Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa states: “The end of his writing was to argue against the doctrine. I have used it for this purpose.” So, I can conclude you refute the Immaculate Conception of Mary? And also desire to “enlighten” others to the “fallacy” of belief in the same?

Peace,

Gail

Someone tried to make an argument from silence that the doctrine was not new. The historical record is not silent on this matter, and in the case of Bernard, it is not silent because he spoke out against it. It is an innovation. How someone wants to deal with that fact is up to them.

When I argue whether the IC is true or not, I argue from Scripture and Tradition, not history.

 

[mpartyka]

Ugh…As the original poster, I vote to close the thread. We’ve been diverted from interpreting Pope Leo’s view on the IC into arguing over the validity of the IC dogma itself. My original intent was not to show whether or not the IC dogma itself was valid. Rather, my intent was to show that Pope Leo not only did not personally believe in the IC dogma but also demonstrated in his writings and sermons an understanding of the transmission of original sin which implicitly refutes any such dogma (though not in an ex cathedra fashion, so as to cause a conflict with modern Catholic belief). I think the reader can judge for himself/herself whether I’ve fulfilled my intent.

 

[GailMac]

Well, I do believe partyka has given up. Neither he nor Isa has been succesful in discrediting either Pope Leo or Bernard nor have they been able to distort their writings to the point they goaled for. I think we’ve won this round guys n gals! We have yet to hear from Isa.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, I do believe partyka has given up. Neither he nor Isa has been succesful in discrediting either Pope Leo or Bernard nor have they been able to distort their writings to the point they goaled for. I think we’ve won this round guys n gals! We have yet to hear from Isa.

Peace,

Gail

Did you miss this?

Someone tried to make an argument from silence that the doctrine was not new. The historical record is not silent on this matter, and in the case of Bernard, it is not silent because he spoke out against it. It is an innovation. How someone wants to deal with that fact is up to them.

When I argue whether the IC is true or not, I argue from Scripture and Tradition, not history.

Was there something left to say, because I didn’t see it.

Partyka didn’t give up: the thread wasn’t living up to his expectations of his OP. As he/she pointed out, Pope St. Leo is speaking about topics that would seem to be a natural context to bring up the IC, or at least be neutral. But the Pope seems to, well, actually DOES, rule out the IC. He was asking a question of history, of how to read a document of history.

However, as should perhaps be expected, you have all answered it theologically, as if an end pass ex cathedra could change history. Again, as I said, we’ve been told ex cathedra statements deal with faith and morals: the pope is never infallible on historical or scientific matters.

We can trace the historical development, from its appearance and denouncement in the 11th century, the truce during the middle ages, up until the proclamation, for whatever reason, in the 19th century.

If you want to argue theology of IC, we can do that, but perhaps on another thread. The OP wanted history. Of course, for us Orthodox, the two overlap.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Isa, how do you view this statement provided by Partyka in his quotes of St. Leo — “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”

The way I break that one down is this: “For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born” — That is God Who was born totally uncorrupt Himself, which I’m sure you both agree on that point, that God had no sin in Him.

“had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother,” — That is her *primal virginity *meaning from the very beginning of her life she was guarded by God Himself. Not after she was three, four, five or later, but from the very moment of her conception God set Himself as her guard! Them’s pretty bug guns for a small woman! I know I’d feel pretty safe if God was gunnin’ for the bad guys all my life!

“and the infused power of the Divine Spirit” ---- that is God stating His guard was by an infusion of the Divine Spirit, not an Incarnation as was the case with Jesus, but an infusionof the Divine Power of God Himself!

“had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself”" There ya have it! She was spotless and holy from her primal state. Now holy would mean absolutely no sin, personal or original. Both were gone and God set Himself as her guard for her lifetime.

“that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself” — (I repeat this part simply because it is so beautiful) And that sanctuary was her holy, spotless womb. Mary was God’s sanctuary! What an awesome thought! And she was Holy and Spotlessly preserved by God guarding her! You Go St. Leo!!!

How do you ignore this stuff? How do you read it and not see? I guess you do that the same way you read Scriptures and find things that aren’t there too!

