just chose to focus on one sentence, you still have to interpret that one sentence in light of what we believe in our entire faith. Do not isolate it from the rest of our belief. Otherwise you are no better than Protestants isolating verses from the entire Bible. Everything in our faith is a synergy with everything else, such is the wonder and mystery of God. So what makes more sense? Did Mary die or not. Of course it makes sense that she did die. Because Christ already paid the price for sin and death, he conquered sin and death. So there was no dishonor for someone to die after the crucifixion for Christ has already freed us from sin and death. And it makes no sense to believe in Mary’s Assumption if you do not believe in her Resurrection because Christ ascended into heaven alive, body and soul. And Christ promised the Resurrection to all of us. So how can Mary join Christ in heaven with her soul separate from her body? In our entire belief, it makes no sense. To assume it that way is to isolate one teaching from the rest and actually open the door to heresy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Lets hear another explanation…

…this one doesn’t match full reality. Christ truly suffered,… tears of blood, whipped with 30 lashes, nails into hands/ feet. The Romans were brutal killers, sadists… from physical & emotional perspective. And, Christ also had to bear the Sins & punishment of Billions of humanity. Truly, no death was ever as horrific !

Well, as you said, Romans were brutal (I believe it was par for the course during the time). His death as pretty much standard fare to all death sentences by Romans on non-Roman citizens. The travesty here is that Christ is sinless and guiltless. Everyone else isn’t. Even those who were sentenced to crimes they did not commit have committed other sins in their lives. Christ haven’t.

 

[GaryTaylor]

c. 60 A.D. (Luke 1:28) calls Mary “Kecharitomenae” (“Full of grace” or “perfectly graced”). Even before she assents to become the mother of the Messiah, she is already Baptized into Christ and free of all sin.

c. 100 A.D. The Proto-Evangelium of James depicts Mary as a sinless child, prepared from her mother’s womb to be the mother of the Savior. Note (This is the tradition used by Maximus the Confessor in LIfe of the Virgin) And the Saint includes Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria in stating this is what “we” believe and is the Tradition the Early Church Fathers handed down to us) in the book-600-AD

c. 180 A.D. St. Ireneaus, speaks of Mary’s sinlessness, comparing it with the original sinlessness of Eve before the Fall

c. 300-450 Church fathers throughout the universal Church speak of Mary’s sinlessness, but they do not specify when Mary’s sinlessness began

c. 350 A.D. St. Ephraim, father of the Syrian-speaking Church, writes about Mary’s sinlessness and implies her IC.

c. 450 A.D. A feast day called “The Immaculate Conception of Mary” is celebrated on December 9th, Syrian Church.

451 A.D. The Monophysite heresy (which taught that Christ had only one nature, as oppose to two natures) splits the Eastern Church. The Latin speaking Church and the Greek-speaking Church hold fast to orthodox Christianity.

c. 550 A.D. Because the Monophysite controversy threatens the unity of the Eastern Empire, the Greek emperors of Constantinople begin a policy of replacing the native bishops of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine with Greek bishops from Constantinople (i.e., imperial agents). The native Egyptians and Syro-Palestinians take offense to this policy, and call these Greek bishops “Melchites,” a Syrian word meaning “of the king’s party.\”

Due to the influence of these Greek (“Melchite”) bishops presiding over the Syrian flock, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is re-named “The Conception of Mary.” This change comes about because of the Greek theological approach to Original Sin, which differs slightly from the common Latin and Syrian theology on Original Sin. Thus, the Syrian feast was adapted to appeal to Greek sensibilities.

c. 630 A.D. St. Sophronius, the “non-Melchite” bishop of Jerusalem, speaks of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

636 A.D. The Rise of Islam: Muslims armies sweep up from Arabia and conquer the Byzantine Greek provinces of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. Islamic theology is evidently influenced by the Syrian-speaking Church, since the Koran (the holy book of Islam) speaks of Mary’s sinless conception.

Because of the Islamic conquest of the Middle East, numerous Syrian bishops and priests seek exile in Rome, and several of them are elected Pope (e.g. John V, 685-86; St. Sergius I, 687-701; Constantine, 708-15; St. Gregory III, 731-41).

c. 650 A.D. --Most likely through the influence of the Syrian Popes of Rome, or their disciples, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is transported to Italy and celebrated in Rome.

