Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

It would still be solely by the grace of God, and so her personal qualities would be irrelevant, no?

Incidentally, when we Catholics (and Orthodox) become, like Mary, dwelling places for the Divine Word, human tabernacles as it were, at the Eucharist, we, too, must be sinless.

That is why it is an abomination for anyone with mortal sin to go before Him to receive Him in the One Flesh Union.

 

[adrift]

Such concept only exists in modern thought and is found nowhere in Scripture both Old and New Testament, as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers. To introduce modern theory based on science fiction fantasy into our faith is ridiculous.

There is two choices here either God created everything including time therefore being outside of time or
Time always existed and God didn’t create everything.
The thought doesn’t exist in scripture?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [R] +]
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [R] +]
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [R] +]
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [R] +]
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus says the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy

2 Peter 3:8

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day

 

[dvdjs]

We don’t decide upon authority, we decide on truth. Truth is authoritative by itself.

If error has occurred, then it has to be corrected.

Besides, how can I judge? I can only see snippets you provided which seemingly is pretty conveniently on your side. But I neither would go through the effort to read the entire thing just to prove it to you. I know what Orthodoxy teaches. I’m pretty sure these people who use “Original Sin” as a term would mean the same thing I mean, and not what the Roman Catholic Church means when they use the term.

On the contrary, you are relying on your own authority to discern the truth - your own private judgment. How can you judge? Great question. In this instance, you assume that you know what Orthodoxy teaches, and when confronted with opposing, Orthodox ideas, you state that you won’t look into it. If there is an error, it will not be corrected. Sotyour question is great - how can you judge?

 

[dvdjs]

Is it true that the doctrine of Original Sin implies that one must seek knowledge only through God? That unless God gives permission, seeking knowledge is a sin?

No.

 

[dvdjs]

Such concept only exists in modern thought and is found nowhere in Scripture both Old and New Testament, as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers. …

You seem certain of orthodox teachings on this matter; can you provide some foundation?

Fr Seraphim Rose wrote to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, in a discussion of evolution and creation, that

…God is outside of time; to Him everything is present.

The OCA website also has:

God exists before time, in an eternally timeless existence without beginning or end.
Eternity as a word does not mean endless time. It means the condition of no time at all—no past or future, just a constant present. For God there is no past or future. For God, all is now.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

It is fitting, but not necessary, for Mary to be immaculate and pure and a perfect vessel.

So while God did not have to make her free from sin–it’s true that God could dwell in a filthy, sinful creature, too–it’s fitting that the Eternal Logos be in a fitting vessel.

I’ve been silently reading all the different arguments with interest on this thread,. and want to query this idea of the IC being “fitting”. Who are we to decide what is “fitting” for God to do?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been silently reading all the different arguments with interest on this thread,. and want to query this idea of the IC being “fitting”. Who are we to decide what is “fitting” for God to do?

I’m not understanding the question.

Why can’t we say what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable?
Why can’t we say what is fitting and what is not fitting?
Why can’t we say what is logical and what is illogical?

 

[Thinkingaloud]

I’m not understanding the question.

Why can’t we say what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable?
Why can’t we say what is fitting and what is not fitting?
Why can’t we say what is logical and what is illogical?

Sorry., I’ll try and explain better. If I were going by my own reasoning. The idea of God becoming a human in a creature’s womb., even a perfect one would seem unfitting for God., the same with entering and living in this sinful painful world. But God thought differently. If God saw it fit to send His Son to live and breath ion an uncleansed world., what difference does it make to whether the womb was entirely free of original sin or not when He was living and breathing in a sin drenched world? If God thought it fit He should live in a dirty world., why should a non spotless womb be considered more fitting? The argument that it is fitting I can’t see as holding up since our ideas are not always true. It’s like us telling God the best way for Him to act
On a second point - I’d be interested knowing what the earliest sources there are that teach the sinlessness of Mary. Is there any evidence the apostles taught this doctrine?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry., I’ll try and explain better. If I were going by my own reasoning. The idea of God becoming a human in a creature’s womb., even a perfect one would seem unfitting for God., the same with entering and living in this sinful painful world. But God thought differently. If God saw it fit to send His Son to live and breath ion an uncleansed world., what difference does it make to whether the womb was entirely free of original sin or not when He was living and breathing in a sin drenched world? If God thought it fit He should live in a dirty world., why should a non spotless womb be considered more fitting? The argument that it is fitting I can’t see as holding up since our ideas are not always true. It’s like us telling God the best way for Him to act

