Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What else could the natural reaction of the uneducated Protestant be but, “Wow. Who needs God when you’ve got Mary?”

–Mike
Recalling the words of Christ, Matt 11:11

“Truly, I say to you, among those born of woman there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

So we might at first think Mary has been overshadowed by John, except for the second half of the teaching.

Perhaps the teaching here is that God has used various special individuals in history to accomplish his purposes the OT prophets, Moses, David, John, and even Mary] . These people had special revelations from God … that enabled them to serve specific function/roles.

For the rest who come to Christ via faith and then receive our spiritual revelation/graces … it seems God might one day elevate
them to even higher honor.

So, while Mary may currently enjoy a very special role in the Church … in the Kingdom others may be placed ahead of her.
 
Strange, but you seem to have left out the first two sentences from the two paragraphs you quoted.

**“Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother.” **

Perhaps you just missed it?

Chuck
All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin – in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign “from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,” and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.
Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
What else could the natural reaction of the uneducated Protestant be but, “Wow. Who needs God when you’ve got Mary?”

–Mike
 
I told you where you could find the quotes.
Well, I don’t intend to purchase the reference material. Money is rather tight these days.
How convenient to be able to dismiss as hyperbole an explicit statement you don’t want to accept.
For all I know, St. Ephraim did believe that Mary was free from original sin. But who’s to say that wasn’t simply his private opinion (much as I’ve been told every time I’ve found something in the Fathers which doesn’t jibe with modern Catholic teaching, “That was just his personal opinion”)?
Phil 2:6-11 is a hymn, too. Perhaps that’s also hyperbole?
Maybe accurate hyperbole? 😉

–Mike
 
Strange, but you seem to have left out the first two sentences from the two paragraphs you quoted.

"Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother."
Well, it doesn’t exactly override the focus of the passages, does it? The pope briefly acknowledges Christ and then lavishes so much praise and glory upon Mary one would think she was a divine being in her own right, and, more disconcertingly, the one on whom we are supposed to focus our attention the most. Call me crazy, but I, and certainly most Protestants, have problems with anything that advises the Christian’s taking his/her primary attention away from Christ and giving it to someone else, even His Mother.

–Mike
 
Well, it doesn’t exactly override the focus of the passages, does it? The pope briefly acknowledges Christ and then lavishes so much praise and glory upon Mary one would think she was a divine being in her own right, and, more disconcertingly, the one on whom we are supposed to focus our attention the most. Call me crazy, but I, and certainly most Protestants, have problems with anything that advises the Christian’s taking his/her primary attention away from Christ and giving it to someone else, even His Mother.

–Mike
Hmm…a pronouncement about Mary, I wonder why it would lavish praise on Mary?

OK, you are crazy. 😃

And the Church doesn’t advise anything of the sort.

BTW do you object to the “Communion of Saints” as well?

Chuck
 
BTW do you object to the “Communion of Saints” as well?
Not enough experience with the subject to say either way, really. I expect I’ll learn more about this when I eventually study the 7th Ecumenical Council.

–Mike
 
Here’s a later pope weighing in on the connection between sex (even married sex) and sin:
Nor do we, in saying these things, account wedlock as sin. But, since even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, entrance into a sacred place should be abstained from, because the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin. For he had not been born of adultery or fornication, but of lawful wedlock, who said, Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother brought me forth. For, knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquities, he groaned for having been born in sin, because the tree bears in its branch the vicious humour which it has drawn from its root. Yet in these words he does not call the intercourse of the wedded iniquity in itself, but in truth only the pleasure of the intercourse. For there are many things which are allowed and legitimate, and yet we are to some extent defiled in the doing of them; as often we attack faults with anger, and disturb the tranquillity of our own mind. And, though what is done is right, yet it is not to be approved that the mind is therein disturbed. For instance, he had been angry against the vices of transgressors who said, Mine eye is disturbed because of anger. For, since the mind cannot, unless it be tranquil, lift itself up to the light of contemplation, he grieved that his eye was disturbed in anger, because, though assailing evil doings from above, he still could not help being confused and disturbed from contemplation of the highest things. And therefore his anger against vice is laudable, and yet it troubles him, because he felt that he had incurred some guilt in being disturbed. Lawful copulation of the flesh ought therefore to be for the purpose of offspring, not of pleasure; and intercourse of the flesh should be for the sake of producing children, and not a satisfaction of frailties. If, then, any one makes use of his wife not as seized by the desire of pleasure, but only for the sake of producing children, he certainly, with regard to entering the church or taking the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord, is to be left to his own judgment, since by us he ought not to be prohibited from receiving it who knows no burning though in the midst of fire. But, when not the love of producing offspring but pleasure dominates in the act of intercourse, married persons have something to mourn over in their intercourse. For holy preaching concedes them this, and yet in the very concession shakes the mind with fear. For, when the Apostle Paul said, Who cannot contain let him have his own wife, he straightway took care to add, But I speak this by way of indulgence, not by way of command. For what is just and right is not indulged: what he spoke of as indulged he shewed to be a fault.
–Pope Gregory the Great, Letters, Book XI, Epistle LXIV (To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli)
 
