Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception

[mpartyka]

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.

And that’s a teaching that doesn’t appear in any of the 4th or 5th century Fathers. Indeed, the Fathers explicitly refer to two modes of conception: Christ’s, and everyone else’s; i.e., supernatural, and natural.

Now, I realize that the teachings of these early Fathers doesn’t preclude the Church of later years from prounouncing the Immaculate Conception a “divinely revealed dogma”, but what should be realized is that this dogma was not revealed to the Apostles or their successors until much, much later in the Church’s history. Whether this fact carries any weight to it as regards the dogma’s veracity is a matter of opinion.

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.

Well, according to the Fathers I quoted, you’re wrong. But again, that only matters if you insist that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been the constant teaching of the Church, and I’ve already said that the Church’s ability to pronounce a dogma “divinely revealed” doesn’t depend on that dogma’s having been the constant teaching of the Church. Like I said in a prior post, the Church could declare next week that not only Mary but also *Joseph *was bodily assumed into heaven at the point of death, and make this belief incumbent upon the faithful, and who could argue?

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

I suppose He isn’t, but the Fathers I’ve quoted never suggested the existence of another, and – this is just my personal opinion, though – I’ve always rather thought it terribly unjust if God were to hold back purity from original sin from everyone except Mary if it were well within His power to grant it to everyone.

Indeed, if God could simply by fiat erase the stain of original sin from a naturally conceived human being, what was the point of the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, or any of the gospel, for that matter? Instead of sending his Son to become human, God could simply have cleansed each and every one of us at conception and waited for a man who finally would live a sinless life and thus be qualified to be our redeemer. But again, this is all just opinion – my main concern is that in the Fathers I’ve quoted, particularly in the writings of Pope Leo, even in those instances in which both Jesus and Mary are referenced, Jesus’ conception alone is held to be special and free from the taint of sin, while all other conceptions are considered natural and, consequently, tainted.

–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.

We will probably never know … tradition of church on topic does date back to earlier period than you have looked at. I don’t know all the early traditions on topic as some here at CAF do.

With Christ as the new Adam, it makes sense to have a new Eve. And, since the Church is all about Family, and since as JP2 has said …‘God [Trinity] in his deepest mystery is a Family’ — the female 1/2 of society needs a patron saint.

What better way to achieve this than thru Mary. Naturally the Mother of the Lord, is best suited to be our spiritual mother.

John knew Mary the best. He also outlived her. He[if anyone] would know the full story. He also gives the vision of her active role in heaven with the other saints.

Whether she was purity and filled with H.S. from birth [as the Baptist, who also remained sinless, but died a natural death as Mary] or if it happened @ Annunciation of Gabriel — it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of events. At some point in those first 14 years, she became ‘most blessed among women’ and is the most active/influential saint today. Clearly she remained childless after Christ … as the brother/cousin issue has been adequately settled by scriptures and scholarship.

Also, the H.S. seems to have strong feminine aspects. The influence of Mary perhaps ?? Not essential to the matter however, since we were made male/female … in the image of God.

 

[rad314]

I rarely visit here, but I surmise one side seeks to demolish the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the other seeks to defend it. And St. Leo the Great’s writings seem to be the be-all and end-all of relevant material.

Have the demolishers considered the writings of St. Ephraim, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Germain I of Constantinople, and St. John of Damascus? All readily available to anyone who troubles to consult the topical index in Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers”.

I’ve never looked for one, but there might even be a work as definitive on this topic as “Jesus, Peter & the Keys” (Butler, Dahlgren & Hess) and “Upon This Rock” (Ray) are on the question of papal infallibility.

 

[mpartyka]

…I surmise one side seeks to demolish the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the other seeks to defend it.

Not at all. The only thing being “demolished” here is the notion that the Immaculate Conception is something that was taught from the beginning, as it’s clear that there are several Church Fathers such as Pope Leo who not only never heard of such a doctrine but also argued concerning the transmission of original sin in such a way as to preclude their acceptance of such a doctrine. But, as it appears, the fact that a doctrine has not been held everywhere and always in the Church is no barrier to its being declared a “divinely revealed dogma” later on, so there’s no danger to the dogma by reason of prior ignorance or dissent.

And St. Leo the Great’s writings seem to be the be-all and end-all of relevant material. Have the demolishers considered the writings of St. Ephraim, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Germain I of Constantinople, and St. John of Damascus? All readily available to anyone who troubles to consult the topical index in Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers”.