680 A.D. --A Roman council speaks of Mary as “Blessed, Immaculate, Ever-Virgin.”

c. 700 A.D. --St. John Damascene, the greatest father of the Syrian-speaking Church (who also wrote in Greek), speaks of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

c. 900 A.D. --Because of theological disputes, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is dropped from the Roman liturgical calendar. This event begins a Western debate on the Immaculate Conception, which will come to a head in the 13th Century.

c. 1050 --Despite the removal of the December 9th feast by Rome, the Immaculate Conception of Mary continues to be celebrated in the monasteries of England.

c. 1070 A.D. --After the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is defended by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1109); and later promoted by his nephew, Anselm the Younger, throughout England, Normandy, South-Central France, Sicily, Southern Italy, and the Crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land. So popular is the Conception of Mary among the Normans that December 9th becomes known as “The Feast of the Norman Nation.”

c. 1130 A.D. --St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) and Peter Lombard (1100-1160), despite their profound devotions to the Virgin Mary, oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because they assume it implies that Mary was not redeemed by Christ.

c.1255 A.D. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St. Bonaventure (1221-1274), following the view of St. Bernard, also oppose the Immaculate Conception. There is heated debate on the Immaculate Conception between the Dominicans and the Franciscans (who, following St. Francis in this).

c.1290 A.D. Blessed John Duns Scotus (1265-1308), a Franciscan scholar, provides a solid answer to the Dominican objections of the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine begins to gain more acceptance in theological circles.

1477 A.D. Pope Sixtus IV reinstates the feast of The Immaculate Conception in Italy, moving the date from December 9th to December 8th (the date we use today).

c. 1530 A.D. Martin Luther and several other Protestant reformers still profess faith in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

1708 A.D. Pope Clement XI extends the December 8th feast of the Immaculate Conception to the entire Church.

1830 A.D. The Virgin Mary appears to St. Catherine Laboure and introduces the Miraculous Medal, inscribed with the prayer: “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Due to the innumerable miracles and conversions attributed to the Miraculous Medal, devotion to Mary’s Immaculate Conception spreads throughout the Church.

1854 A.D. Pope Pius IX, declares the IC

1858 St. Bernadette and the Marian apparitions of Lourdes. Mary reveals herself to St. Bernadette with the words, “I am the Immaculate Conception,” thus bestowing Heaven’s blessing on the new dogma. (Mark Bonocore)

 

[GaryTaylor]

To redeem it. And how do you correct something that doesn’t need correction? Pre-fall Adam needs no correction, post-fall humanity does.

Exactly but this state of Jesus Christ wasn’t a fractured human nature, nor could it be post Adam and Eve. this is what He came to correct. How does this arrive Biblically. It has to assume Mary was not spared at the Incarnation, and then there could be by logic no redemption.

How can this apply to any of Early Church Fathers?

 

[brb3]

Wait wait wait, are you saying that Mary could have been assumed spiritually and then bodily separately? That a dead body was assumed into heaven? It makes no sense! That is actually gnostic in the fact that it denies resurrection and a belief that the soul will go on without the human body.

Remember the Greek Fathers also taught “synergia”, or synergy. Our beliefs must be in synergy with all our other beliefs. Which means that even if you chose to ignore 98% of a well written document and just chose to focus on one sentence, you still have to interpret that one sentence in light of what we believe in our entire faith. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]Do not isolate it from the rest of our belief. Otherwise you are no better than Protestants isolating veurses from the entire Bible. Everything in our faith is a synergy with everything else, such is the wonder and mystery of God. So what makes more sense? Did Mary die or not. Of course it makes sense that she did die. Because Christ already paid the price for sin and death, he conquered sin and death. So there was no dishonor for someone to die after the crucifixion for Christ has already freed us from sin and death. And it makes no sense to believe in Mary’s Assumption if you do not believe in her Resurrection because Christ ascended into heaven alive, body and soul. And Christ promised the Resurrection to all of us. So how can Mary join Christ in heaven with her soul separate from her body? In our entire belief, it makes no sense. To assume it that way is to isolate one teaching from the rest and actually open the door to heresy.

No, we don’t know in what state she was taken ( awake or asleep) …

.just saying she died first …before being taken

Well, maybe John did …possibly someone waited at her grave in anticipation of her Assumption

 

[brb3]

c.