Well I think you guys, Isa and Partyka, are way wrong about St. Leo, St. Bernard and the Blessed Virgin Mary and ya just don’t know when to quit. But I’m havin’ fun.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear Isa, how do you view this statement provided by Partyka in his quotes of St. Leo — “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”

I read it in the context of the whole letter.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xi.html
The Sermon is On the Nativity [of Christ, not the Theotokos].

The way I break that one down is this: “For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born” — That is God Who was born totally uncorrupt Himself, which I’m sure you both agree on that point, that God had no sin in Him.

Pope St. Leo says as much in the same sermon:
And “ours” we call what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in and the deceived admitted had no trace in the Saviour. Nor because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the Divine

“had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother,” — That is her *primal virginity *meaning from the very beginning of her life she was guarded by God Himself. Not after she was three, four, five or later, but from the very moment of her conception God set Himself as her guard! Them’s pretty bug guns for a small woman! I know I’d feel pretty safe if God was gunnin’ for the bad guys all my life!

If you can provide another reference to the conception of the Holy Theotokos as her “primal virginity,” you may have a point.

Otherwise you are reading WAAAAY too much into it.

The sermon is focused on her virginity before, during and after birth, i.e. Ever-Virgin, a title that had just passed into Ecumenical use during the life of Pope St. Leo:
there enters these lower parts of the world, the Son of God, descending from His heavenly throne and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order, by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain, was content to be contained: abiding before all time He began to be in time:…And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance…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. Consider here not the condition of her that bare but the will of Him that was born; for He was born Man as He willed and was able. If you inquire into the truth of His nature, you must acknowledge the matter to be human: if you search for the mode of His birth, you must confess the power to be of God. For the Lord Jesus Christ came to do away with not to endure our pollutions: not to succumb to our faults but to heal them…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.

then the section you lifted (btw, does anyone have the Latin?), then

that Spirit (I say) who had determined to raise the fallen, to restore the broken, and by overcoming the allurements of the flesh to bestow on us in abundant measure the power of chastity: in order that the virginity which in others cannot be retained in child-bearing, might be attained by them at their second birth.

Pope St. Leo specifically tells you NOT to “consider the condition of her that bare,” yet that is exactly what you are insisting on doing.

The lead up and the follow up to the section you have are extolling on virginity, chastity, seedless birth, etc. It is this that Pope St. Leo is speaking of in the section you quote.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“and the infused power of the Divine Spirit” ---- that is God stating His guard was by an infusion of the Divine Spirit, not an Incarnation as was the case with Jesus, but an infusionof the Divine Power of God Himself!

The sermon is speaking about Christ’s conception, His Incarnation. Over and over again. Besides His chosen mother being a virgin, there is nothing about her being spoken of prior to the Incarnation, not even the Ave Maria.

With you in mind, Pope St. Leo continues, with you in mind:

III. Justice required that Satan should be vanquished by God made man.

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. **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. For though the true mercy of God had infinitely many schemes to hand for the restoration of mankind, it chose that particular design which put in force for destroying the devil’s work, not the efficacy of might but the dictates of justice. For the pride of the ancient foe not undeservedly made good its despotic rights over all men, and with no unwarrantable supremacy tyrannized over those who had been of their own accord lured away from God’s commands to be the slaves of his will. And so there would be no justice in his losing the immemorial slavery of the human race, were he not conquered by that which he had subjugated.

“had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself”" There ya have it! She was spotless and holy from her primal state. Now holy would mean absolutely no sin, personal or original. Both were gone and God set Himself as her guard for her lifetime.

not only have you piled non sequitor one after another, you have totally left Pope St. Leo, who continues:
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, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred. Her unsullied virginity knew no lust when it ministered the substance. The Lord took from His mother our nature, not our fault. The slave’s form is created without the slave’s estate, because the New Man is so commingled with the old, as both to assume the reality of our race and to remove its ancient flaw.

No mention at all of the ancient flaw having been removed previously. Cf. II Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. If He made Himself sin, why would He need to make His mother sinless?

in closing Pope St. Leo exhorts “Then praise God, dearly beloved, in all His works and judgments. Cherish an undoubting belief in the Virgin’s pure conception. Honour the sacred and Divine mystery of man’s restoration with holy and sincere service. Embrace Christ born in our flesh,” which has nothing to do with IC, he not saying, nor alluding to the conception of the Holy Theotokos at all.