I don’t have a copy of Jurgens, unfortunately, but I have still been able to consult the writings of Leo the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Severus of Antioch, Proclus of Constantinople, and Philoxenus of Hieropolis. St. Augustine is actually one of the better supporters of Pope Leo’s view:

**On the Holy Trinity, Book XIII, Chapter 18 **-- But God judged it better both to take upon Him man…and yet to do this of a virgin, whose conception, not flesh but spirit, not lust but faith, preceded. Nor did that concupiscence of the flesh intervene, by which the rest of men, who derive original sin, are propagated and conceived; but holy virginity became pregnant, not by conjugal intercourse, but by faith,—lust being utterly absent,—so that that which was born from the root of the first man might derive only the origin of race, not also of guilt…There was born, I say, a Man having nothing at all, and to have nothing at all, of sin; through whom they were to be born again so as to be freed from sin, who could not be born without sin.

Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapters 30-33 – …that from the intercourse of male and female those who are born derive no sin to be put away by the laver of regeneration,—this is false and heretical…even virtuous married people are ashamed. Nor can any one go to such an extreme of evil and disgrace, as, because he knows God to be the author of nature and the ordainer of marriage, to have intercourse even with his wife in any one’s sight, or not to blush at those impulses and seek secrecy, where he can shun the sight not only of strangers, but even of all his own relatives. Therefore let human nature be permitted to acknowledge the evil that happens to it by its own fault…Of this evil, nevertheless, virtuous marriage makes good use for the sake of the benefit of the begetting of children…

Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapters 34-35 – …that carnal concupiscence…is nothing else than the punishment of that first disobedience…You, however, not for the sake of religious reasoning, but for excited contention,—not on behalf of human modesty, but for your own madness, that even the concupiscence of the flesh itself should not be thought to be corrupted, and original sin to be derived from it…I, however, do not greatly care what it delights you to think of it. Still, whatever of men is born by its means, if he is not born again, without doubt he is damned; and he must be under the dominion of the devil, if he is not delivered thence by Christ.

By the way, Augustine’s reticence to speak concerning Mary and sin – at least, the one reference I’ve frequently seen cited – was conveyed only in the context of actual sins, not original sin. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Augustine ever argue against Mary’s having inherited original sin.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Not at all. The only thing being “demolished” here is the notion that the Immaculate Conception is something that was taught from the beginning . . .

If that’s all these 14 pages of posts – to-date! – are trying to accomplish or impede, I wonder that anyone bothers.

But, as it appears, the fact that a doctrine has not been held everywhere and always in the Church is no barrier to its being declared a “divinely revealed dogma” later on, so there’s no danger to the dogma by reason of prior ignorance or dissent.

So, doctrines develop. What a surprise. (‘Development’ and ‘change’ are not the same thing. ‘Development’ involves an elaboration of the implications of earlier formal beliefs. ‘Change’ contradicts earlier formal beliefs.)

I like the oblique reference to St. Vincent of Lerins. HIs notion of relying on what has been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’ is, of course, nonsense. If that were the test of orthodoxy, the deposit of faith would be the null set. It doesn’t even pass its own test. If we were to rely on his principle, we would have to repudiate all the teachings of all the ecumenical councils. The councils were convened because of major controversies, so obviously whatever they concluded hadn’t been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’.

 

[mpartyka]

‘Development’ involves an elaboration of the implications of earlier formal beliefs. ‘Change’ contradicts earlier formal beliefs.

It’s perfectly okay by me if you want to put the views of the Fathers I quoted in the category of “informal beliefs”, but do realize that “formal beliefs” are the result of consensus agreement on “informal beliefs”, and there is certainly such a consensus among the Fathers I quoted.

His notion of relying on what has been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’ is, of course, nonsense…The councils were convened because of major controversies, so obviously whatever they concluded hadn’t been believed ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’.

Granted, the councils were convened to handle major controversies, but the way in which the councils handled those major controversies was to ask their members individually, “What have you always believed and taught?” reach a consensus opinion, then express their consensus formally in a carefully-worded definition that was satisfactory to the majority. Ultimately, the enemy these councils were convened to combat was the ever-present threat of “innovation” – i.e., the introduction of something new into the faith that didn’t previously exist.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

[T]he way in which the councils handled those major controversies was to ask their members individually, “What have you always believed and taught?” reach a consensus opinion, then express their consensus formally in a carefully-worded definition that was satisfactory to the majority.

