Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[GailMac]

Dear Isa, I think you are very confused on several points and expend a lot of energy and time fine tuning your heretical thinking. That is the problem with remaining in schism, you’re not really sure whose got the athority to teach so you evaluate the various teachings formulating your own reasons for remaining away from the One True Church. It is a very long winded protest against us. But if you are comfortable remaining away from Rome, by all means stay away. But please stop disrespecting the Saints who didn’t say the things you say they did. Defaming God’s chosen ones isn’t very nice, nor is it Christian, nor is it Catholic, nor is it Orthodox. I think you’re jealous to be honest.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. There is only one Pope and he lives at Rome.

 

[mpartyka]

…please stop disrespecting the Saints who didn’t say the things you say they did. Defaming God’s chosen ones isn’t very nice…

Okay, I have to ask…do you think it is possible (1) for a person to be venerated as a saint of the Church and (2) for that same person to disagree with a dogma which had not yet been defined infallibly by the Church (either in Council or by the Pope acting singly)?

For example, let’s say hypothetically that as of the Umpteenth Ecumenical Council of 1900, it was necessary for all Catholics to believe that Christ’s hair was black, not brown or blonde or any other color. Before 1900, the matter was open for Catholics to debate, but in 1900 the matter was settled.

Do you therefore think, in this hypothetical situation, that every saint who lived and died prior to the Church’s final decree in 1900 necessarily thought that Christ’s hair was black? What if there were saints of the Church who specifically wrote about a blonde-headed Christ? Would they still be saints in your eyes, or would they be heretics now…or, would you do your utmost to prove via whatever interpretive means you have available to you that these saints by some stretch of the imagination meant “black” when they wrote “blonde”?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Partyka, You asked a question that goes deep but I will try to answer in terms I hope you understand. A Saint is firstly someone who we are sure whose soul is in Heaven. That means their imperfections are gone. Secondly they have lived a life post conversion that is worthy of veneration or in simplier terms worthy of imitation. You could adopt their views and find growth in holiness of life or follow their living examples and the same would occur. When we speak of certain saints, we speak of persons who have given a total assent to God’s Will in their lives. They wouldn’t be of a mind that you think they would have. They’ve simply matured in the faith beyond what you understand as “normal.” A mature saint wouldn’t even think of questioning anything that the Church decreed, accept maybe to understand more fully the God whom we serve and further conform their lives to His. And if they had an error in their thinking they would praise God that they were corrected by the Church. There are many Saints who were anything but saintly prior to an encounter with the living God and conversion. Take for instance St. Paul, the Apostle. He persecuted the Church! Had people killed and imprisoned, etc. His zeal for his Jewish heritage was tremendous. But God put a stop to that and he, St. Paul, gave his assent to God’s Will and the rest is well known and loved history.

But then there are the Martyrs. These number in the millions though whose glories we only have a partial record of to share with the rest of the world. They may have gone from making their assent to God’s Will, recieved Baptism and lost their lives for the faith say, ten months later. Their lives shortened they couldn’t have developed the same maturation of the understanding of our faith as say someone who has lived a full span of years. Or perhaps a person who lost his or her life for Christ in martyrdom at a young age. Or even the Holy Innocents, who we venerate as Saints in the Church, those poor children who where slaughtered by Herod when he was attempting to kill the new born king of the Jews. They certainly didn’t know much of anything about dogma or accepted dogma, councils etc. yet their crowns were given them. Their blood was shed for the Lamb. It is their confession of Christ. A witness with no greater love.

To make a long post shorter, to me a saint is a person who has made their personal “yes” to God, they have said “be it unto me as you have said” in totus and then life happens and they live it totally in Christ. They have surrendered their wills to His and that action ends all arguments, if there were any. They in taking upon their shoulders the yoke of Christ, have freed themselves of the burden that weighed them down. Instead they take up the Cross, and follow Him no matter WHAT that means. Period. End of arguing, doubting, etc. Their surrender is total. They simply don’t have the will to do anything outside of God’s Will.

But this is just my opinion.