60 A.D. (Luke 1:28) calls Mary “Kecharitomenae” (“Full of grace” or “perfectly graced”). Even before she assents to become the mother of the Messiah, she is already Baptized into Christ and free of all sin.

c. 100 A.D. The Proto-Evangelium of James depicts Mary as a sinless child, prepared from her mother’s womb to be the mother of the Savior. Note (This is the tradition used by Maximus the Confessor in LIfe of the Virgin) And the Saint includes Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria in stating this is what “we” believe and is the Tradition the Early Church Fathers handed down to us) in the book-600-AD

c. 180 A.D. St. Ireneaus, speaks of Mary’s sinlessness, comparing it with the original sinlessness of Eve before the Fall

c. 300-450 Church fathers throughout the universal Church speak of Mary’s sinlessness, but they do not specify when Mary’s sinlessness began

c. 350 A.D. St. Ephraim, father of the Syrian-speaking Church, writes about Mary’s sinlessness and implies her IC.

c. 450 A.D. A feast day called “The Immaculate Conception of Mary” is celebrated on December 9th, Syrian Churu A.D. The Monophysite heresy (which taught that Christ had only one nature, as oppose to two natures) splits the Eastern Church. The Latin speaking Church and the Greek-speaking Church hold fast to orthodox Christianity.

c. 550 A.D. Because the Monophysite controversy threatens the unity of the Eastern Empire, the Greek emperors of Constantinople begin a policy of replacing the native bishops of Syria, Egypt, and Palestine with Greek bishops from Constantinople (i.e., imperial agents). The native Egyptians and Syro-Palestinians take offense to this policy, and call these Greek bishops “Melchites,” a Syrian word meaning “of the king’s party.\”

Due to the influence of these Greek (“Melchite”) bishops presiding over the Syrian flock, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is re-named “The Conception of Mary.” This change comes about because of the Greek theological approach to Original Sin, which differs slightly from the common Latin and Syrian theology on Original Sin. Thus, the Syrian feast was adapted to appeal to Greek sensibilities.

c. 630 A.D. St. Sophronius, the “non-Melchite” bishop of Jerusalem, speaks of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

636 A.D. The Rise of Islam: Muslims armies sweep up from Arabia and conquer the Byzantine Greek provinces of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. Islamic theology is evidently influenced by the Syrian-speaking Church, since the Koran (the holy book of Islam) speaks of Mary’s sinless conception.

Because of the Islamic conquest of the Middle East, numerous Syrian bishops and priests seek exile in Rome, and several of them are elected Pope (e.g. John V, 685-86; St. Sergius I, 687-701; Constantine, 708-15; St. Gregory III, 731-41).

c. 650 A.D. --Most likely through the influence of the Syrian Popes of Rome, or their disciples, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is transported to Italy and celebrated in Rome.

680 A.D. --A Roman council speaks of Mary as “Blessed, Immaculate, Ever-Virgin.”

c. 700 A.D. --St. John Damascene, the greatest father of the Syrian-speaking Church (who also wrote in Greek), speaks of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

c. 900 A.D. --Because of theological disputes, the December 9th feast of the Immaculate Conception is dropped from the Roman liturgical calendar. This event begins a Western debate on the Immaculate Conception, which will come to a head in the 13th Century.

c. 1050 --Despite the removal of the December 9th feast by Rome, the Immaculate Conception of Mary continues to be celebrated in the monasteries of England.

c. 1070 A.D. --After the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is defended by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1109); and later promoted by his nephew, Anselm the Younger, throughout England, Normandy, South-Central France, Sicily, Southern Italy, and the Crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land. So popular is the Conception of Mary among the Normans that December 9th becomes known as “The Feast of the Norman Nation.”

c. 1130 A.D. --St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) and Peter Lombard (1100-1160), despite their profound devotions to the Virgin Mary, oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because they assume it implies that Mary was not redeemed by Christ.

c.1255 A.D. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St. Bonaventure (1221-1274), following the view of St. Bernard, also oppose the Immaculate Conception. There is heated debate on the Immaculate Conception between the Dominicans and the Franciscans (who, following St. Francis in this).

c.1290 A.D. Blessed John Duns Scotus (1265-1308), a Franciscan scholar, provides a solid answer to the Dominican objections of the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine begins to gain more acceptance in theological circles.

1477 A.D. Pope Sixtus IV reinstates the feast of The Immaculate Conception in Italy, moving the date from December 9th to December 8th (the date we use today).

c. 1530 A.D. Martin Luther and several other Protestant reformers still profess faith in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

1708 A.D. Pope Clement XI extends the December 8th feast of the Immaculate Conception to the entire Church
e)

Very helpful Gary !!

Several observations:

1. It was Ireneaus that first gives testimony to MARY’S sinless status.
2. Why on earth would Rome drop the Marian Feast in 900AD ? What were the concerns / debates leading to this ?
3. Bernard & Peter Lombard, while very devoted to Mary, doubted her IC status …and REMAINED Catholics in good stead with Church. As it should be today … IMO.
   How can we be less tolerant today …than Church was 1000 yrs ago ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Very helpful Gary !!

