Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[Chaldean_Rite]

So lets throw Mary out of the picture, along with all the saints and angels!

The Lord does not save us without our participation, nor does He do it by force. Having granted man freewill, He does not require him to submit to Himself, but He calls, He awaits his conversion, He seeks a voluntary acceptance of salvation. He stands at the door, knocks and waits, that one might hear His voice and open the door to Him, and only then does He enter (Rev. 3:10). Therefore even the very initial act of salvation, the incarnation of the Son of God, was achieved not by the forcible entry of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High into the Virgin, but rather through the salutation of the Virgin with the good tidings, through an appeal to her faith, and after she had expressed her voluntary agreement with it. Thus salvation and the incarnation were achieved not only by the fact that God alone desired this, but also by the fact that man himself, in the person of the Virgin Mary, had expressed his consent to this.

In her Christ first of all saved us. And she saves us all in Christ.

In this way, as the salvation of man directly depends on man’s will, on the one hand we are obliged to the All-holy Virgin Mary for our salvation, and her significance in the work of our salvation is of the first order and enormous. At the Annunciation, when the Lord knocked, she heard His voice and opened the door for the salvation of all.

1. “All-holy Theotokos, save us.” There is no one who served more in Christ in the good work of our salvation than the All-holy Virgin Mary. For this reason the prayerful address, “All-holy Theotokos, save us,” always has only one meaning, which is implicit in it, and that is, *“save us in Christ, *for thou hast already done this, for in Christ thou hast already saved us.” She, who has brought us to salvation in Christ, is alone more than worthy among all the saints, to receive the petition and prayerful supplication: “save us.”

Because, on behalf of mankind, the Virgin offered everything to God for the salvation of man, so she is a support to man’s efforts, and in human perception, which is granted us for our salvation, she is the closest associate in the work of our salvation. After her, through her and with her help, we are raised up to heaven. She is closer than all the saints to people, a mediatrix before God possessing the most praeter-perfect human nature, and one who, out of love for and compassion for people, and for the sake of their salvation, lent flesh and blood to God.

Chosen of all generations, blessed among women, uniquely from amongst all, as one who has obtained grace from God, as the elect bride of the All-holy Spirit, she possesses the most powerful faith among all the sons and daughters of man, and the deepest humility among all; she among all peoples was the most good hearted on account of her love and compassion.

And she dwells with God, living with all her feelings, virtues and powers, ready to help everyone that calls upon her.

orthodoxinfo.com/general/veneration_mary.aspx

beautifully put.

 

[mpartyka]

Therefore even the very initial act of salvation, the incarnation of the Son of God, was achieved not by the forcible entry of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High into the Virgin, but rather through the salutation of the Virgin with the good tidings, through an appeal to her faith, and after she had expressed her voluntary agreement with it. Thus salvation and the incarnation were achieved not only by the fact that God alone desired this, but also by the fact that man himself, in the person of the Virgin Mary, had expressed his consent to this. In her Christ first of all saved us. And she saves us all in Christ.

All well and good, but how is that any different, really, from Abraham’s consenting to sacrifice Isaac, or Rahab’s decision to hide the Israelite spies, or Ruth’s decision to stay with Naomi, or any of the zillions of other agreements with the will of God that were done over millenia just to get to that point where Mary made her choice? All of these decisions were important to God’s plan of salvation, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said, “In Rahab Christ first of all saved us,” or, “Ruth saves us all in Christ.”

Yes, I think credit should be given where credit is due, and Mary deserves extreme credit for her voluntary agreement to the will of God, but I tend to think that the credit she deserves versus the credit deserved by the other examples of faith we are given in Scripture differ in degree, not kind (and the terms dulia and hyperdulia implicitly support this view). Yet it has been the alarming tendency of both Catholics and Orthodox to raise praise of Mary to a level wholly separate from that of the praise given to the rest of the saints – sort of a middle ground between “dulia” and “latria” for which only Mary qualifies, which, in my opinion, serves only to dehumanize Mary and instead artificially deify her beyond what is appropriate for a saint. Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, along with popular titles like “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces”, serve only to emphasize this strange desire (as I see it) to make Mary less human and more Godlike, artificially raising the status of the created higher and higher toward the level, honor, and glory of the Creator.

The question that plagues me when I consider all this is, “Where does it stop?” At what point will Catholics and Orthodox set a clear dividing line between creature and Creator and say, “You know, as wonderful as Mary is, we really ought to be focusing on Him who is so wonderful as to be beyond all wonder that we could ever conceive”?

