Interesting statement by the late Cardinal Congar

[Alethiaphile]

The great theologian and ecumenist of the Catholic Church:

From the day when the Second Person of the Trinity took flesh in the womb of Mary, there began to beat in the world a perfectly filial heart; there existed a human consciousness and freedom which were receptive and wholly offered to God so that His will of salvation could be perfectly unfolded." Jesus Christ, Herder and Herder, 1966, p. 101, my emphasis.

Notice the word “began”. The plain sense is that Christ’s was the first “perfectly filial heart”. Interesting implications for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Joe

 

[mardukm]

The great theologian and ecumenist of the Catholic Church:

From the day when the Second Person of the Trinity took flesh in the womb of Mary, there began to beat in the world a perfectly filial heart; there existed a human consciousness and freedom which were receptive and wholly offered to God so that His will of salvation could be perfectly unfolded." Jesus Christ, Herder and Herder, 1966, p. 101, my emphasis.

Notice the word “began”. The plain sense is that Christ’s was the first “perfectly filial heart”. Interesting implications for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Joe

Not really. The word “filial” refers to the relationship as Son. Jesus indeed was the First-born of God in eternity and in time. All salvation and perfection, even Mary’s, flows from Jesus first.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

Not really. The word “filial” refers to the relationship as Son. Jesus indeed was the First-born of God in eternity and in time. All salvation and perfection, even Mary’s, flows from Jesus first.

Blessings,
Marduk

You are ignoring the rest of the quote: “there existed a human consciousness and freedom which were receptive and wholly offered to God so that His will of salvation could be perfectly unfolded.” This is what is claimed about Mary due to the Immaculate Concpetion.

 

[BennyBoy89]

So what’s your point? Interesting attempt to “disprove” the Immaculate Conception. Even if this statement meant nearly what you want to make it mean, the words of one cardinal don’t mean anything in the Deposit of Faith. In other words, “thank-you, Your Eminence, for that opinion. Moving on…”

Besides, I’m immediately distrustful of anyone described as a “great ecumenist.”

 

[Benadam]

**so that His will of salvation could be perfectly unfolded." **

No sinless human could make that happen. That describes the ‘Christ Event’ and could only be initiated and maintained by a divine person.

Untill then God had to operate vicariously which is unable to unfold salvation perfectly.

 

[Eucharisted]

How dose this disprove Mary’s sinlessness? All I see is the Cardinal making the point that Jesus is the new Adam and that, because He is the One through whom God redeems man, Mary’s sinlessness comes from Jesus.

 

[Alethiaphile]

So what’s your point? Interesting attempt to “disprove” the Immaculate Conception. Even if this statement meant nearly what you want to make it mean, the words of one cardinal don’t mean anything in the Deposit of Faith. In other words, “thank-you, Your Eminence, for that opinion. Moving on…”
Besides, I’m immediately distrustful of anyone described as a “great ecumenist.”

My point is that in the thought of men like Cardinal Congar who dared to engage Eastern theology, even if they remained officially linked to Rome, Orthodoxy has a way of creeping in.

Too bad you don’t recognize the expression of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith in Cardinal Congar’s words. And ignoring him is your loss. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

How dose this disprove Mary’s sinlessness? All I see is the Cardinal making the point that Jesus is the new Adam and that, because He is the One through whom God redeems man, Mary’s sinlessness comes from Jesus.

The sense of the passage is that Jesus was the first to have a “heart” totally committed to God. Jesus recieved His human nature from Mary. If she was already totally sanctified and given over to God, that meant the Redemption was already accomplished in her, rather than in Christ.

 

[Ghosty]

The sense of the passage is that Jesus was the first to have a “heart” totally committed to God. Jesus recieved His human nature from Mary. If she was already totally sanctified and given over to God, that meant the Redemption was already accomplished in her, rather than in Christ.

The passage doesn’t say, nor imply, that this was the only “truly filial heart”; it simply says that when Christ was conceived, His heart was perfectly filial from the first moment. You’re clearly reading way too much into this passage.

Peace and God bless!

 

[nohamaria]

The sense of the passage is that Jesus was the first to have a “heart” totally committed to God. Jesus recieved His human nature from Mary. If she was already totally sanctified and given over to God, that meant the Redemption was already accomplished in her, rather than in Christ.

The redemption has been accomplished by God wHo is Jesus
The Word of God incarnated, and the Second person of the Divine
Trinity. This redemption has been given to His Mother The Virgin
Who shared with Her Son as human The act of redemption.
She is Pure of Original Sin and a Very special human creature.
But the act of redemption was made by Her Son, The Word Of God, and she was
given it’s fruit like us. Would you please refer to the Catholic church
teaching about the matter and stop giving haste opinions on it.
and don’t forget to read the Message Of Lourde concerning the Immaculate
Conception.
Thank You and God Bless.
Nohamaria

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

You are ignoring the rest of the quote: “there existed a human consciousness and freedom which were receptive and wholly offered to God so that His will of salvation could be perfectly unfolded.” This is what is claimed about Mary due to the Immaculate Concpetion.