“that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself” — (I repeat this part simply because it is so beautiful) And that sanctuary was her holy, spotless womb. Mary was God’s sanctuary! What an awesome thought! And she was Holy and Spotlessly preserved by God guarding her! You Go St. Leo!!!

Amen!

How do you ignore this stuff? How do you read it and not see?

Because it’s not there. You larding on of potuit, decuit ergo fecit doesn’t change that.

I guess you do that the same way you read Scriptures and find things that aren’t there too!

Such as what?

Well I think you guys, Isa and Partyka, are way wrong about St. Leo, St. Bernard and the Blessed Virgin Mary and ya just don’t know when to quit. But I’m havin’ fun.

Proverbs 12:15.

Bernard went to his grave railing against the IC. As did Thomas Aquinas. That fact that they added the proviso that they would submit to the Vatican on that, when the Vatican didn’t until CENTURIES after their deaths, doesn’t change that.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m not sure if this has been posted yet, but the Eastern Orthodox do accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that Council says things like this:
Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, as the synod at Chalcedon also proclaimed,
And when it came to the decree on art/icons it said this concerning the veneration of those of the Blessed Virgin: 'our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer."

The phrase “without blemish” can only be referring to Her sinlessness.

Further, it appears to say this was understood at Chalcedon (in which Pope St Leo was the main speaker).

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not sure if this has been posted yet, but the Eastern Orthodox do accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that Council says things like this:Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, as the synod at Chalcedon also proclaimed,
And when it came to the decree on art/icons it said this concerning the veneration of those of the Blessed Virgin: 'our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer."

The phrase “without blemish” can only be referring to Her sinlessness.

Further, it appears to say this was understood at Chalcedon (in which Pope St Leo was the main speaker).

We also pray about this during the Divine Liturgy.

It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.

It boggles my mind that we could pray this every week, and still ask if Mary was really all-pure and sinless. It is only one such prayer from the Divine Liturgy to boot!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We also pray about this during the Divine Liturgy.

It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.

It boggles my mind that we could pray this every week, and still ask if Mary was really all-pure and sinless. It is only one such prayer from the Divine Liturgy to boot!

Peace and God bless!

The without corruption is refering to the Ever Virgin part. There are several hymns that make the connection.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m not sure if this has been posted yet, but the Eastern Orthodox do accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that Council says things like this:
Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, as the synod at Chalcedon also proclaimed,
And when it came to the decree on art/icons it said this concerning the veneration of those of the Blessed Virgin: 'our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer."

The phrase “without blemish” can only be referring to Her sinlessness.

No, in the Greek it often refers to her virginity. All Holy (Panayia) is usually refers to her sinlessness (actual sin).

Further, it appears to say this was understood at Chalcedon (in which Pope St Leo was the main speaker).

Pope Leo, like all the Popes of Rome, NEVER spoke at an Ecumenical Council. He sent a letter (which a committee of 200 examined) and his legates.

 

[Ghosty]

The without corruption is refering to the Ever Virgin part. There are several hymns that make the connection.

Yes, but I’m refering to the most pure, more honorable, ect. These are not things said of a sinner. Leaving aside the Immaculate Conception, I’m deeply troubled by the fact that any Orthodox today could honestly speak of Mary as a sinner and then pray the Divine Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mpartyka]

I’m deeply troubled by the fact that any Orthodox today could honestly speak of Mary as a sinner and then pray the Divine Liturgy.

Why? All the saints sinned at one time or another, yet they are venerated – not for their sins, but for their merits and/or blessings.

In my former Protestant life, what always amazed me about the Catholic view of Mary is that Catholics never felt that being blessed by God to be the Mother of his Son was never enough to qualify her as being blessed above all women. Even the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption haven’t proven to be enough – now she’s “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces”. Now, I don’t think the Catholic Church would ever go completely off the deep end and change the Trinity into a Quaternity just to include Mary, but I think that (1) sufficient sentiment is there among the laity to do just that and (2) short of including Mary in the Godhead, no amount of elevation will ever be enough in the eyes of devoted Catholics. And that concerns me greatly, because, as history has shown, not even Popes are immune to the popular will, and the papal prerogative to unilaterally define doctrines for the whole Church apart from any judgment in Coucil means that the Pope has power to accomplish everything the people eventually want and call upon him for.