Which leads me to ask in speculative fashion: Do Catholics and Orthodox focus so much on Mary because they feel it’s easier to relate to an exalted human woman than it is to relate to the incomprehensible God, even the God-man? Among women, is Marian devotion something that satisfies a subconscious desire to avoid patterning oneself after the man Jesus Christ? Among men, is it less threatening and more comforting to pour out one’s heart and soul to a woman rather than to the man Jesus Christ? Perhaps we will discuss these questions someday. It would be an interesting subject.

–Mike

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

All well and good, but how is that any different, really, from Abraham’s consenting to sacrifice Isaac, or Rahab’s decision to hide the Israelite spies, or Ruth’s decision to stay with Naomi, or any of the zillions of other agreements with the will of God that were done over millenia just to get to that point where Mary made her choice? All of these decisions were important to God’s plan of salvation, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said, “In Rahab Christ first of all saved us,” or, “Ruth saves us all in Christ.”

Yes, I think credit should be given where credit is due, and Mary deserves extreme credit for her voluntary agreement to the will of God, but I tend to think that the credit she deserves versus the credit deserved by the other examples of faith we are given in Scripture differ in degree, not kind (and the terms dulia and hyperdulia implicitly support this view). Yet it has been the alarming tendency of both Catholics and Orthodox to raise praise of Mary to a level wholly separate from that of the praise given to the rest of the saints – sort of a middle ground between “dulia” and “latria” for which only Mary qualifies, which, in my opinion, serves only to dehumanize Mary and instead artificially deify her beyond what is appropriate for a saint. Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, along with popular titles like “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces”, serve only to emphasize this strange desire (as I see it) to make Mary less human and more Godlike, artificially raising the status of the created higher and higher toward the level, honor, and glory of the Creator.

The question that plagues me when I consider all this is, “Where does it stop?” At what point will Catholics and Orthodox set a clear dividing line between creature and Creator and say, “You know, as wonderful as Mary is, we really ought to be focusing on Him who is so wonderful as to be beyond all wonder that we could ever conceive”?

Which leads me to ask in speculative fashion: Do Catholics and Orthodox focus so much on Mary because they feel it’s easier to relate to an exalted human woman than it is to relate to the incomprehensible God, even the God-man? Among women, is Marian devotion something that satisfies a subconscious desire to avoid patterning oneself after the man Jesus Christ? Among men, is it less threatening and more comforting to pour out one’s heart and soul to a woman rather than to the man Jesus Christ? Perhaps we will discuss these questions someday. It would be an interesting subject.

–Mike

fyi, that was an Orthodox source. just in case you didn’t see the link at the bottom.

 

[mpartyka]

fyi, that was an Orthodox source. just in case you didn’t see the link at the bottom.

Doesn’t matter. I’d have the same debate with any Orthodox.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

It clearly says “…this one received purification from the Source of her conception.”

This clearly says that Mary received purification from the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is the Source of her conception.
.

This could be understood as … 'Mary received cleansing from her original sins from the Source [God’s H.S.] of her conception [conceptus … ie. Christ].

The Scriptures do seem to imply that the H.S. came upon Mary at the Annunciation, making her ‘singularly pure’ and able to be the only holy vessel for our Lord.

As long as she is purity before Christ enters her … why would it matter if it happened just before Christ’s conception, or way back at her conception day ?

I’ve never understood why Catholics make much ado about the exact timing of her purity. If it occured at the Annunciation … then the scripture about “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God” … is retained w/o exception.

Catholics like to say we accept all scriptures … so, do we really ?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This could be understood as … 'Mary received cleansing from her original sins from the Source [God’s H.S.] of her conception [conceptus … ie. Christ].

The Scriptures do seem to imply that the H.S. came upon Mary at the Annunciation, making her ‘singularly pure’ and able to be the only holy vessel for our Lord.

As long as she is purity before Christ enters her … why would it matter if it happened just before Christ’s conception, or way back at her conception day?

I’ve never understood why Catholics make much ado about the exact timing of her purity. If it occured at the Annunciation … then the scripture about “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God” … is retained w/o exception.

Catholics like to say we accept all scriptures … so, do we really ?

We know St John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb (Lk1), so it is not inconceivable to go a step further to the Immaculate Conception, especially given Mary is of a greater order of importance than St John.

Secondly, the Angel called Her “full of Grace” as soon has he arrived, no indication of repentance or anything, and Mary had not even spoken yet. There is a theory some (most?) Orthodox hold to that She was cleansed when She gave Her fiat (“may it be done unto me according to Thy Will”), yet the Angel called Her “full of Grace” before She spoke. And the Greek term for “full of Grace” is unique, it occurs nowhere else in Scripture.

