Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[mpartyka]

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 think your conclusion is based on the false premise that the Church’s teaching has been constant.

In my view it is transmitted like a genetic disease. It part of our nature.

I think you are correct, with the caveat that transmission occurs from father to child, not from mother to child. This would be consistent with the view of the ancients that conception occurs when the “seed” of a man is implanted in a woman, at which point the “seed” grows by taking flesh from the woman. It is that “seed” of man that carries with it the burden of original sin. It is therefore because the Virgin Mary was implanted with a divine, not human, “seed” by the Holy Spirit that original sin was not transmitted to Jesus, even though He, like any other human child, grew in the womb by taking flesh from His mother.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

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

Now you have really stepped over the line. You are saying the Magi/popes have erred in their determination re: immaculate conception.

I see your point … but, it will need a strong defense.

 

[BRB]

It is that “seed” of man that carries with it the burden of original sin. It is therefore because the Virgin Mary was implanted with a divine, not human, “seed” by the Holy Spirit

Supported by scriptures ? Tradition ?

Problem is that if this be so … Why would Christ of needed a pure vessel Mary ?

This is the Protestant way of looking at the matter.

 

[mpartyka]

You are saying the Magi/popes have erred in their determination re: immaculate conception.

Well…depends on which popes you’re talking about. Under Catholic guidelines, you’d be perfectly okay in saying that the Fathers quoted in this thread were all wrong in denying the possibility of an Immaculate Conception, since nothing they said addressed the matter of Mary’s conception directly, nor was anything they said phrased in an ex cathedra manner. (Heck, it’s okay for even a pope to be totally in error so long as he doesn’t pronounce the error in ex cathedra fashion.) You’d only get in trouble if you said that recent popes and bishops were/are in error for affirming the Immaculate Conception.

My personal belief is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception is a teaching that did not originate with the apostles but was rather a gradually-developed outgrowth of the increasing fervency of veneration of Mary. However, I’m still only reading in the 6th century of Christian writings, so it’ll be a while before I collect sufficient evidence to support what is now only my conjecture.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Supported by scriptures? Tradition?

Can’t point to anything in particular. Heard it somewhere, and once I heard it, all the writings in the Fathers referring to Christ’s being the seed of God, not of man, but having taken flesh from Mary made sense.

Problem is that if this be so…Why would Christ of needed a pure vessel Mary?

I don’t think he needed there to be no original sin in His mother to be free from original sin himself. The only thing required to prevent the transmission of original sin was that the seed implanted in the human mother be of divine rather than human origin.

This is the Protestant way of looking at the matter.

Well, the Protestant view doesn’t even require any kind of sinlessness on Mary’s part for her to have been Christ’s mother. Here we’re only talking about the transmission of original sin, not any actual sin of Mary’s, so we’re a step removed from a Protestant paradigm.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

My personal belief is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception is a teaching that did not originate with the apostles but was rather a gradually-developed outgrowth of the increasing fervency of veneration of Mary.

Well, it does appear some of the earliest of ECF’s didn’t fully understand/believe in IC. So says J. Newman.

But, Matt. seems to support IC … and John in Rev gives support to bodily Assumption of Mary.

Tradition points to lack of grave for Mary as strong support for her assumption. Church does not require a Catholic to believe in Fatima or Lourdes events.

 

[BRB]

Well, the Protestant view doesn’t even require any kind of sinlessness on Mary’s part for her to have been Christ’s mother. Here we’re only talking about the transmission of original sin, not any actual sin of Mary’s, so we’re a step removed from a Protestant paradigm.

–Mike

Protestants don’t ponder Mary much at all. Many don’t even believe she remained childless after Christ.

But, many believe she was made a pure vessel at the moment of annunciation. Still, even these believe Christ received no blessedness from Mary … with Christ having received all sinless qualities from the Father only.

 

[mpartyka]

Well, it does appear some of the earliest of ECF’s didn’t fully understand/believe in IC. So says J. Newman.

Glad to know I’m not the only one.

But, Matt. seems to support IC

Where so?

and John in Rev gives support to bodily Assumption of Mary. Tradition points to lack of grave for Mary as strong support for her assumption. Church does not require a Catholic to believe in Fatima or Lourdes events.

Not particularly worried about the Assumption of Mary. If Elijah and Enoch were translated to heaven without even dying, Mary’s having been assumed upon death is no big stretch. And, the letter of St. Jude refers to an apocryphal text called “The Assumption of Moses” in which an angel contests with the devil for Moses’ body, so if an assumption happened for Moses – by whom the Law came – it would fit if it happened also for Mary – by whom the Lawgiver came.

