Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[strugglingalong]

What does St. Leo the Great mean by a “pure” Virgin in reference to the Virgin Mary but that she was a Virgin “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, … holy and without blemish (immaculata).” (Ephesians 5:27)

Actually if Christ was born of a pure Virgin, then she must have been made pure before she conceived her Divine Son. No?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

Since when was Pope Leo the supreme authority on any particular Marian doctrine/dogma?

I believe I covered this objection at the end of my initial series of posts:

Now, granted, none of these quotes from Pope Leo are “ex cathedra” statements, so they don’t carry the weight of papal infallibility. Nevertheless, this was a Pope who was extremely concerned with the doctrinal health of the Church and was instrumental in bringing about the victory at Chalcedon over the Eutychean heresy. He took great care in his letters and sermons to make sure that his audience understood the faith properly. Why, then, is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception utterly absent – even explicitly contradicted – where one would expect it to be promoted most prominently? It cannot be said that the Blessed Virgin was not on Pope Leo’s mind, as she is mentioned in each and every context. Could it be that Pope Leo was entirely unaware of the dogma, and if so, how could that be? I think the only thing that one can reasonably conclude is that Pope Leo made no mention of the Immaculate Conception because it was not a dogma of the Church at the time of his reign. Thus, the Immaculate Conception is a recently-created dogma, and not a part of the original deposit of the faith which the Church has always and everywhere taught.

 

[mpartyka]

Actually if Christ was born of a pure Virgin, then she must have been made pure before she conceived her Divine Son. No?

That depends on how you define “pure”. If by “pure” you mean “justified”, then one might argue that Mary’s justification came with her fiat at the Annunciation, as this is the first instance revealed in Scripture that she made confession of her faith. So, even a purity which precedes her maternity need not have existed from the moment of her own conception.

 

[strugglingalong]

“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.”

Okay, now here is how I understand what Pope Leo is saying here.

1. “For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother” which means that Jesus’ birth had to preserve the virginity of Mary, of which Eastern and Western agree.
2. “…and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself” means that the sanctuary of Christ has to be preserved in spotlessness. How is something preserved if it does not already possess? Maybe I am mistaken but I can’t preserve something that doesn’t already possess that which I desire to preserve. For example, if I want to preserve some food then that food has to already be in a state wherein it is not spoiled; therefore I preserve this state of being not spoiled. Wouldn’t it be that the Holy Spirit is preserving Mary’s spotlessness and holiness?

Also, nothing that Pope Leo I says refutes the Immaculate Conception. You’d have to prove how Pope Leo I says Mary was definitely conceived with Original Sin. If he says Christ alone was sinless, then that just means he believes Christ is sinless but not necessarily that Mary was born in Original Sin.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

You might find additional works by Pope Leo, here.

Thanks. Anywhere I could find English translations?

 

[strugglingalong]

That depends on how you define “pure”. If by “pure” you mean “justified”, then one might argue that Mary’s justification came with her fiat at the Annunciation, as this is the first instance revealed in Scripture that she made confession of her faith. So, even a purity which precedes her maternity need not have existed from the moment of her own conception.

Yes perhaps but at very least it leaves open the question of when the Virgin became pure, a point Pope Leo does not seem to define. It at least shows an understanding of her being pure before Christ’s birth which could very well fit with her being made pure at the moment of her conception by grace. Such a view does not preclude the Immaculate Conception.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

…the sanctuary of Christ has to be preserved in spotlessness. How is something preserved if it does not already possess? Maybe I am mistaken but I can’t preserve something that doesn’t already possess that which I desire to preserve…Wouldn’t it be that the Holy Spirit is preserving Mary’s spotlessness and holiness?

But what kind of spotlessness is being referenced here? Isn’t it exactly the kind of spotlessness to which you referred in your first point – i.e., Mary’s virginity?

You’d have to prove how Pope Leo I says Mary was definitely conceived with Original Sin. If he says Christ alone was sinless, then that just means he believes Christ is sinless but not necessarily that Mary was born in Original Sin.

I think that is easily done via Pope Leo’s having said:

1. “He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin.”
2. “Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, ‘no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.’”
3. “For when [the devil] observed that His nature was like that of all others, he thought that He had the same origin as all had: and did not understand that He was free from the bonds of transgression.”
4. “And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred.”
5. “…that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression…was not permitted by natural generation.”