The difference is that Mary’s receptiveness, her very holiness, was aided by Grace. Jesus needed no such aid for He was/is God Himself. I’m certain that is all Yves Congar meant. I think critics of the Immaculate Conception always lose sight of that important fact.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

The difference is that Mary’s receptiveness, her very holiness, was aided by Grace. Jesus needed no such aid for He was/is God Himself. I’m certain that is all Yves Congar meant. I think critics of the Immaculate Conception always lose sight of that important fact.

Blessings,
Marduk

There’s also the fact that even without the Immaculate Conception, both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless and perfectly obedient and submissive to God’s Will. Some may believe that it came after her conception, but it is a universal teaching; the latest I’ve seen it stated as occuring is at the Annunciation, which is still before the conception of Christ.

So, if Congar did indeed mean what Alethiaphile says he meant, he’d actually be out of sync with Orthodoxy, not following it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,
The difference is that Mary’s receptiveness, her very holiness, was aided by Grace. Jesus needed no such aid for He was/is God Himself. I’m certain that is all Yves Congar meant. I think critics of the Immaculate Conception always lose sight of that important fact.
Blessings,
Marduk

I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe

 

[Ghosty]

I agree that is an important aspect of the current western teaching, but it has its own negative consequences, namely that is makes Mary a purely passive receptacle for Grace, without any cooperation of her free will (I’m speaking of the moment of her conception). Thus, the western teaching falls into the extreme Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist position of irresistable grace, at least with respect to Mary. Do you not see that as a problem? Joe

Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Benadam]

Givent the overwhelming emphasis of Mary’s Fiat (her willful “Yes” to St. Gabriel’s Annunciation) in the West, this seems like a hollow criticism.

Peace and God bless!

perhaps the word passive is misunderstood as used?

I understand that Mary’s sinless state allowed her the freedom to say yes continually to the demands of God’s love but in no way caused her to will yes continually.

 

[Ghosty]

perhaps the word passive is misunderstood as used?

I understand that Mary’s sinless state allowed her the freedom to say yes continually to the demands of God’s love but in no way caused her to will yes continually.

You might be right. The “passivity” of Mary simply refers to the fact that she was purely a recipient of God’s Grace, and not a Source of it like the Son. Obviously she was active in her acceptance of this Grace throughout her life, however, which is the whole point of the emphasis of her “fiat”; she said “yes” with her own will, not because it was forced on her.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

My point is that in the thought of men like Cardinal Congar who dared to engage Eastern theology, even if they remained officially linked to Rome, Orthodoxy has a way of creeping in.

Too bad you don’t recognize the expression of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith in Cardinal Congar’s words. And ignoring him is your loss. Joe

I just found out quite by accident (while researching another topic) a couple of hours ago that the EOC celebrates the Feast of the Conception of Mary on December 9 where it is admitted that the Holy Spirit gave Mary all the graces a creature could receive at the moment of her conception. This is exactly what the dogma of the IC teaches.

Why do you reject the teaching? Do you really reject the subtance of the dogma, or perhaps it is simply that you do not really understand what it teaches since it is couched in Latin terminology?

Is there such a thing as “cafeteria Eastern Orthodoxy?” Seriously, can one be considered Orthodox" (big-O) if one rejects teachings not dogmatized by a Council (ecumenical or otherwise)? Do Eastern Orthodox Christians generally consider themselves free to reject teachings that have not been dogmatized, but are otherwise contained in your Tradition?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Benadam]

You might be right. The “passivity” of Mary simply refers to the fact that she was purely a recipient of God’s Grace, and not a Source of it like the Son. Obviously she was active in her acceptance of this Grace throughout her life, however, which is the whole point of the emphasis of her “fiat”; she said “yes” with her own will, not because it was forced on her.

Peace and God bless!

Is that a kind of proof that Mary wouldn’t have refused her Immaculate Conception? Or show us that in some mysterious way she really didn’t

 

[Ghosty]

Is that a kind of proof that Mary wouldn’t have refused her Immaculate Conception? Or show us that in some mysterious way she really didn’t

Not quite sure what you’re getting at, to be honest.

Mary could have turned away from God at any time and fallen into sin, she could have refused the Annunciation, ect. I’m not sure what you mean by refusing her Immaculate Conception, since she had no capability to accept or refuse such a thing.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Benadam]

Not quite sure what you’re getting at, to be honest.

Mary could have turned away from God at any time and fallen into sin, she could have refused the Annunciation, ect. I’m not sure what you mean by refusing her Immaculate Conception, since she had no capability to accept or refuse such a thing.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty, I’m thinking that when we think of Mary’s ‘yes’ it’s not just a moment of decision it is a continuous yes to do what love requires at every moment. If Mary lived a life of saying yes at every monment it stands to reason that the moment of conception would be no different