–Mike

 

[clmowry]

My personal belief is that the idea of the Immaculate Conception is a teaching that did not originate with the apostles but was rather a gradually-developed outgrowth of the increasing fervency of veneration of Mary. However, I’m still only reading in the 6th century of Christian writings, so it’ll be a while before I collect sufficient evidence to support what is now only my conjecture.

While you are reading, perhaps you should also give a chance to the notion that the teaching on the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Mary but is instead all about Christ.

If you conduct your research with a conclusion in mind, I would submit you are likely to only see as vaild those arguements that support your conclusion.

Chuck

 

[mpartyka]

Protestants don’t ponder Mary much at all. Many don’t even believe she remained childless after Christ.

True, mainly because (1) there’s so little written in the Bible about Mary for us to ponder and (2) the “second-rate” view toward married & childbearing life (as opposed to the “higher path” of virginal monasticism) held by the overwhelming majority of the Fathers doesn’t really exist in Protestant circles, where married life is celebrated over the lonely single path. (Kind of upside-down, but what do you expect?)

…the teaching on the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Mary but is instead all about Christ.

Only in the sense that the Immaculate Conception is used to shore up Christ’s own immaculateness, but when you realize that Christ’s immaculateness doesn’t need shoring up from a patristic perspective (because “taking flesh” from Mary doesn’t include taking on original sin), it really does become all about Mary.

If you conduct your research with a conclusion in mind, I would submit you are likely to only see as valid those arguements that support your conclusion.

Not true, actually. I started out reading the Fathers with the idea that I would see “once saved, always saved” in their writings, but after getting through the first four centuries’ worth of writings, I finally had to admit that doctrine wasn’t there, and this was key in my leaving the Southern Baptist denomination.

Likewise, it’s precisely because of the quotes from various Fathers which I have presented in this thread that I have come to be sure that the Immaculate Conception was not part of the original deposit of the faith given to the Apostles. I haven’t been explicitly looking for such references, yet there they are.

–Mike

 

[davidv]

I think your conclusion is based on the false premise that the Church’s teaching has been constant.

You may think that, but many have tried and failed to demonstrate any substantial change in Church doctrine. Besides, I wasn’t presenting conclusion, I was offering a critique of your argument.

I think you are correct, with the caveat that transmission occurs from father to child, not from mother to child. This would be consistent with the view of the ancients that conception occurs when the “seed” of a man is implanted in a woman, at which point the “seed” grows by taking flesh from the woman. It is that “seed” of man that carries with it the burden of original sin. It is therefore because the Virgin Mary was implanted with a divine, not human, “seed” by the Holy Spirit that original sin was not transmitted to Jesus, even though He, like any other human child, grew in the womb by taking flesh from His mother.

–Mike

What the ancients believed about biology and what we in the 21st century understand are quite different. I inherit traits from both my mother and father. I would submit that it not the seed that transmits original sin, but it is the broken essence of human nature that transmits it. The reason that Jesus didn’ t “inherit” it was because He is the new “Adam” who demonstrated how live life as we are meant to.

 

[BRB]

, I finally had to admit that doctrine wasn’t there, and this was key in my leaving the Southern Baptist denomination.

for what ? RCC or otherwise ?

 

[mpartyka]

What the ancients believed about biology and what we in the 21st century understand are quite different. I inherit traits from both my mother and father. I would submit that it not the seed that transmits original sin, but it is the broken essence of human nature that transmits it.

I think it’s more appropriate to say, “What the ancients believed about biology was wrong,” and accept that their errors concerning biology underpinned their understanding of original sin and its transmission. It is probably because science improved, and knowledge of what really takes place in conception improved, such that the “Fathers” of later centuries decided that the doctrine of original sin needed some updating to get it in synch with modern science – hence, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But this only goes to show how doctrines have changed over time, requiring the invention of new doctrines to support old ones as more evidence is collected and disseminated by the scientific community (much like the Church will soon have to deal with the reality of evolution).

The reason that Jesus didn’ t “inherit” it was because He is the new “Adam” who demonstrated how live life as we are meant to.

That’s a “why” answer, not a “how” answer. The Fathers whom I’ve quoted are all clear in saying that the “how” of Jesus’ avoiding the inheritance of original sin rests in his supernatural conception – something Mary did not have to protect her from inheriting original sin.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

for what? RCC or otherwise?