So the question is, “Was Mary conceived via sexual intercourse?” If the answer is, “Yes” – and it obviously is – then according to Pope Leo, she could not have been conceived without original sin.

 

[mpartyka]

Yes perhaps but at very least it leaves open the question of when the Virgin became pure, a point Pope Leo does not seem to define. It at least shows an understanding of her being pure before Christ’s birth which could very well fit with her being made pure at the moment of her conception by grace. Such a view does not preclude the Immaculate Conception.

If we focus on just this statement of Pope Leo’s and exclude all his others, then I would agree. But I think the issue here is really, “If Pope Leo truly believed that the Virgin Mary was without sin and also was conceived without sin, why did he not only never say so but also make statements which at the very least imply the opposite?” In my opinion, after having read a good portion of his writings, this was not a man given to making imprecise statements about the faith. I think it is much more reasonable to believe that Pope Leo did not actually hold to the idea that Mary was conceived without sin.

 

[mpartyka]

Let me take a moment to ask a general question:

How does the thought of the Virgin Mary’s being conceived in sin just like the rest of us make you feel? What about the idea of her having ever committed an actual sin? What is your “gut reaction” to contemplating such notions?

 

[strugglingalong]

But what kind of spotlessness is being referenced here? Isn’t it exactly the kind of spotlessness to which you referred in your first point – i.e., Mary’s virginity?

Spotlessness I don’t think has to do with virginity, which is usually referred to as being “inviolate.” Spotlessness means without spot, without stain, etc. which is why the Pope says “spotlessness and holiness” as if they are two sisters together. I would argue spotlessness refers to holiness.

I think that is easily done via Pope Leo’s having said:

1. “He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin.”

Many other fathers would use language like “alone” but still not say Mary was conceived in Original Sin. I guess my question is why would you say “pure Virgin” if only the Virgin part is true? What was so pure about the Virgin then?

1. “Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, ‘no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.’”

See above. Same issue.

1. “For when [the devil] observed that His nature was like that of all others, he thought that He had the same origin as all had: and did not understand that He was free from the bonds of transgression.”

See above.

I’ll touch on the others later.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

Spotlessness I don’t think has to do with virginity…

It still sounds to me as if Pope Leo is referring to essentially the same thing twice:

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.

Many other fathers would use language like “alone” but still not say Mary was conceived in Original Sin.

I can tell you from what I’ve read that no fathers prior to Leo ever explicitly said that Mary was not conceived in sin. To say that they would have said so is to put words in their mouths.

I guess my question is why would you say “pure Virgin”…

For the same reason that Pope Leo uses both “spotlessness” and “holiness”, when either one would do fine by itself? I would be more inclined to wonder why he didn’t simply say, “He alone was conceived and born of a pure Virgin,” instead of what he actually wrote, “He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin.”

…if only the Virgin part is true?

Nobody’s saying Mary wasn’t “pure” before the Annunciation, but who says her “purity” had to be a property she possessed uninterruptedly since her conception? The Law of Moses contained ceremonies for purification. Baptism purifies what was previously impure.

 

[strugglingalong]

It still sounds to me as if Pope Leo is referring to essentially the same thing twice:

I can tell you from what I’ve read that no fathers prior to Leo ever explicitly said that Mary was not conceived in sin. To say that they would have said so is to put words in their mouths.

For the same reason that Pope Leo uses both “spotlessness” and “holiness”, when either one would do fine by itself? I would be more inclined to wonder why he didn’t simply say, “He alone was conceived and born of a pure Virgin,” instead of what he actually wrote, “He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin.”

Nobody’s saying Mary wasn’t “pure” before the Annunciation, but who says her “purity” had to be a property she possessed uninterruptedly since her conception? The Law of Moses contained ceremonies for purification. Baptism purifies what was previously impure.

All of this makes me wonder how you can say what Pope Leo did or did not say on the Immaculate Conception? You’re arguing about what his words mean or do not mean. There is nothing in Pope Leo that explicitly is against the Immaculate Conception. Some of his words could be understood that Mary was in some way pure before the conception of Christ - while some of his words may be understood as purity meaning something else. But my question is where does Pope Leo explicitly rule out that Mary could have been conceived without Original Sin by grace?