Oh, I see. So, then, aside from ‘by everyone’ meaning ‘by the simple majority of those in attendance at this council’, and ‘everywhere’ meaning either ‘at this council’ or ‘in those places represented by those in the majority at this council’, and ‘at all times’ meaning ‘now’, ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’ really does mean ‘by everyone, everywhere, at all times’. Now, that’s very helpful.

 

[rad314]

St. Augustine is actually one of the better supporters of Pope Leo’s view:

By the way, Augustine’s reticence to speak concerning Mary and sin – at least, the one reference I’ve frequently seen cited – was conveyed only in the context of actual sins, not original sin. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Augustine ever argue against Mary’s having inherited original sin.

This is the passage from St. Augustine I referred to:

“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins – for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin? – so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? Would it be what Pelagius says, or would it be what the Apostle John says? I ask you, however excellent might their holiness have been when in the body, if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared in a single voice, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!’” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415])

The question I face is whether this is the passage you know.

If it is, then don’t overlook ‘I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins’, ‘abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her’ (note ‘sin’, not ‘sins’), ‘whether they were without sin’ (again ‘sin’, not ‘sins’), ‘however excellent might their holiness have been when in the body’. Oh, and remember – Pelagius denied – what? ORIGINAL SIN! How you could say Augustine isn’t writing about original sin is beyond me.

If, however, this passage is new to you, then may you profit from it. I don’t question how you could have overlooked it; I remember the words of Horace: “I think it a shame when the worthy Homer nods; but in so long a work it is allowable if drowsiness comes on.”

 

[rad314]

I admit that I haven’t read all the major items available on ‘Catholic Answers’ on the topic of the Immaculate Conception, as this is not a burning issue for me, but these two readily came to hand. There’s considerable overlap, but they’re both worth reading.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

In the first volume of their “Radio Replies” Frs. Rumble and Carty briefly outline the development of the doctrine. The nature of the publication doesn’t call for detailed references and footnotes, so I’ll leave it to those interested to track down source material. Their main points:

• Eastern churches celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as the 7th century.
• St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas accepted that Mary was born free of sin, but were uncertain when her sanctification occurred.
• From the early Church up to the Middle Ages there was no significant dispute about the question of when it happened.
• In the Middle Ages, theologians were in agreement that Mary was freed from original sin prior to her birth, but controversy raged over when that occurred.
• This was a free matter for discussion because the Church hadn’t reached a definitive decision. Unity in matters definitively decided, freedom in matters not definitively decided, charity always.
• Paul V in 1617 forbade anyone to teach that Mary was not immaculate and Alexander VII (r. 1655-1667) said that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was the common doctrine of the Church and that no one must deny it. These were disciplinary rulings, not dogmatic definitions.

 

[rad314]

The quotes Mike cites in #204 would require an answer if the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception meant that Mary did not need a savior. In fact, the Church’s doctrine is that she did indeed need a savior. How she was freed from original sin is simply different from how the rest of us are freed from it.

 

[mpartyka]

This is the passage from St. Augustine I referred to:

“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins – for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin? – so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? Would it be what Pelagius says, or would it be what the Apostle John says? I ask you, however excellent might their holiness have been when in the body, if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared in a single voice, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!’” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415])

The question I face is whether this is the passage you know.

If it is, then don’t overlook ‘I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins’, ‘abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her’ (note ‘sin’, not ‘sins’), ‘whether they were without sin’ (again ‘sin’, not ‘sins’), ‘however excellent might their holiness have been when in the body’. Oh, and remember – Pelagius denied – what? ORIGINAL SIN! How you could say Augustine isn’t writing about original sin is beyond me.

That is indeed the passage from Augustine to which I was referring. But you’ve done a little bit of (presumably unintentional) selective quoting here. On Nature and Grace is a point-by-point response given by Augustine to certain writings of Pelagius. At the beginning of section 42, Augustine gives the reference in Pelagius’ writings which he wishes to rebut:

[Pelagius] then enumerates those “who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.” And he adds the names of some women,—“Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,” he says, “we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.”

The reason I say, then, that Augustine isn’t writing about original sin in that passage (which is so treasured by IC defenders) is because he is responding to specific statements by Pelagius that have nothing to do with original sin.

As for his excepting the Virgin Mary, consider Augustine’s careful choice of words:

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins – for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her…?

