Tradition seems to be the connecting factor.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2Ffr90203.htm&ei=5dVBUOuWO8m66AHctYHwCA&usg=AFQjCNHe8pJ7HKy47SB_qIdS7cs_CWombA&sig2=1kiu9Xx-kccLdAYd4EeREA
Without doubt much has been said in regards to Marys perpetual virginity. Physical integrity I believe was contingent to the thought process of purity not only of body but of thought in regards to sin. As we see above most noted with St. Ambrose (397 A.D.), bishop of Milan, proclaimed Christ who was “born of a virgin,” and adds, “Mary was a Virgin not in body only, but mind also . . . so pure that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Lord. God made her whom He had chosen and chose her of whom He would be made.”
Its a compelling arguement which I believe Bl Duns Scotus culminates with his contemplation a few years after Aquinas had much conflict with this by switching the focus of the agruement as stated above to a preservative redemption opposed to a restorative redemption.
The question which erks me is if this was know and preconceived by God the Father which I believe it was, He is not subject to time, why would He wait for the purification in a time incapsulated manner. This is like your or I viewing a clock and thinking, “I could do this later.” I can’t comprehend this in God. Certainly this wasn’t a in the moment choice. That would lack for certain.
Its a matter of two paths which arrive at the same point. Yet both paths imply something very different on a moral ethical level. Yet this moral ethical level is “never” questioned in the history of the church till the later reformers. I see it as the high moral ethical road.
Without a doubt a mystery which I believe will be further clarified in time by history. Professor Pelikan wrote on Mary in the mid-late 90’s, I have yet to see a better researched piece since then. However, much more has already came to light through Patristic reasearch in the early church liturgy and which dates earlier than canon and also the christian works in early christianity such as Acts of Andrew.
For example by tradition Joachim and Anne are considered to be the names of the parents of Mary, the Mother of God. We have no historical evidence of any elements of their lives, including their names. Any stories about Mary’s parents come to us through legend and tradition. Or the Gospel of James yet this cannot be trusted to be factual, historical, or the Word of God.
Why is it then that a Feast day is held is regard to this? Its Faith through Tradition for there is no other explaination. We are lost to explain here. Its far by me to state this isn’t correct in the light of the history of the Church.
Its unfortunate that the Humanity/Divinity of the Lord was so highly contested by heretics in these years which draws all the energy of focus to Christ by many of the greatest minds of those early centuries. Biblically also and rightfully so.
St. Athanasius is a great example, while his work doesn’t reflect the IC. Its worthy of comment since it shows how Mary is thought of as Queen of Heaven and mediator of Grace through the HS. Another thought highly contested today and a dividing area for much of Christianity also. The idea that “Mary is not different than any other Christian woman” is only a means to justify ones own thought process in cognative theory.
If Mary had been prone to the “thought” of sin. Then why wouldn’t She be also subjected to the thought of mortal sin? Had this been the case then what we encounter here is truly a wonder since the thought/emotion/reaction process is so interconnected. Its not that individuals can’t reach a high point or moral ethical level. Its that cognitive defined enters into a new realm with Mary of which I believe we have no other model to compare with in humanity. But the humanity the Lord Himself took on in humility through Mary. So much comes into play here that I believe the Coptic Church Tradition on Marys childhood is correct if indeed the Early Church Fathers are correct. While we cannot prove by record what indeed happened from Marys birth to the age of Conception. The Coptic Tradition on a moral ethical level makes the most sense. Audio, Visual, Short and Long term memory, on a path in history, in a human life, all interact, including how quickly we process.
Now to view Mary in these very “normal” terms which we all are subject to be it “normal” itself is subjective. Mary is either truly an exception, or we have a very “normal” woman here which counters the thinking proposed very early on. Mary would have had to have been subjected to all this, that all us as humans are subjected to, be it by cooperation, or as part of the path we walk and the dust which accumulates on us. This rolled off Christ like water to a duck. Same I believe occurs with Mary.
As we view Mary we see no comparison. Who? IMHO its not difficult to see the idea of Queen or mediator, Mother of God, Virgin, etc. Or we would have to concede we are discussing something very different than the thought process of the Early Church Fathers.
Mystery, Mystery, and more Mystery. I see no reason in debating it. However I do believe Erasmus was correct and we should stick to the teachings of the Church non-dogmatically, and admit we do not have all the answers! Why? Because the Church has served mankind, the family and the needy and sick throughout history, and more so today than ever. The family was the concern of Erasmus, and look whats occured in a very quick 500 years? This very idea is rationalized today and in the name of Christianity.
The solution is a united Apostolic Church. While many dividing issues may seem like large gaps to some. They pale in comparision to what man contemplates as Salvation today, even in aspects of Christianity.