Several observations:

1. It was Ireneaus that first gives testimony to MARY’S sinless status.
2. Why on earth would Rome drop the Marian Feast in 900AD ? What were the concerns / debates leading to this ?
3. Bernard & Peter Lombard, while very devoted to Mary, doubted her IC status …and REMAINED Catholics in good stead with Church. As it should be today … IMO.
   How can we be less tolerant today …than Church was 1000 yrs ago ?

The reference with St Ireneaus is from Against Heresies. Through his teacher in Polycarp who was a student of John, his exegesis comes into play. The Feast became a contingent of the on-going debate in the Church. The IC was also approved by council at Basil then
rejected by the Pope since it wasn’t an ecumenical council in 1341 I believe.

This gives a glimpse of the issues…

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Those such a Aquinas etc, believed Mary was sinless, they just couldn’t come to understand the “how” with the IC. This was the issue for them. They believed Mary was preserved, they differed with the when aspect.

We can’t be less tolerant. In fact Christian Unity is the continuous goal of the Church. All questions are good questions. We have to start all these type of conversations in reminder that “we” ourselves are miracles. From there its much easier to see a miracle. Charity is the only way to keep minds open.

The debate with the Dominicans and Duns Scotus was on EWTN not long ago. May be able to still catch it on a re-run.

Thomas Aquinas said…

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30, 31): “Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of children are their fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Song of Songs 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.( Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III:27:4)"

St Bernard.

“If Mary could not be sanctified before her conception itself, on account of the sin (concupiscence) involved therein, it follows she was sanctified in the womb after conception, which, since she was cleansed from sin, made her birth holy and not her conception.(Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter to the Canons of Lyons, 5, 7)”

also St Bernard

“I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother.” (Epistle 174)

 

[brb3]

The reference with St Ireneaus is from Against Heresies. Through his teacher in Polycarp who was a student of John, his exegesis comes into play. The Feast became a contingent of the on-going debate in the Church. The IC was also approved by council at Basil then
rejected by the Pope since it wasn’t an ecumenical council in 1341 I believe.

This gives a glimpse of the issues…

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Those such a Aquinas etc, believed Mary was sinless, they just couldn’t come to understand the “how” with the IC. This was the issue for them. They believed Mary was preserved, they differed with the when aspect.

We can’t be less tolerant. In fact Christian Unity is the continuous goal of the Church. All questions are good questions. We have to start all these type of conversations in reminder that “we” ourselves are miracles. From there its much easier to see a miracle. Charity is the only way to keep minds open.

The debate with the Dominicans and Duns Scotus was on EWTN not long ago. May be able to still catch it on a re-run.

Thomas Aquinas said…

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30, 31): “Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of children are their fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Song of Songs 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.( Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III:27:4)"

St Bernard.

“If Mary could not be sanctified before her conception itself, on account of the sin (concupiscence) involved therein, it follows she was sanctified in the womb after conception, which, since she was cleansed from sin, made her birth holy and not her conception.(Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter to the Canons of Lyons, 5, 7)”

also St Bernard

“I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother.” (Epistle 174)

I’m in agreement with St Bernard’s assessment. Can the modern Church accept me with Bernard’s beliefs ?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly but this state of Jesus Christ wasn’t a fractured human nature, nor could it be post Adam and Eve. this is what He came to correct. How does this arrive Biblically. It has to assume Mary was not spared at the Incarnation, and then there could be by logic no redemption.

How can this apply to any of Early Church Fathers?

It wasn’t fractured because he has redeemed it. Humanity cannot be fractured when in full communion with God. At what point does Christ’s humanity ever out of communion with God? Never. Once Christ put on humanity, he was fully man and fully God all the time. But the key here is Christ’s perfect humanity is not a perfect pre-fall humanity he inherited, instead he inherited the fallen humanity and by the virtue of the Incarnation, God became flesh, that humanity instantly became perfected.

If God can spare people from the Fall, why does God have to become man in the first place? There is no point in that. Just immaculately conceive anyone and be done with it! Why would God complicate the process? Why would God allow His own Son to suffer and die a shameful death if He could just immaculately concieve everyone and free us from the bondage of Adam’s sin?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, we don’t know in what state she was taken ( awake or asleep) …

.just saying she died first …before being taken

Well, maybe John did …possibly someone waited at her grave in anticipation of her Assumption

Tradition is clear, she was resurrected by Jesus and immediately taken up to heaven. God is the God of the living, I can’t imagine a dead body being in heaven.