Many of the Fathers use the language of Christ being “alone” free from Original Sin while also reserving comment on Mary. We know some did think Mary was free from Original Sin. The fact of the matter is we acknowledge that there were some who thought Mary was immaculately conceived and some who didn’t. The Holy Spirit led the Church to the truth, which is that she was conceived without Original Sin by a singular grace of God.

I guess I don’t see what you’re proving. You’re making arguments based on Pope Leo’s words that aren’t in the words themselves. Now if you show Pope Leo speaking of the effects of concupiscence and Original Sin in Mary then that would be a more effective argument.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

There is nothing in Pope Leo that explicitly is against the Immaculate Conception…my question is where does Pope Leo explicitly rule out that Mary could have been conceived without Original Sin by grace?..You’re making arguments based on Pope Leo’s words that aren’t in the words themselves. Now if you show Pope Leo speaking of the effects of concupiscence and Original Sin in Mary then that would be a more effective argument.

Are you and I simply not reading the same words here? Pope Leo said:

…the Lord’s nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin…

Pope Leo is making a direct connection here between Christ’s unique supernatural nativity and his flesh’s being free from the law of sin. It is precisely because Christ was born of a virgin without a human father’s contributing the initial seed that he was born without original sin. As Pope Leo says elsewhere:

…that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression…was not permitted by natural generation.

Whereas…no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred.

Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered.

According to Pope Leo, sexual intercourse involves sin because (1) the process necessarily involves lust and (2) it breaks a woman’s hymen, thus rendering her no longer a physical virgin. This is consistent with the Mosaic Law, under which sexual intercourse had to be followed by a rite of purification. Mary’s conception of Christ did not involve sin because (1) there was no lust involved and (2) her hymen remained physically intact even during and after childbirth.

So, the only question that really needs to be answered here is, “Was Mary born of a virgin – i.e., was she naturally generated or supernaturally generated?” Answer: She was naturally generated. Therefore, according to Pope Leo, her conception involved original sin – period.

Now, you can tell me that Pope Leo was wrong concerning Mary’s conception, and I will grant you that, according to present-day Catholic doctrine, this is true. But for you (and others) to continually insist that Pope Leo did believe in the Immaculate Conception in spite of his own several words to the contrary is to be in serious denial at best.

 

[strugglingalong]

Are you and I simply not reading the same words here? Pope Leo said:

Pope Leo is making a direct connection here between Christ’s unique supernatural nativity and his flesh’s being free from the law of sin. It is precisely because Christ was born of a virgin without a human father’s contributing the initial seed that he was born without original sin. As Pope Leo says elsewhere:

According to Pope Leo, sexual intercourse involves sin because (1) the process necessarily involves lust and (2) it breaks a woman’s hymen, thus rendering her no longer a physical virgin. This is consistent with the Mosaic Law, under which sexual intercourse had to be followed by a rite of purification. Mary’s conception of Christ did not involve sin because (1) there was no lust involved and (2) her hymen remained physically intact even during and after childbirth.

So, the only question that really needs to be answered here is, “Was Mary born of a virgin – i.e., was she naturally generated or supernaturally generated?” Answer: She was naturally generated. Therefore, according to Pope Leo, her conception involved original sin – period.

Now, you can tell me that Pope Leo was wrong concerning Mary’s conception, and I will grant you that, according to present-day Catholic doctrine, this is true. But for you (and others) to continually insist that Pope Leo did believe in the Immaculate Conception in spite of his own several words to the contrary is to be in serious denial at best.

I guess I can see your point. It’s interesting. However even a Pope can be wrong in his own capacity. These statements, it seems to me, are in sermons and he can certainly err in his own sermons. There was disagreement amount the early church Fathers regarding Mary’s sinlessness. The Church over time has come to discern the truth as the Holy Spirit has led her.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

There was disagreement amount the early church Fathers regarding Mary’s sinlessness. The Church over time has come to discern the truth as the Holy Spirit has led her.