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

Thank you for a lengthy and well-written post, but unfortunately you haven’t even slightly answered my question. Is it possible – I’m not insisting it has ever happened, only asking if it is possible – that a person who is today considered a saint of the Church could have held views contrary to the Church’s present definition of some doctrine or another before the Church, either via council or papal declaration, had made a final declaration on the matter?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Partyka, it is clear I spoke in terms you don’t understand. I am sorry. The examples I gave contain the answer. St. Paul clearly held beliefs that were contrary to practically everything the Church taught till the scales fell from his eyes and he could begin as a babe believing. The Holy Innocents had no knowlege practically of even who God is, let alone what the Church teaches. They were murdered before they reached even their second year.

Yes, it is possible for persons to be incorrect in their understanding of what the Church teaches and still become saints. That is the Mercy of God. He gives the knowlege they need to leave behind their false beleifs. That IS conversion. God in His Mercy reaches into the heart and soul of the dis-believer and brings them to the Truth in Himself. When that happens in a persons life it may only be with their dying breath. Or it may occur earlier and human history will record their thoughts before and if we are lucky after.

But as to the ways some here in this thread have misused their writings to try claim they were in error, to me that is nothing more the defaming them. To poke a little fun at you, it isn’t a very saintly thing to do.

Personally I think you could benefit from reading the lives of martyred saints. They didn’t leave any specious words for fools to argue ad nauseum. They shed their blood for the Lamb of God Who shed His blood for them. That is their confession. It speaks for itself.

Peace,

Gail

 

[SPH1]

Second: "…because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin,

Your underline caused a shift in the Pope’s thought, so I emphasised in red underline what you didn’t. Christ is the only one who was born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin. Mary was not born of a pure virgin.

I also do not like lengthy cut n paste, but it appears that Pope Leo is primarily speaking of Christ; not Mary. So you cannot take the Pope’s work to be a treatise on Mary, let alone an ex-Cathedra teaching on her.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear Isa, I think you are very confused

I’m sure you think so. But I deal in facts.

on several points and expend a lot of energy and time fine tuning your heretical thinking.

You mean Holy Orthodoxy? sorry, we don’t have “doctrinal developement.” Don’t have to fine tune a thing. Just walk in the Traditions passed down from the many, many, many sees, including Antioch where the disciples were first called Christians, founded by all the Apostles, including St. Peter.

That is the problem with remaining in schism, you’re not really sure whose got the athority to teach

We’ve done quite fine before and since 1054, remaining the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

You all, on the other hand, had your Great Western Schism and Reformation.

so you evaluate the various teachings formulating your own reasons for remaining away from the One True Church. It is a very long winded protest against us

Your arguments for Protestants are well rehearsed, so much so that you do not realize they don’t work on us.

But if you are comfortable remaining away from Rome, by all means stay away.

I’ve actually been to Rome. And Vatican City.

But please stop disrespecting the Saints who didn’t say the things you say they did.

Sorry, I will continue to quote them, and refrain from putting words in their mouths.

Defaming God’s chosen ones isn’t very nice,

correcting their record is not defaming them.

nor is it Christian, nor is it Catholic, nor is it Orthodox. I think you’re jealous to be honest.

Interesting, the Muslims just said that to me on NCF.

P.S. There is only one Pope and he lives at Rome.

Learn some history (it has the usual ultramontanist problems of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” but for what’s it’s worth):
It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon.

The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei.** The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude.** In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, “De Pud.” 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter.
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#V
Gregory VII ruled 1073-1085 (coincidently, when the IC was rearing its head). He dictated one pope and only at Rome, another innovation passed off as “Apostolic” tradition. We follow the practice of the Early Church, including bestowing the title “Pope” on the patriarch of Alexandria, the first patriarch to receive that title, who did not takeit.

Oh, at btw, Benedict doesn’t live in Rome. He lives in Vatican City. Different country.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thank you for a lengthy and well-written post, but unfortunately you haven’t even slightly answered my question. Is it possible – I’m not insisting it has ever happened, only asking if it is possible – that a person who is today considered a saint of the Church could have held views contrary to the Church’s present definition of some doctrine or another before the Church, either via council or papal declaration, had made a final declaration on the matter?

I’m afriaid Gail isn’t going to answer the question.

Reminds me of a similar conversation here, when Gail’s predecessor told me that Bernhard was corrected by the Virgin herself in heaven. I of course asked “In 1153 or 1854?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear Partyka, it is clear I spoke in terms you don’t understand. I am sorry. The examples I gave contain the answer. St. Paul clearly held beliefs that were contrary to practically everything the Church taught till the scales fell from his eyes and he could begin as a babe believing. The Holy Innocents had no knowlege practically of even who God is, let alone what the Church teaches. They were murdered before they reached even their second year.