Not RCC, mainly because of the IC doctrine and the papal infallibility used to require belief in it. Dabbled in Orthodoxy for a while, but I came to hate all the ritual and other hoopla. Being a SB was so much simpler because it more easily fits with a scientific mindset, but I think any sola scriptura denomination is going to get utterly leveled by evolution. Plus, OSAS didn’t pass the history test, so there’s no point going back to SB.

Right now I don’t know where I belong. At this point I would be wary of any church that would have me.

–Mike

 

[davidv]

I think it’s more appropriate to say, “What the ancients believed about biology was wrong,” and accept that their errors concerning biology underpinned their understanding of original sin and its transmission. It is probably because science improved, and knowledge of what really takes place in conception improved, such that the “Fathers” of later centuries decided that the doctrine of original sin needed some updating to get it in synch with modern science – hence, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But this only goes to show how doctrines have changed over time, requiring the invention of new doctrines to support old ones as more evidence is collected and disseminated by the scientific community (much like the Church will soon have to deal with the reality of evolution).

That’s a “why” answer, not a “how” answer. The Fathers whom I’ve quoted are all clear in saying that the “how” of Jesus’ avoiding the inheritance of original sin rests in his supernatural conception – something Mary did not have to protect her from inheriting original sin.

–Mike

So, if the “supernatural conception” answer is sufficient for Jesus why isn’t it sufficient to answer the how question related to the IC?

 

[mpartyka]

So, if the “supernatural conception” answer is sufficient for Jesus why isn’t it sufficient to answer the how question related to the IC?

Because Mary’s conception was natural, not supernatural. Mary was conceived via her parents’ having intercourse. According to what was thought in those days, her father’s seed was deposited into her mother’s womb, and this seed from her father took flesh from her mother as it grew, and after nine months baby Mary was born. Likewise, her father was conceived in the same way so that he was the product of his father’s seed and the flesh taken from his mother, and so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam, who was created directly by God. This generation by the passage of mortal seed from the father into the mother via the mechanism of sexual intercourse (which, in the eyes of the Fathers, always involved lust) is the means by which original sin was passed down to all of Adam’s progeny.

The only time this process was not followed was in Christ’s case, for in His case, the “divine seed” of His Father was implanted by the Holy Spirit into Mary’s womb. Christ took flesh from Mary, and for that reason he was fully human, but because the “seed” from which he grew came from God and not from man, he did not inherit original sin.

–Mike

 

[davidmammola]

Here’s another angle on this argument:
Are you aware that the ovum was not discovered until 1827? If that is true, it makes sense that this dogma was not proclaimed until 1854. If, as the Fathers mistakenly thought, all of the matter for the generation of Jesus’ physical body came from the Holy Spirit, there would be less reason to speculate about the sinlessness of Mary (even though it would still be “fitting” that she be sinless and pure as the new Ark of the Covenant). While Mary’s sinlessness from conception is still not theologically necessary (strictly speaking), there seems to be an even better reason for Mary to be sinless when one considers that she contributed an egg to the conception of Christ. It was wise not to define this dogma, in my opinion, until after we understood how conception actually happens. The Fathers made no theological mistake in failing to understand the biology of conception, since it is a matter of science (and the science was simply not available to them). Infallibility does not mean popes and bishops are omniscient or that the Church has always explicitly proclaimed all true things. It only means that when the Church does declare, pronounce, and define a dogma she cannot be wrong.

Bottom line: Pope Leo never made a definitive statement on Mary’s own conception. This allowed the Magisterium/Pope to do so in 1854. The Orthodox Churches and the original poster have no such authority.

Our first pope, St. Peter, never mentioned the word Trinity. I guess we’ll have to strike that teaching from the books as well.

The Magisterium defines dogmas not only after they have been universally and explicitly proclaimed throughout the centuries, but also when truths have been unpacked and shown to be necessarily connected to other dogmas. The deposit of faith is one and the same, but its contents are being further and further understood as they are unfolded and reflected on prayerfully over time. The development of doctrine is a legitimate use of the Keys of the Kingdom and the Church’s power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-18; Luke 10:16; John 21). We have more insight into the truths of the faith now than in previous centuries, even though we worship the same God and hold fast to the same deposit of faith.

 

[mpartyka]

Are you aware that the ovum was not discovered until 1827? If that is true, it makes sense that this dogma was not proclaimed until 1854.

Perhaps, but if this were indeed true, I think you would only be proving my point that the early Fathers – at least, the ones I’ve quoted – did not believe in Mary’s freedom from original sin, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a later innovation, not something handed down from the beginning.

The Fathers made no theological mistake in failing to understand the biology of conception, since it is a matter of science (and the science was simply not available to them).