See, this is why I ask:

How does the thought of the Virgin Mary’s being conceived in sin just like the rest of us make you feel? What about the idea of her having ever committed an actual sin? What is your “gut reaction” to contemplating such notions?

Should I ask this in another thread? (I kinda don’t want to because it has impact on the overall issue.)

 

[strugglingalong]

See, this is why I ask:

Should I ask this in another thread? (I kinda don’t want to because it has impact on the overall issue.)

How does it make me feel? I think it’s wrong. I think she was preserved from Original Sin by grace before she gave birth to God. That is why I feel at home with things such as Pope Leo I referring to a “pure Virgin” because I do think Mary was pure in every sense, not of herself but because God preserved her because of her vocation.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[GailMac]

Well, I’m jumpin’ in on this! Several folks on the thread have misunderstood St. Leo’s words. I’ll try to explain some. Maybe that will help.

Partyka quotes the 2nd Sermon on the Nativity – “For God the almighty and merciful…foretold…that Christ would come in the flesh, God and man, Who born of a Virgin should by His uncorrupt birth condemn the despoiler of the human stock.” – The underlined text shows that His whole birth was uncorrupt, without sin, including the flesh He took from Mary and this was to destroy the “despoiler,” the devil, who if you bother to look into Genesis, this happening was foretold there after Adam and Eve fell. It is called the Protoevangelium. The serpent crushed under the heel of the seed of the woman. Jesus and Mary!

“Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours.” – This next sentence means He lost nothing of His Divine nature by taking on our human nature. Take note of the two uses of the word “complete.” God completely God though He took on flesh, true God and true Man which is simply a reiteration of His Being as expressed in the Creed. But the choice ot the word complete also speaks to the completeness of Mary for her flesh had to be complete before God could dwell in it. In being truely Man, God elevated human flesh not only back to where it was at in Genesis, but beyond. But I get ahead of the quotes.

“And ‘ours’ we call what the Creator formed in us from the beginning” – Meaning Genesis, Adam & Eve, our first parents and their “gift” to us, Original sin.

“…and what He undertook to repair.” But this undoing of the Fall of Adam and Eve was undone for Mary from the first! (Now if that ain’t the understatement of all the millenia!)

“For what the deceiver brought in (the devil) and the deceived (the rest of us) admitted had no trace in the Saviour.” What His Holiness is simply saying is that sin couldn’t be a part of Jesus, as He is God. Nor could the “deceiver,” the devil. Nor could the deceived. Now note the word deceived, which IF Mary had remained bound in sin, original or any other sin, the effects of the deceit of the devil, God couldn’t have come for there was no trace in the Saviour!

“Nor because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults.” – Just because He was in the flesh didn’t make Him any less God.

“He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the Divine” – There ya have it folks! He is lifting us up, elevating us beyond the reach of the devil and sin! Fully Redeemed, Saved, Reconciled! The Good News! And His sublime humility to become a mere human being, a Baby Who lived a fully human life from nursling to Crucified Man upon the Cross! God!

“And by a new nativity” – by a new nativity is meant a Birth not like any other in all of History! A NEW Nativity - one in which NO SIN took part personal OR original!

“He was begotten,” – Remember the Creed? BEGOTTEN NOT MADE!

“conceived by a Virgin,” – Her human flesh Incarnated with the Divine Seed the Holy Spirit!

“born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity:” – Remember we believe in her Perpetual Virginty as well? Don’t forget that part.

“because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men,” – Notice the knew no taint part. This means no sin whatsoever, none original or personal. God is taking His human flesh from flesh preserved from all taint of sin! And I’d like to ask why on earth would anyone choose to doubt that God wouldn’t do all He could for Mary His mother? Because it was only fitting that God Himself should have a sinless place to rest His Divine Head for the nine months of His Waiting with Mary.

“while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance.” And hammering it home folks that being human can also be a holy thing. (Why o why don’t folks want to believe this? Jesus, Lord, I believe You!)

“For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: ‘because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.” Oh, that reminder of her Perpetual Virginity again!