Yes, it is possible for persons to be incorrect in their understanding of what the Church teaches and still become saints. That is the Mercy of God. He gives the knowlege they need to leave behind their false beleifs. That IS conversion. God in His Mercy reaches into the heart and soul of the dis-believer and brings them to the Truth in Himself. When that happens in a persons life it may only be with their dying breath. Or it may occur earlier and human history will record their thoughts before and if we are lucky after.

But as to the ways some here in this thread have misused their writings to try claim they were in error

the error is not in them, or their writings. It is in their revisionists.

to me that is nothing more the defaming them. To poke a little fun at you, it isn’t a very saintly thing to do.

Personally I think you could benefit from reading the lives of martyred saints. They didn’t leave any specious words for fools to argue ad nauseum. They shed their blood for the Lamb of God Who shed His blood for them. That is their confession. It speaks for itself.

yes, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has produced such martyrs in abundance.

 

[strugglingalong]

Can someone explain to me:

1. What Eastern Orthodox believe about Mary, her sinlessness, etc.?
2. Who is the final authority for Eastern Orthodox, i.e. who can decide what is true and what is heresy (since as we have seen many people can conclude many things from the Tradition).

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[mpartyka]

Yes, it is possible for persons to be incorrect in their understanding of what the Church teaches and still become saints. That is the Mercy of God. He gives the knowlege they need to leave behind their false beleifs. That IS conversion. God in His Mercy reaches into the heart and soul of the dis-believer and brings them to the Truth in Himself. When that happens in a persons life it may only be with their dying breath. Or it may occur earlier and human history will record their thoughts before and if we are lucky after.

Still not sure that you’re getting my drift here, so let’s get specific and take a hypothetical bishop who lived sometime before the 6th Ecumenical Council that defeated the Monothelite heresy. Prior to the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Church had not made an explicit, infallible declaration that Christ possessed two wills (divine and human). This particular hypothetical bishop was of the mind that Christ possessed one will, thus making him a Monothelite before Monothelitism was condemned. In all other points, however, he was a model saint and teacher of the faith – he only differed from what is today recognized as official Church teaching on the subject of Monothelitism.

Now, like I said, this person was a saint in all other ways except for his teaching Monothelitism before Monothelitism was officially condemned at the 6th Ecumenical Council, so on account of his great humility, charity, teaching on all other matters, etc., the Church happily canonized this bishop as a saint.

Is this hypothetical situation possible, in your opinion? That is, can the Church have canonized a saint who held to teachings that are now declared heretical but were not heretical at the time of that person’s death and later canonization?

 

[mpartyka]

…it appears that Pope Leo is primarily speaking of Christ; not Mary. So you cannot take the Pope’s work to be a treatise on Mary, let alone an ex-Cathedra teaching on her.

I have already conceded that (1) Pope Leo is primiarly speaking of Christ in the quotes I selected and (2) these are not “ex cathedra” statements by any means. However, Pope Leo does make mention of the Virgin Mary in each of the quotes, in context, and he never once attributes sinlessness to her as he does to Christ. Furthermore, certain of Pope Leo’s statements point to his belief that it was the virginal conception and birth of Christ that made it possible for Christ to escape inheriting the original sin of Adam. That is, had Christ been conceived the normal way (i.e., the way in which Mary herself had been conceived by Joachim and Anna), he would have inherited original sin in his conception – thus, because the Virgin Mary was conceived in the normal way, she must have herself inherited original sin in her conception.

 

[mpartyka]

1. What Eastern Orthodox believe about Mary, her sinlessness, etc.?

I know Orthodoxy teaches that she is Mother of God and Ever-Virgin and invokes her intercessions during the liturgy. Beyond that I don’t know if there is anything definitive that they teach concerning her.

1. Who is the final authority for Eastern Orthodox, i.e. who can decide what is true and what is heresy (since as we have seen many people can conclude many things from the Tradition).

The Orthodox view is that “where two or three are gathered” – naturally, the more the better – in Christ’s name, Christ is present with them because they all share the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit speaks through them via their collective consensus. Thus, it is the Church as a whole which is infallible. Those persons who are entrusted with the Church’s teaching (i.e., the bishops) are authorized to come together in council should there be a matter requiring a decision, but I think it’s possible that in Orthodoxy even the conciliar decision of the bishops is not considered fully ratified unless the laity gives assent to their decisions as well. (I’m not sure if this has actually ever happened or not, but I’ve heard it said – don’t recall where.)