 

[BRB]

We know St John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb (Lk1), so it is not inconceivable to go a step further to the Immaculate Conception, QUOTE]

True … but, perhaps John was Elijah returned to earth. That might explain why John’s spirit was unlike anyone who had ever been born prior.

John was on a mission from God from his conception.

It appears Mary’s singular mission began in her youth @ perhaps age 14/15 yo.

 

[GailMac]

I think the point was that if St. Gregory cannot be called a heretic for believing (if he indeed did) in these popular Marian doctrines, neither can Catholics who believe them be called heretics. I think that’s reasonable.

So, Mpartyka, you believe that our Saints are heretics. Stay protestant. I really don’t care for your opinions. Thanks for sharing.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So, Mpartyka, you believe that our Saints are heretics. Stay protestant. I really don’t care for your opinions. Thanks for sharing.

Peace,

Gail

Be the best Protestant Christian you can be Mpartyka!

 

[mpartyka]

So, Mpartyka, you believe that our Saints are heretics.

Amazing. You just took what I wrote and gave it the exact opposite meaning. Look again:

I think the point was that if St. Gregory cannot be called a heretic for believing (if he indeed did) in these popular Marian doctrines, neither can Catholics who believe them be called heretics. I think that’s reasonable.

–Mike

 

[Catholic_Dude]

True … but, perhaps John was Elijah returned to earth. That might explain why John’s spirit was unlike anyone who had ever been born prior.

John was on a mission from God from his conception.

It appears Mary’s singular mission began in her youth @ perhaps age 14/15 yo.

I’m not sure if I am reading this right. Are you saying St John and Elijah were the SAME person? If so, I think that is incorrect and would imply theological problems (eg reincarnation).

And why would Mary’s singular mission be less singularly blessed than St John’s?

 

[BRB]

Are you saying St John and Elijah were the SAME person? If so, I think that is incorrect and would imply theological problems (eg reincarnation).

QUOTE]

Elijah was taken up … w/o seeing death. And, all Jews knew he was to return again.

If he didn’t die, & spent time in Paradise, and had a second go/return as John.

I know it seems strange … but, thats what the Jews were led to believe would happen someday with Elijah. And, Moses & Elijah were seen again later with Christ … so, it could be the case.

 

[mpartyka]

One line of early Christian thought says that Enoch and Elijah, the two persons in the Bible who never saw death, will return in the end times as the “two witnesses” of Revelation.

As far as the connection between Elijah and John the Baptist goes, the gospel already quotes Jesus as saying that John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, not as Elijah reincarnate. (Plus, I don’t think that it’s a good idea to argue that John is Elijah reincarnate because then you can draw the parallel that Jesus is Elisha reincarnate, as there are many parallels between the miracles of Elisha and the miracles of Jesus.)

–Mike

 

[BRB]

the gospel already quotes Jesus as saying that John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, not as Elijah reincarnate.

Yes, but Christ also taught that ‘Elijah had returned — for those who could accept it’ … when people were asking him about the need for Elijah to first return.

John was the spitting image of Elijah, same dress, same singleness of purpose, same spirituality, etc.

We also are told that all men must see death. Elijah didn’t, but perhaps on second mission as John, he did.

Moses died … so perhaps only Enoch has yet to die.

 

[mpartyka]

Here’s yet another near-contemporary of Pope Leo I who connects original sin with conception via sexual intercourse:

Now, behold, according to what many say, and according also to the slight indication which the Book itself giveth unto us, the fruit which Eve ate was of the fig-tree, and it is manifest that the nature of the fig-tree is not to produce death; therefore it was lust which gave birth unto death, which it hath in all generations produced for man. For the root of death is lust, and the root of lust is carnal union, and for this reason all those who are born of carnal union are moved by lust, and are subject unto death, except One who was not born of carnal union; for this reason He was free from the motion of lust, and therefore He appeared superior to natural death, which, although He took it upon Himself, was voluntary and not natural.
– Philoxenus of Hierapolis, 11th Ascetic Discourse (on Abstinence)

Source

–Mike

 

[BRB]

Here’s yet another near-contemporary of Pope Leo I who connects original sin with conception via sexual intercourse:

Source

–Mike

Seems a stretch to suggest that ‘lust’ was the original sin of Adam / Eve.

Eating fruit of tree of knowledge doesn’t seem like a sexual matter.

Adam/Eve were probably already sexual creatures … but, did not experience lust from the coitus events.

But, once they sinned the sin of pride (probable O.S.) … they then fell prey to concept of lust and all other sins.