Along these lines, I find it utterly fascinating that after the Catholic/Orthodox Schism, there have been fourteen Ecumenical Councils on the Catholic side and only one council worthy of being called “ecumenical” on the Orthodox side. One of these days I’ll have to do a study of just what was accomplished in each of the Catholic councils, as it is curious that on the side of the Schism in which, on account of its singular head, one would think that dissent requiring such councils would be minimal, exactly the opposite is true; whereas on the side that is often accused of being divided in mind, only one controversy in a thousand years has risen to a level meriting full conciliar action.

But all this is getting far afield and well off the original topic…

 

[strugglingalong]

Why? All the saints sinned at one time or another, yet they are venerated – not for their sins, but for their merits and/or blessings.

In my former Protestant life, what always amazed me about the Catholic view of Mary is that Catholics never felt that being blessed by God to be the Mother of his Son was never enough to qualify her as being blessed above all women. Even the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption haven’t proven to be enough – now she’s “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces”. Now, I don’t think the Catholic Church would ever go completely off the deep end and change the Trinity into a Quaternity just to include Mary, but I think that (1) sufficient sentiment is there among the laity to do just that and (2) short of including Mary in the Godhead, no amount of elevation will ever be enough in the eyes of devoted Catholics. And that concerns me greatly, because, as history has shown, not even Popes are immune to the popular will, and the papal prerogative to unilaterally define doctrines for the whole Church apart from any judgment in Coucil means that the Pope has power to accomplish everything the people eventually want and call upon him for.

No it’s not about it not being enough that Mary was Theotokos but it is about the consequences of such. If Mary truly did have God physically within her, what are the consequences? The woman who touched just the hem of Jesus’ robe was healed of an incurable physical condition. How much more Mary who was predestined and who did bear God within her very womb? God cannot stand sin. Look at Moses on Mt. Sinai. Could God truly come and be born of a woman who was tainted by original sin?

Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but don’t the Eastern Orthodox think Mary never did commit a personal sin in her entire life? If that is true how could she do that if she had the force of concupiscence within her faculties? Was she born in Original Sin yet somehow escape its effects?

Along these lines, I find it utterly fascinating that after the Catholic/Orthodox Schism, there have been fourteen Ecumenical Councils on the Catholic side and only one council worthy of being called “ecumenical” on the Orthodox side. One of these days I’ll have to do a study of just what was accomplished in each of the Catholic councils, as it is curious that on the side of the Schism in which, on account of its singular head, one would think that dissent requiring such councils would be minimal, exactly the opposite is true; whereas on the side that is often accused of being divided in mind, only one controversy in a thousand years has risen to a level meriting full conciliar action.

But all this is getting far afield and well off the original topic…

I’d keep in mind that the Apostle says how errors come up so that the truth may be better known. It may very well be a sign of God’s favor that He allows these difficulties to arise so that the truth may be made more clear. Look at the early Church, I doubt anyone would say the divisions and errors and difficulties they faced were symptomatic of some sort of deficiency in the Church itself? It is actually curious as to why the Eastern Orthodox has not faced such difficulties and why there has not been such attacks of what they believe so much so that councils - which they cannot even have an ecumenical council without the Bishop of Rome - were not necessary. It strikes me as if the Eastern Orthodox are stunted in growth, that after so many centuries they grew but then after the schism they have ceased to develop and grow.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Partyka - You state: “In my former Protestant life,…” Ummmm…I find your statements just in this thread alone, anything but Catholic! What my I ask you consider yourself? Just curious.

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

If Mary truly did have God physically within her, what are the consequences? The woman who touched just the hem of Jesus’ robe was healed of an incurable physical condition. How much more Mary who was predestined and who did bear God within her very womb?

All this suggests is that Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit before conceiving Jesus in her womb, but it doesn’t require that she have been purified from the moment of her own conception.

God cannot stand sin…Could God truly come and be born of a woman who was tainted by original sin?