I see no cause here for allowing the tranquillity of my mind to be disturbed.
 
Here’s a later pope weighing in on the connection between sex (even married sex) and sin:
Paul was teaching its more honorable to be married, than to burn with lust. I don’t think Paul looked on mutually satisfing, heterosexual, marital sex as sinful.

Catholics don’t see need to confess everytime they have pleasures from maritial sex do they ?
 
Paul was teaching its more honorable to be married, than to burn with lust. I don’t think Paul looked on mutually satisfing, heterosexual, marital sex as sinful. Catholics don’t see need to confess everytime they have pleasures from maritial sex do they ?
Personally, I figured Paul thought that marriage was God’s given recourse to Christians who couldn’t contain their passion and live a life of voluntary celibacy. Basically, God gave it to some to be celibate and to others to express their sexuality via the one legitimate avenue of marriage. (Notice that under this view, there’s nothing which suggests that artificial, non-abortive contraception would be prohibited to Christians.)

The Fathers took a dimmer view of sex, however, judging that if God gave it to some people to be married, it was for the propogation of the human race only. Pleasure might be a by-product of sex in marriage, but it can’t be the point. In other words, rather than viewing sexual desire as a legitimate, pre-Fall part of human existence, the Fathers viewed it as a consequence of the Fall. Thus, the only legitimate use of human sexuality in marriage, in the eyes of the Fathers, is to procreate, which is why there exists the prohibition against artificial, non-abortive contraception in the Church.

–Mike
 
Thus, the only legitimate use of human sexuality in marriage, in the eyes of the Fathers, is to procreate, which is why there exists the prohibition against artificial, non-abortive contraception in the Church.
Dare one ask how you know that? Extensive study of Humanae Vitae, perhaps?
 
Dare one ask how you know that? Extensive study of Humanae Vitae, perhaps?
Extensive study of the Fathers, actually. “Sex is only for procreation” is a a common theme of their writings concerning marriage. Most of them take a very dim view of sex. “A form of procreation fit for beasts,” is how one of the Fathers described it – and no, he was not simply making a clinical observation.

With regard to the most prominent of the Western Fathers, St. Augustine, his view was that in the beginning, before the Fall, man had conscious control over his sexual organs even as he consciously controls his arms or legs. After the Fall, however, man lost this control and now has to invoke lust to make use of his sexual member, thus “using something evil to do something good” (which is why the Fathers, especially the Westerns like Pope Leo, viewed sexual intercourse as necessarily transmitting original sin).

–Mike
 
He’s essentially saying, “I don’t know that the Virgin Mary was free from sins, but I will except her from sins for the Lord’s honor.” Augustine is not making a definite statement about the Virgin Mary here. Rather, he’s refraining to make a definite statement about the Virgin Mary out of respect for Christ. Indeed, I think it would even be fair to say that Augustine wants to lump the Virgin Mary in with the rest of humanity so that his argument will be consistent, but because he doesn’t want to appear disrepectful, he excuses himself from making such a statement. Whatever the case, to use this statement of Augustine as something definitive with respect to the Immaculate Conception is to cast upon it the exact opposite of its carefully-crafted meaning: Augustine here evades, rather than answers, the question.

Mike… I don’t see your point on differentiating original sin vs sins committed later in life. By this I mean if one can live a life free of sin … they have surely dealt with / overcome the original stain of sin. I do agree with Augustine, that if this group [excepting Mary] were asked if they were w/o sin, they would probably allow they were sinners. It has been said that it is the saints in the Catholic Church who are most aware of their sins.

Secondly, I see Augustine making a stronger statement in regards to sinless status of Mary. He really seems to believe she was exceptional from the others … fully graced by God from all sin.
 