Even if you wish to use science as a justification for doctrinal development, there is still insufficient reason to do so in the case of the Immaculate Conception. An embryo is the combination of sperm and egg, so wouldn’t it suffice to say that Mary provided the egg and God miraculously provided the sperm to fertilize the egg? After all, Jesus’ Y-chromosome couldn’t possibly have come from Mary. Or did the Church of 1854 not know about the Y-chromosome…in which case their promulgation of the Immaculation Conception in response to the discovery of the human ovum was still a case of the Church’s jumping the gun a la Galileo?

Infallibility does not mean popes and bishops are omniscient or that the Church has always explicitly proclaimed all true things. It only means that when the Church does declare, pronounce, and define a dogma she cannot be wrong.

It sounds like what you’re basically saying, then, is that the Church has the unilateral right to declare, pronounce, and define any dogma it wants, regardless of whether that dogma was held by the Church from the very beginning. For example, if the Church was to declare, pronounce, and define tomorrow that not only Mary but also Joseph was bodily assumed into heaven at death, then even though there is no evidence from Scripture or any writings of the Fathers to support such a notion, it would be incumbent upon the faithful everywhere to believe this.

Our first pope, St. Peter, never mentioned the word Trinity. I guess we’ll have to strike that teaching from the books as well.

Apples and oranges. The word “trinity” is used to describe a dogma of the Church that was present from the very beginning of its existence. It’s not like some scientist came along and said, “You know, I’ve just discovered that there exist beings having multiple persons,” and then the dogma of the Trinity was promulgated to accommodate this. The dogma of the Trinity had always been the teaching of the Church – it had simply not yet been described using that particular choice of word.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

]The Magisterium defines dogmas not only after they have been universally and explicitly proclaimed throughout the centuries, but also when truths have been unpacked and shown to be necessarily connected to other dogmas. The deposit of faith is one and the same, but its contents are being further and further understood as they are unfolded and reflected on prayerfully over time. The development of doctrine is a legitimate use of the Keys of the Kingdom and the Church’s power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-18; Luke 10:16; John 21). We have more insight into the truths of the faith now than in previous centuries, even though we worship the same God and hold fast to the same deposit of faith.

Haven’t we all held erroneous scriptural beliefs at various times ?

Just because we don’t understand/agree with a particular doctrine/dogma doesn’t negate our calling in Christ. Over a lifetime, those who seek knowledge will discover many new pearls they never considered before. Its part of the mystery of the faith/Church.

The ECF’s were constantly debating ideas with colleagues to shape and refine their beliefs. Their writings evolved over time.

At our rebirths we don’t suddenly gain full understanding of the ‘deposit of faith’ reserves. But, the potter is constantly molding our clay.

I can accept 95 % of what the RCC teaches today. A year ago I was at perhaps 75 % agreement levels. I come from SB roots ‘just like Mike’ [mpartka]

The 5 % I don’t yet understand … I don’t reject. Over time I expect to find the RCC has a better explanation than I.

W/0 the RCC, where would we be ? This is the key for me. History tells the story best. The early roots of Christianity gives the ‘essence’ of the faith. Christ preached a unified Church w/o end. He stressed the Beatitudes, universal brotherhood, submitting to religious authority, and remaining vigilant to the end.

 

[davidv]

Because Mary’s conception was natural, not supernatural.

How do you know this?

The Church teaching on the IC implies that the natural order was interrupted by the supernatural in applying the merits of Christ sacrifice at the time of conception.

Mary was conceived via her parents’ having intercourse. According to what was thought in those days, her father’s seed was deposited into her mother’s womb, and this seed from her father took flesh from her mother as it grew, and after nine months baby Mary was born. Likewise, her father was conceived in the same way so that he was the product of his father’s seed and the flesh taken from his mother, and so on, and so on, all the way back to Adam, who was created directly by God. This generation by the passage of mortal seed from the father into the mother via the mechanism of sexual intercourse (which, in the eyes of the Fathers, always involved lust) is the means by which original sin was passed down to all of Adam’s progeny.

My understanding of the Church’s teaching indicatates that this is an incorrect view of how original sin is transmitted. This defect exists in both male and female, not just the “male seed”. I also believe that is an error to declare that sexual intercourse always involve lust.

The only time this process was not followed was in Christ’s case, for in His case, the “divine seed” of His Father was implanted by the Holy Spirit into Mary’s womb. Christ took flesh from Mary, and for that reason he was fully human, but because the “seed” from which he grew came from God and not from man, he did not inherit original sin.

–Mike

Why is God limited to one process in acheiving freedom from original sin?