In any case, the Orthodox follow the pattern established in Acts concerning the Council of Jerusalem. The people at that time said, “Go and seek the counsel of the apostles and the elders” – all the apostles and all the elders, not just one apostle. The people desired to know what was the consensus opinion, not the opinion of one man, because it was through the gathering together of many apostles and elders in Christ’s name that the people trusted the Holy Spirit to speak most clearly.

 

[strugglingalong]

I know Orthodoxy teaches that she is Mother of God and Ever-Virgin and invokes her intercessions during the liturgy. Beyond that I don’t know if there is anything definitive that they teach concerning her.

The Orthodox view is that “where two or three are gathered” – naturally, the more the better – in Christ’s name, Christ is present with them because they all share the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit speaks through them via their collective consensus. Thus, it is the Church as a whole which is infallible. Those persons who are entrusted with the Church’s teaching (i.e., the bishops) are authorized to come together in council should there be a matter requiring a decision, but I think it’s possible that in Orthodoxy even the conciliar decision of the bishops is not considered fully ratified unless the laity gives assent to their decisions as well. (I’m not sure if this has actually ever happened or not, but I’ve heard it said – don’t recall where.)

In any case, the Orthodox follow the pattern established in Acts concerning the Council of Jerusalem. The people at that time said, “Go and seek the counsel of the apostles and the elders” – all the apostles and all the elders, not just one apostle. The people desired to know what was the consensus opinion, not the opinion of one man, because it was through the gathering together of many apostles and elders in Christ’s name that the people trusted the Holy Spirit to speak most clearly.

Thank you. That is informative. I’d say and ask more but I know it is off topic.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[rad314]

Is this hypothetical situation possible, in your opinion? That is, can the Church have canonized a saint who held to teachings that are now declared heretical but were not heretical at the time of that person’s death and later canonization?

Is it possible? Of course. In fact, see the doctrinal index (be sure to read the introductory paragraph) in Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, point 786 – which just happens to be the Immaculate Conception. You’ll see that St. Fulgence of Ruspe explicitly denied it. (Don’t overlook the examples cited in support, though.) On the other hand, if you’re going to go around publicly denying it now, don’t be surprised if we never canonize you.

BTW, you do realize, don’t you, that Pope Leo the Great is St. Leo the Great?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Partyka - You state:" Pope Leo does make mention of the Virgin Mary in each of the quotes, in context, and he never once attributes sinlessness to her as he does to Christ. " — This is a conclusion of yours not St. Leo’s. He does mention the purity of Mary and her singularity as God’s Mother.

“Furthermore, certain of Pope Leo’s statements point to his belief that it was the virginal conception and birth of Christ that made it possible for Christ to escape inheriting the original sin of Adam.” ---- This is getting closer to the Truth, but still skewed so as to allow Mary to have sin, which she didn’t.

“That is, had Christ been conceived the normal way (i.e., the way in which Mary herself had been conceived by Joachim and Anna), he would have inherited original sin in his conception – thus, because the Virgin Mary was conceived in the normal way, she must have herself inherited original sin in her conception.” ---- This is the way you draw your conclusion about Mary’s sinfulness. Two problems, if Jesus had been conceived in what you call the “normal” way, He wouldn’t have been God, He would have been just a man. And yet you continue to claim these are St. Leo’s words! Ridiculous!

I’ll quote from the excerpts of St. Leo you provided: “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” (emphasis mine) What St. Leo is saying here is that Jesus’ coming brought a new order to the world in regards birth - Mary being Born Without Original Sin would fit the bill. The unsullied purity he mentions would include personal and original sins. And he mentions this as a gift to men. And oh, what a gift Mary is to us who know her! Then comes His willing to GUARD Mary’s PRIMAL VIRGINITY and preserving her from all sins, original and personal, from the first. He kept her SPOTLESS AND HOLY! Ummmm…I don’t know what your definition of this is, but surely you can’t get any holier than God Himself preserving you in sanctity from the first. But don’t go any where yet folks, the big punchline IS coming…