Extensive study of the Fathers, actually.
Before you conclude that you know better than the Church why she teaches what she does, humility and justice might require you to investigate the reasons the Church gives for teaching what she does. Humanae Vitae, for instance.

Seems to me.
 
Personally, I figured Paul thought that marriage was God’s given recourse to Christians who couldn’t contain their passion and live a life of voluntary celibacy.
Peter was married, and Paul had perhaps been at one time. To be a Pharisee in good standing …one needed to be married.

So, I think Paul knew the norm was to be married, and his ability to stay celibate was the exception.

What became of Peter & Paul’s wifes ? That is the question some would want answered.
 
Extensive study of the Fathers, actually. “Sex is only for procreation” is a a common theme of their writings concerning marriage. Most of them take a very dim view of sex.
I think that most ECF’s probably held this view. But, where did they get this idea ? Since Paul’s letter on Church leaders allows for them to be married.

I’d guess it became an early teaching in the Church … probably communicated from the time of first Apostles.

We all know why the Church desires Priests / Nuns to remain celibate. They is a very good reason for it … otherwise the Magi would of done away with it over time.
 
Likewise, it’s precisely because of the quotes from various Fathers which I have presented in this thread that I have come to be sure that the Immaculate Conception was not part of the original deposit of the faith given to the Apostles.
I think John believed it. The Tradition probably started with him. He knew Mary the best. I doubt he strongly taught it to his disciples. The male oriented world at that time probably was not ready for it. But, by 300 AD, and the changing of the Roman rule, I think times allowed it to gain favor.
 
Mike… I don’t see your point on differentiating original sin vs sins committed later in life. By this I mean if one can live a life free of sin … they have surely dealt with / overcome the original stain of sin. I do agree with Augustine, that if this group [excepting Mary] were asked if they were w/o sin, they would probably allow they were sinners. It has been said that it is the saints in the Catholic Church who are most aware of their sins.
I agree that a life without sin implies the absence of original sin, but Augustine is not explicitly stating anything about original sin here because his intent is to answer the argument of the Pelagians that certain saints of the Bible were without personal sins.
Secondly, I see Augustine making a stronger statement in regards to sinless status of Mary. He really seems to believe she was exceptional from the others … fully graced by God from all sin.
He may very well have believed that Mary was free from personal sins, but the point is that he does not say so explicitly here. If Mary’s sinlessness were an unquestionable doctrine of the church, he could (and would) have said so here – especially if Mary’s sinlessness were to stem from her having been protected from all stain of original sin. Instead, he “hedges” and says, “I’ll not speak of Mary’s personal sins, for God invested so much grace in her that – who knows? – maybe Mary had no personal sins.”

In short, modern Catholics say, “Mary had no original sin nor any personal sins,” because that’s what they are taught, plainly and simply. Here in this argument against the Pelagian view that some of the saints of the Bible were sinless, however, Augustine wants to say, plainly and simply, “No, only Jesus was without sins,” but to do that would be to say that Mary had sins, and he doesn’t want to dishonor Mary by saying outright that she was a sinner (or else he’ll be accused by the Pelagians of dishonoring the Mother of God). Instead, then, he “hedges” and answers in such a way that he brings out the possibility of sinlessness on Mary’s part – i.e., that God could have gifted her with a sinless life – but he what he does not do is explicitly say that she was without sin, because he himself was never taught that, and his own beliefs concerning the transmission of original sin (as evidenced in his other writings) actually force him to believe the opposite.

–Mike
 
Before you conclude that you know better than the Church why she teaches what she does, humility and justice might require you to investigate the reasons the Church gives for teaching what she does. Humanae Vitae, for instance.
I wasn’t saying why the Church teaches as it does. I was saying what the Apostle Paul taught (and why, in my opinion) and what the Fathers taught and why (according to the Fathers’ own arguments).

–Mike
 
As for his excepting the Virgin Mary, consider Augustine’s careful choice of words:

He’s essentially saying, “I don’t know that the Virgin Mary was free from sins, but I will except her from sins for the Lord’s honor.”

Indeed, I think it would even be fair to say that Augustine wants to lump the Virgin Mary in with the rest of humanity so that his argument will be consistent,

Augustine here evades, rather than answers, the question.
I think you are making invalid conclusions here.

He says … “I wish to have ABSOLUTELY no question when treating [considering] of [Mary’s] sins” …

and then you do exactly this ///// … ‘question his sincerity, accuse him of evasion/equivocation, say he really wants to put Mary in same category with all the other mentioned, etc.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top