“Consider here not the condition of her that bare but the will of Him that was born;” This is sooooooooo important to get. If a person doesn’t believe that God could do for her what He did, then how can they fully believe in Him doing it for anyone else? It was God’s WILL to redeem the fallen human race. He demonstrated this in the first saved, Mary. It was God’s WILL. So, His Holiness isn’t asking us to consider her nature, but to look BEYOND THAT and see GOD’S WILL BEING DONE! Get that right and the rest seems to fall into place.

“for He was born Man as He willed and was able…For the Lord Jesus Christ came to do away with not to endure our pollutions:” He didn’t come to put up with our fallen nature but to save us.

“not to succumb to our faults but to heal them.” And why wouldn’t He do this for Mary? Oi, the rest needs to be thunk about deeply and prayerfully. Can you read it without being awed?

He came that He might cure every weakness of our corruptness and all the sores of our defiled souls: for which reason it behoved Him to be born by a new order, who brought to men’s bodies the new gift of unsullied purity. 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…And, dearly beloved, this very fact that Christ chose to be born of a Virgin does it not appear to be part of the deepest design? I mean, that the devil should not be aware that Salvation had been born for the human race, and through the obscurity of that spiritual conception, when he saw Him no different to others, should believe Him born in no different way to others. (This speaks of what we catholics refer to as the “hidden” years of His life.)

"For when he observed that His nature was like that of all others, he thought that He had the same origin as all had: and did not understand that He was free from the bonds of transgression because he did not find Him a stranger to the weakness of mortality…And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, Here is a part that gets some folks thinking catholics think sex is the sin but the stain mentioned is not the sex act but the origianl sin inheirited from our first parents, Adam and Eve.

“this one received purification from the Source of her conception.” And there ya have folks! Mary was concieved without ORIGINAL SIN! Purity herself purified before her birth. From the womb before the dawn I begot you…

I’ve got to stop for awhile. But I’ll pick up with the rest of the selection after dinner. Hope this helps Partyka.

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

Several folks on the thread have misunderstood St. Leo’s words.

No, what’s happened here is that, as is entirely possible even under the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, Pope Leo was writing and preaching something that contradicts the present “infallible” teaching of the Church. None of the quotes I have supplied from Pope Leo are “ex cathedra”, so there’s no “gotcha” situation here. It’s just an example of how one of the early Fathers of the Church – a Pope, in this instance – didn’t personally subscribe to every doctrine that the Church today calls “infallible” and/or deems a requirement for salvation. There’s no need to twist Pope Leo’s words around to “protect the faith” or protect the Pope’s reputation. As it was said earlier:

…a Pope can be wrong in his own capacity. These statements, it seems to me, are in sermons and he can certainly err in his own sermons.

Here is a part that gets some folks thinking catholics think sex is the sin but the stain mentioned is not the sex act but the origianl sin inheirited from our first parents, Adam and Eve.

True, the sex act itself is not sinful, but in the mind of the Fathers, the sex act is always accompanied by sin, as lust is required to get physically “in the mood” for sex. (That’s straight from St. Augustine.)

And I’d like to ask why on earth would anyone choose to doubt that God wouldn’t do all He could for Mary His mother? Because it was only fitting that God Himself should have a sinless place to rest His Divine Head for the nine months of His Waiting with Mary…And why wouldn’t He do this for Mary?

That’s not a logical argument. That’s an argument from emotion. Consequently, I think it would be interesting if you, too, would respond to my question:

How does the thought of the Virgin Mary’s being conceived in sin just like the rest of us make you feel? What about the idea of her having ever committed an actual sin? What is your “gut reaction” to contemplating such notions?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Partyka - I came back on this morning to find you haven’t read my little ditty on St. Leo’s writings. Instead you insist there are things in his writings that aren’t there. Did you read what I wrote?

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

Dear Partyka - I came back on this morning to find you haven’t read my little ditty on St. Leo’s writings. Instead you insist there are things in his writings that aren’t there. Did you read what I wrote?

I did read your “little ditty”, which was, in fact, a lengthy, painfully-distortive interpretation of St. Leo’s writings. Overall, I don’t think you’re seeing what’s there in his writings. I think you’re instead seeing what you want and expect to see there, through the lens of Marian devotion, and I think this is obvious enough that I’ll just step back and let the readers to determine for themselves whether you or I are more correct in our interpretations of St. Leo’s opinions.

Any chance you’ll answer my final question?