Pope Leo goes on to state: “And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception.” Well, I know Partyka, you will say that this doesn’t MIRROR the wording chosen in Ineffabilis Deus, but it comes pretty close. St. Leo is stating very clearly that Mary had received her purification from all sin at her conception! She wasn’t like all the rest of the mothers in the world including Eve. “Whereas in all mothers” That means every single woman who ever gave birth or who would ever give birth from the very first mother, Eve, to all the rest, every single one. St. Leo continues with “conception does not take place without stain of sin,” which is what the Church believes and teaches about Original sin we inherit it from our parents. It is the “stain” he is refering to. “This one,” meaning Mary, “received purification,” that is his word for the prevention of the taint of the flesh, the stain of original sin…“from the Source of her conception,” here St. Leo is stating that Mary received her sinlessness from God, the Source, at her conception. So, add it all up what do you get? Exactly what the Church teaches about the Immaculate Conception of Mary - she was Conceived without sin, both Original and personal. From the Source of her conception Mary received her purification. Doesn’t get much clearer then that unless you read Ineffabilis Deus!

I think Partyka, where you diverge is in expecting *the wording *to be an *exact mirror *of the wording of the Dogma contained in Ineffabilis Deus. But there are many ways to say the same thing, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

Is it possible? Of course. In fact, see the doctrinal index (be sure to read the introductory paragraph) in Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, point 786 – which just happens to be the Immaculate Conception. You’ll see that St. Fulgence of Ruspe explicitly denied it. (Don’t overlook the examples cited in support, though.) On the other hand, if you’re going to go around publicly denying it now, don’t be surprised if we never canonize you.

BTW, you do realize, don’t you, that Pope Leo the Great is St. Leo the Great?

Okay, that’s the confirmation I was looking for. (Now I just wonder if Gail is willing to agree.) What I’ve been arguing is that, just as St. Fulgence of Ruspe explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception and is still considered a saint in spite of his having denied it, so, too, did St. Leo implicitly deny it via explicit statements concerning the conception of Christ which, taken together, make it impossible for him to have held Mary to have been conceived without original sin. Gail apparently thinks my saying so is being defamatory – how dare I accuse St. Leo of having been in error concerning the Immaculate Conception – but I’m just summarizing what’s there in his writings for everyone to see, and, as you’ve pointed out, it’s not impossible that such a thing as a pope’s being in error could happen (so long as he didn’t declare his personally held error in an ex cathedra fashion).

 

[GailMac]

Oooops Partyka! You must’ve been typing your last post to this thread while I was typing my post!

Peace,

Gail

 

[mpartyka]

Two problems, if Jesus had been conceived in what you call the “normal” way, He wouldn’t have been God, He would have been just a man.

Why is that? (And that’s only one problem, by the way.)

What St. Leo is saying here is that Jesus’ coming brought a new order to the world in regards birth - Mary being Born Without Original Sin would fit the bill.

That is utterly ridiculous. St. Leo says that Christ, not Mary, was born of a new order. Jesus’ conception and birth was different from all others’, not Mary’s.

The unsullied purity he mentions would include personal and original sins. And he mentions this as a gift to men. And oh, what a gift Mary is to us who know her!

He mentions unsullied purity as a gift to men, not Mary. St. Leo’s argument is that since Christ brings the gift of unsullied purity to mankind, it is fitting that he should be born in a pure, unsullied way. This has nothing to do with Mary’s conception or birth.

Pope Leo goes on to state: “And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception.”…St. Leo is stating very clearly that Mary had received her purification from all sin at her conception!..“This one,” meaning Mary, “received purification,” that is his word for the prevention of the taint of the flesh, the stain of original sin…“from the Source of her conception,” here St. Leo is stating that Mary received her sinlessness from God, the Source, at her conception.

Look again. “And whereas in all mothers conception” of their children “does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception” of Christ. Can you see the parallel now? All other mothers, when they receive seed into themselves and conceive their children, receive the stain of sin with that seed – i.e., in conceiving children, women essentially receive sin into themselves. But, because the seed which impregnated Mary came from God and not from man, Mary received purification into herself, not sin, when she conceived Christ.

So, add it all up what do you get?

Two things: A denial of the Immaculate Conception by St. Leo, and a serious case of denial on your part.

You must’ve been typing your last post to this thread while I was typing my post!

Yup. Probably doing it again, too!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Now, you can say that St. Gregory was in error, but you can’t condemn Catholics as heretics for holding to such beliefs without also condemning Gregory.

Thats what YOU think.