So is your argument that Mary didn’t** have** to be pure, since God Incarnated into a sinful, impure world?

Or that we do not have the ability to discern what would be fitting and not fitting?

On a second point - I’d be interested knowing what the earliest sources there are that teach the sinlessness of Mary. Is there any evidence the apostles taught this doctrine?

The best one is from Luke.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:28[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Thinkingaloud]

So is your argument that Mary didn’t** have** to be pure, since God Incarnated into a sinful, impure world?

Or that we do not have the ability to discern what would be fitting and not fitting?]

The second., I understand you’re not arguing from necessity

The best one is from Luke.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:28[/BIBLEDRB]

Thanks. I’m going to read a few commentaries to understand the original Greek better but to be honest.I don’t see anything about Mary’s sinlessness in those words

 

[Porknpie]

I’ve been silently reading all the different arguments with interest on this thread,. and want to query this idea of the IC being “fitting”. Who are we to decide what is “fitting” for God to do?

Thinking…

Here’s a couple of things to think about.

The Ark of the Covenant held:

• stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed on stone
  -The urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven
• The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest

Mary, the Mother of God, the New Ark held:

• The body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh
• The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
• The actual and eternal High Priest

Do you see how the OT Ark prefigured the NT Ark?

Now add: the OT Ark was so Holy, no one could touch it without dying.

So what is the implication of the NT Ark…was it less holy than the OT Ark, the same or More So? Remember, the NT Ark held the Word of God in the flesh, not a pre-figurement.

Reason and logic…what is fitting for the NT ark? Then add the insight that Mary was “full of grace”…she had no room for sin…and she was “blessed among women” … or the “greatest of women”, more so than Eve who was born without sin.

Source above and to read on subject

 

[PRmerger]

The second., I understand you’re not arguing from necessity

Then I don’t understand where it is you are coming from, where you feel it is outside of the use of our logic and reason to discern what would be fitting and what would not be fitting.

Do you think that we ought not be able to say, “You must wear shoes and shirts when you come in to worship. It is not fitting to be barefoot and shirtless when you come before the Lord.”

You think that we cannot make this discernment?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks. I’m going to read a few commentaries to understand the original Greek better but to be honest.I don’t see anything about Mary’s sinlessness in those words

How about these quotes from the ECFs?

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).
source

 

[dvdjs]

The argument that it is fitting I can’t see as holding up since our ideas are not always true.

I think you get the sense of “fitting”, and I appreciate your comment. The only the thing I would say is that the “we” is the Church, back to the Patristic era.

St. Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)

Pope St. Leo the Great
For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself . . . (Sermon XXII: On the Feast of the Nativity, Part II; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)

St. Gregory of Nyssa
It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)

St. Sophronius
Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you . . . And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God’s gifts as you were; no one shared God’s grace as you did. (In SS Deip. Annunt. 22; O’Carroll, 329)

It’s like us telling God the best way for Him to act

No, it is really just us appreciating the divine plan.

On a second point - I’d be interested knowing what the earliest sources there are that teach the sinlessness of Mary. Is there any evidence the apostles taught this doctrine?

Not written in the Apostolic Age, but abundantly from the time of the Conciliar declaration on the Theotokos. I took the quote above from a link that has more on the sinlessness of the Theotokos. socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/church-fathers-on-sinlessness-of-mary.html

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Thinking…

Here’s a couple of things to think about.