Why not? If God the Holy Spirit can dwell in believers who are (or once were) tainted by original sin, why could the Son of God not dwell in the womb of a woman tainted by (but subsequently purified from) original sin? What’s the difference? Jesus’ physicality? But that’s a factor of his human nature, not his divine nature – and he received his human nature through Mary anyway, so there would be no incompatibility there.

Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but don’t the Eastern Orthodox think Mary never did commit a personal sin in her entire life?

Some do, but it is not required of any Orthodox to believe this.

I’d keep in mind that the Apostle says how errors come up so that the truth may be better known.

Good point, in which case the real test would be to compare both Catholicism and Orthodoxy against the records of primitive Christianity in our possession and see which appears to deviate more from the primitive model.

It strikes me as if the Eastern Orthodox are stunted in growth, that after so many centuries they grew but then after the schism they have ceased to develop and grow.

Ah, but that’s precisely what emboldens most Orthodox to remain Orthodox rather than become Catholic – if Orthodox faith and practice hasn’t substantially changed (or “developed” or “grown”) since 787, the Orthodox can have confidence that they are practicing the authentic Christian faith.

 

[mpartyka]

You state: “In my former Protestant life,…”…I find your states just in this thread alone, anything but Catholic! What my I ask you consider yourself?

Good question. Since I received the Blessing of the Catechumenate in an Antiochian Orthodox church, I guess “Orthodox” is the closest I come to a denomination. I haven’t been chrismated, however, and I don’t attend or belong to any church currently, so I’m kinda “orphaned” right now, I suppose.

 

[GailMac]

Well then Partyka, I could suggest you take yourself to a Catholic Mass and let God talk to your heart a little. There’s a pew waiting to receive you. May God bless your struggle with your beliefs and bring you safely to the harbor of faith guided by the light of His life.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No it’s not about it not being enough that Mary was Theotokos but it is about the consequences of such. If Mary truly did have God physically within her, what are the consequences? The woman who touched just the hem of Jesus’ robe was healed of an incurable physical condition. How much more Mary who was predestined and who did bear God within her very womb?

STOP!
Hold it right there!
Back up.

You said “who TOUCHED.” “Predestined,” doesn’t mean “touch.” “Did bear” does.

The problem with the IC is that it puts the cart before the horse.

God cannot stand sin. Look at Moses on Mt. Sinai. Could God truly come and be born of a woman who was tainted by original sin?

Evidenlty yes because He did.

I’ll repeat (see post above): II Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. If He made Himself sin, why would He need to make His mother sinless?

Plus, correct me if I am wrong, but don’t the Eastern Orthodox think Mary never did commit a personal sin in her entire life?

Yes.

If that is true how could she do that if she had the force of concupiscence within her faculties? Was she born in Original Sin yet somehow escape its effects?

It’s called grace.

I’d keep in mind that the Apostle says how errors come up so that the truth may be better known. It may very well be a sign of God’s favor that He allows these difficulties to arise so that the truth may be made more clear. Look at the early Church, I doubt anyone would say the divisions and errors and difficulties they faced were symptomatic of some sort of deficiency in the Church itself? It is actually curious as to why the Eastern Orthodox has not faced such difficulties and why there has not been such attacks of what they believe

Ever hear of Islam? Communism?

so much so that councils- which they cannot even have an ecumenical council without the Bishop of Rome -

No bishop of Rome ever came to an Ecumenical Council. Not even Pope Vigilius, who was dragged to the capital for one. The Second (not in communion with Rome) and Fifth (held over Rome’s objection) Ecumenical Councils were held without the Pope of Rome.

were not necessary. It strikes me as if the Eastern Orthodox are stunted in growth, that after so many centuries they grew but then after the schism they have ceased to develop and grow…

Yes, our lack of weed growth has been mentioned many a time as “proof” that we aren’t the True Church.

You’ve transformed it into a virtue and now call it “doctrinal development.”

Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear Partyka - You state: “In my former Protestant life,…” Ummmm…I find your statements just in this thread alone, anything but Catholic! What my I ask you consider yourself? Just curious.

Peace,

Gail

I think the profile says Orthodox, no?

And he/she has been very.

Paryka has just followed the VERY CATHOLIC command:

Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28

The posts have been VERY CATHOLIC. And very historically accurate, btw., as well.