He’s essentially saying, “I don’t know that the Virgin Mary was free from sins, but I will except her from sins for the Lord’s honor.” Augustine is not making a definite statement about the Virgin Mary here. Rather, he’s refraining to make a definite statement about the Virgin Mary out of respect for Christ. Indeed, I think it would even be fair to say that Augustine wants to lump the Virgin Mary in with the rest of humanity so that his argument will be consistent, but because he doesn’t want to appear disrepectful, he excuses himself from making such a statement. Whatever the case, to use this statement of Augustine as something definitive with respect to the Immaculate Conception is to cast upon it the exact opposite of its carefully-crafted meaning: Augustine here evades, rather than answers, the question.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

so treasured by IC defenders

Charming turn of phrase, that. ‘Treasured’? I don’t see why it should be. Even if it means what I thought it means, it’s such a small part of the considerable amount of evidence that I turmed up in less than half an hour’s casual investigation.

As I say, this is not a burning issue for me. Of course, things would be different if someone could demonstrate that at some point in history it was the Church’s teaching that Mary had been conceived – even born! – with original sin. I certainly haven’t read all 200+ posts (no offense, everyone), so maybe I missed that. Remind me.

 

[mpartyka]

…things would be different if someone could demonstrate that at some point in history it was the Church’s teaching that Mary had been conceived – even born! – with original sin.

I have found no explicit written testimony to that effect – if I ever do, I’ll certainly let you know – but I think the implicit testimony from the Fathers I quoted should serve to establish the general rule (i.e., “no one conceived via sexual intercourse is free from original sin”) from which none of them explicitly said Mary was excepted.

–Mike

 

[BRB]

I have found no explicit written testimony to that effect – if I ever do, I’ll certainly let you know – but I think the implicit testimony from the Fathers I quoted should serve to establish the general rule (i.e., “no one conceived via sexual intercourse is free from original sin”) from which none of them explicitly said Mary was excepted.

–Mike

Six months ago IC and Assumption were big blocks for me. Lourdes seemed bogus. I once thought Christ treated Mary as only ordinary in scriptures.

But, I do see valid reasons for Catholic beliefs on Mary. The second Eve needs special exceptions/exemptions to the general rule that applies to the rest of us.

Protestants can’t disprove the Catholic beliefs on Mary. So, I now take the Catholic positions on faith … and perhaps weekly thank my Mother and ask her to aid in ways only she really knows. And, I believe she has helped.

I don’t pray the Rosary. It may be awhile before I’m ready for that much ‘repetitious’ prayer.

Like they say … Protestant ideas about Mary are the last to fall.

 

[morriec]

Dear Partyka - you need to look at your 3rd clip from St. Leo. In it you state:"Third: “Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, ‘no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.’ Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body.”

I’ll go slow…

“Truely foreign to this nativity” – that being the one in which Mary and Jesus are.

“is that which we read of all others” – this means ever other nativity, that is every other childbirth experience of history, not the one the Holy Father is speaking of, that of Jesus and Mary.

“no one is clean from stain” – again meaning all other nativities besides that of Jesus and Mary.

“not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.” – meaning the stain of original sin.

“Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh” – meaning no one bit of sin as in nothing, null, not any, no possible way, original or personal.

“has passed” – preserved from, God prevented, gotten into, completely excluded from.

“into that peerless nativity” – PEERLESS meaning no other PEER, no equal, a singular event in the history of all of mankind, never before nor ever after!

“nothing of the law of sin has entered” – that’s absolute without any doubt clear as a bell there was absolutely no sin, original or personal that entered into the nativity of Jesus and Mary! And that means her’s and His!

“A royal Virgin” – meaning of the King, not just an earthly king, but the actual in the flesh King of Heaven bestowing on her the grace of Queenship!

“of the stem of David” – the royal house of David so as to fulfill the prophecies of old and giving her the queenship of Isreal as in Queen Mother, not queen by marriage.

“is chosen” – what does it mean to be CHOSEN by God Who has all of humanity in His mind, Who holds all things in His hand? THAT means HE picked her! She is SPECIAL to HIM and it also means she is set apart by God from the rest of the human race!

“to be impregnanted with the sacred seed” – the HOLY SPIRIT, that is God Himself wiil take His abode in her flesh that has been singled out from all of the rest of the human race and she will be fully pregnant for the complete course of human time, the nine months it takes for gestation.