The Ark of the Covenant held:

• stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed on stone
  -The urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven
• The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest

Mary, the Mother of God, the New Ark held:

• The body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh
• The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
• The actual and eternal High Priest

Do you see how the OT Ark prefigured the NT Ark?]

I can see the similarities. However,. it can also be interpreted as he ark representing Christ who fulfils in Himself all these things. Some of the symbolism fits Christ better than Mary - for example

the objects are never taken out of the womb - Christ didn’t stay in the womb

The ark represented God’s presence in the midst of His people - Christ is the Immanuel

The Mercy seat sealed the ark shut and blood was sprinkled over it - Christ offers Himself as our atonement., covering the law,. just as the ark did.

It seems a bit precarious to use this as the main argument for Mary.

Now add: the OT Ark was so Holy, no one could touch it without dying.

So what is the implication of the NT Ark…was it less holy than the OT Ark, the same or More So? Remember, the NT Ark held the Word of God in the flesh, not a pre-figurement.

Reason and logic…what is fitting for the NT ark? Then add the insight that Mary was “full of grace”…she had no room for sin…and she was “blessed among women” … or the “greatest of women”, more so than Eve who was born without sin.

Source above and to read on subject

In terms of “full of Grace” - Most modern Bibles., including catholic ones,. translate it as “Greetings favoured one” or “graced one”. “Full of Grace” is not found in the original Greek,. and even if it was., the fact Stephen was “full of grace” doesn’t make him sinless.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Then I don’t understand where it is you are coming from, where you feel it is outside of the use of our logic and reason to discern what would be fitting and what would not be fitting.

Do you think that we ought not be able to say, “You must wear shoes and shirts when you come in to worship. It is not fitting to be barefoot and shirtless when you come before the Lord.”

You think that we cannot make this discernment?

Not when it comes to how God acts

 

[Thinkingaloud]

How about these quotes from the ECFs?

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).
source

Brilliant., yes thanks . I am very interested in Church history.

The quote from Hippolytus though refers to “He was the ark” It seems the earliest quote you gave interprets the ark as representing Christ?

 

[Thinkingaloud]

I think you get the sense of “fitting”, and I appreciate your comment. The only the thing I would say is that the “we” is the Church, back to the Patristic era.

No, it is really just us appreciating the divine plan.

Not written in the Apostolic Age, but abundantly from the time of the Conciliar declaration on the Theotokos. I took the quote above from a link that has more on the sinlessness of the Theotokos. socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/church-fathers-on-sinlessness-of-mary.html

Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles. From my protestant perspective,if this truly was part of the apostolic deposit of faith then we should see evidence of such a belief earlier. The fact it became a widely held belief in the church 300 years after doesn’t necessarily prove apostolic origin.

In fact this thread has got me pondering…From a protestant perspective assuming the imputation is real., then Mary would indeed be found sinless before God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles. From my protestant perspective,if this truly was part of the apostolic deposit of faith then we should see evidence of such a belief earlier. The fact it became a widely held belief in the church 300 years after doesn’t necessarily prove apostolic origin.

Not really the period bought focus to the nature of Christ. Patristic writing touchs on the topic also though from earlier.

google.com/url?q=http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html&sa=U&ei=59-BT97cMsbB0QGH79j-Bw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=yYKG5QdQ_0bMWVk9PG2ymg&usg=AFQjCNFXbBesRSVK1Ca6ox_gBtuVZffY_w

 

[Porknpie]

In terms of “full of Grace” - Most modern Bibles., including catholic ones,. translate it as “Greetings favoured one” or “graced one”. “Full of Grace” is not found in the original Greek,. and even if it was., the fact Stephen was “full of grace” doesn’t make him sinless.

Thinking…

Read this tract…it may help.

Catholics understand that even if in a Catholic bible saying “highly favored one” is also understood as “full of grace”.

Some non-Catholics however follow a preconceived view and misinterpret the Greek. Rebels they are…