 

[mpartyka]

Seems a stretch to suggest that ‘lust’ was the original sin of Adam / Eve.

I don’t think that’s what the author is arguing here. I think the author’s intent is to show that it was not the fruit of the tree itself that introduced death into Adam and Eve but rather the sinful disposition of their hearts, which he equates generally with “lust” (i.e., they lusted after the divinity which they thought they would be granted through eating the fruit). From that general point he moves on to the propogation of death to the rest of the human species, tying that propogation to the sexual lust required to facilitate the natural conception of new human life (i.e., it takes lust to have sex and create a new human, therefore the new human is born with innate lust and consequent mortality). The author finishes by saying that since Christ’s conception, unlike everyone else’s, was free from lust, then so was Christ free from lust, and thus He was not subject to death save for His voluntary acceptance of it.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

since Christ’s conception, unlike everyone else’s, was free from lust, then so was Christ free from lust, and thus He was not subject to death save for His voluntary acceptance of it.

–Mike

Sounds like ‘tight’ theology on surface … expect for what scriptures teach about sin.

Christ was ‘tempted in all ways as we … yet remained w/o sin’.

So, can we say … in all ways except for lust ?

I’m not saying Christ experienced original sin … I’m saying he must of experienced temptation of lust at some point in life, in order for scriptures be true and in order for one captured by sexual addictions to know Christ can relate to their problem.

 

[mpartyka]

Sounds like ‘tight’ theology on surface … expect for what scriptures teach about sin. Christ was ‘tempted in all ways as we … yet remained w/o sin’. So, can we say … in all ways except for lust? I’m not saying Christ experienced original sin … I’m saying he must of experienced temptation of lust at some point in life, in order for scriptures be true and in order for one captured by sexual addictions to know Christ can relate to their problem.

I think the core question here is, “What does it mean to be a sinner?” Being tempted doesn’t make one a sinner. Sinning makes one a sinner, or, perhaps more exactly, what makes a person a sinner is that person’s experiencing the effects of having sinned (e.g., concupiscence and death).

Adam and Eve were not sinners when they were tempted by Satan, so there was no concupiscence or death in them prior to the Fall. After the Fall, they experienced the effects of sin, namely concupiscence and death (i.e., mortality). Something had changed within them that made them even more susceptible to temptation than before. This change was passed on to their descendants, too, so that human beings were born experiencing the effects of the original sin – i.e., they were born as sinners, even though they had not yet personally sinned.

According to the Fathers presented in this thread, the mechanism of transmission of original sin was the lust accompanying copulation and conception, and the means of Jesus’ avoiding inheriting the effects of original sin was His supernatural, lust-free conception. Because Jesus was born without the involvement of lust, the human nature he took to himself was the same that was originally given to Adam, free from concupiscence and death.

Consequently, my argument is that the Virgin Mary, however blessed and holy she might be, could not, according to these Fathers, have been free from the effects of original sin because her conception was a natural one involving lust. (In the same way, her death was not voluntary, as was Christ’s, but a consequence of her having inherited original sin.)

–Mike

 

[davidv]

I think the core question here is, “What does it mean to be a sinner?” Being tempted doesn’t make one a sinner. Sinning makes one a sinner, or, perhaps more exactly, what makes a person a sinner is that person’s experiencing the effects of having sinned (e.g., concupiscence and death).

Adam and Eve were not sinners when they were tempted by Satan, so there was no concupiscence or death in them prior to the Fall. After the Fall, they experienced the effects of sin, namely concupiscence and death (i.e., mortality). Something had changed within them that made them even more susceptible to temptation than before. This change was passed on to their descendants, too, so that human beings were born experiencing the effects of the original sin – i.e., they were born as sinners, even though they had not yet personally sinned.

According to the Fathers presented in this thread, the mechanism of transmission of original sin was the lust accompanying copulation and conception, and the means of Jesus’ avoiding inheriting the effects of original sin was His supernatural, lust-free conception. Because Jesus was born without the involvement of lust, the human nature he took to himself was the same that was originally given to Adam, free from concupiscence and death.

Consequently, my argument is that the Virgin Mary, however blessed and holy she might be, could not, according to these Fathers, have been free from the effects of original sin because her conception was a natural one involving lust. (In the same way, her death was not voluntary, as was Christ’s, but a consequence of her having inherited original sin.)

–Mike

Since you conclusion is in oposition to the constant teaching of the Church, then, at least from my perspective your argument is either based on a false premise or bad logic.

I would submit that it is based on a false premise. That being, that original sin is not tranmitted by lust. In my view it is transmitted like a genetic disease. It part of our nature. It is not dependent on the moral intent of the parents.