(And here’s a punchline I simply love for she IS Wisdom! but that’s my sentiment)

“and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body.” – Mary thought on these things before they came into being! Her mind knew the mind of God before her flesh was yielded up to its Divine course! But I think the understanding of that is a little beyond you at this point Partyka.

I really don’t understand how some folks can read this stuff and see things that aren’t there. Perhaps you like trying to place things in the citations that aren’t there. This is not nice! Especially when it comes to a Pope and a Saint! Naughty naughty Partyka! You bad boy!

Peace,

Gail

Gail,

Your response brings to mind the way Mother Angelica on EWTN would teach from the bible. You should apply for a show!

 

[rad314]

I have found no explicit written testimony to that effect

Of course not. Or do you imagine that it’s there and no one has managed to find it in the last 150 years?

if I ever do, I’ll certainly let you know

Don’t strain the aorta looking.

but I think the implicit testimony from the Fathers I quoted should serve to establish the general rule

In case no one’s mentioned this yet, ‘the implicit testimony from the Fathers’ does not of itself constitute Church teaching. And what of the explicit testimony of the Fathers that I cited? (I’ll agree to set aside the passage from Augustine.)

“no one conceived via sexual intercourse is free from original sin”

A better formulation would be, “Everyone conceived via sexual intercourse is subject to original sin.” (Your formulation is a tad ‘loose’, shall we say? After all, I am free from original sin; so are you, if you’ve been baptized.) Mary was subject to it, as are we all. Christ’s merits freed her of it differently from the way they free us.

Some last points.

I think most people recognize that the Church promulgates doctrine in order to resolve controversy. The other reason the Magisterium formalizes a doctrine is to help the faithful by putting emphasis on an already-existing belief. Ineffabilis Deus has the latter motive.

Interested readers might want to consult Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating and Fr. Mateo’s Refuting the Attack on Mary.

Those who understand Greek will probably want to ponder the meaning of kecharitomene in Lk 1:28, rendered by St. Jerome as gratia plena.

 

[rad314]

Six months ago IC and Assumption were big blocks for me. Lourdes seemed bogus. I once thought Christ treated Mary as only ordinary in scriptures.

But, I do see valid reasons for Catholic beliefs on Mary. The second Eve needs special exceptions/exemptions to the general rule that applies to the rest of us.

Protestants can’t disprove the Catholic beliefs on Mary. So, I now take the Catholic positions on faith … and perhaps weekly thank my Mother and ask her to aid in ways only she really knows. And, I believe she has helped.

I don’t pray the Rosary. It may be awhile before I’m ready for that much ‘repetitious’ prayer.

Like they say … Protestant ideas about Mary are the last to fall.

Nicely put, BRB. Thanks.

I was put off by the Rosary for a long time. When you think you’re ready to try it, you might want to get a nifty little book called Scriptural Rosary. The publisher is Christianica. There’s a short verse or prayer for each Hail Mary and that really helps to keep you focused on your meditation.

God bless!

 

[mpartyka]

And what of the explicit testimony of the Fathers that I cited? (I’ll agree to set aside the passage from Augustine.)

You only listed authors, not the quotes themselves. The only quote with which I am familiar is that of St. Ephraim, which was part of a hymn, and in a hymn I would expect to find hyperbole.

The other reason the Magisterium formalizes a doctrine is to help the faithful by putting emphasis on an already-existing belief. Ineffabilis Deus has the latter motive.

I agree, and that is certainly one reason why Protestants and Orthodox alike are up in arms about it, especially considering the last passages of the document:

All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin – in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign “from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,” and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

What else could the natural reaction of the uneducated Protestant be but, “Wow. Who needs God when you’ve got Mary?”

–Mike

 

[rad314]

You only listed authors, not the quotes themselves.

I told you where you could find the quotes.

The only quote with which I am familiar is that of St. Ephraim, which was part of a hymn, and in a hymn I would expect to find hyperbole.

Do you? I don’t.

How convenient to be able to dismiss as hyperbole an explicit statement you don’t want to accept.

Phil 2:6-11 is a hymn, too. Perhaps that’s also hyperbole?

What else could the natural reaction of the uneducated Protestant be but, “Wow. Who needs God when you’ve got Mary?”

And whose responsibility is it when someone is unwilling to overcome his ignorance?

 

[rad314]

All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin – in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign “from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,” and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Maybe you should just consider it a little harmless hyperbole.