Protestant View of Mariology

[ConstantineTG]

CTG, what De Incarnatione doesn’t indicate is where the IC disagrees with the Saint. For example here…

“The Word, then, visited the earth ‘which he was always present’ and saw these evils, He takes a body of our nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life”

Virgin self descriptive, what was spotless?

also this sin aspect which seems to distort as above.

“Our 'Creation and Gods Incarnation are most intimately connected” As by the Word man was called from non-existence into being, and further received the Grace of a Divine life. so by the one-fault which forfeited that life they incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world."

It disagrees in the sense that it wasn’t even in the mind of St. Athanasius or any of the Church Fathers that there was such a concept. Original Sin was simply not in the mind of the Fathers in any way.

 

[PRmerger]

Regardless if Mary was pure or not has no bearing in others’ understanding of God becoming man.

Of course it does. It serves to enhance, nourish and highlight our understanding of Christ’s divinity.

The belief that God needs someone pure because he cannot be inside someone who is “dirty” touches on Gnosticism where they believe everything in the material world is “dirty” and God cannot and should not come into contact with it.

Right. brumano, are you listening?

We are agreed, CTG. God did not “need” someone pure. God** chose** to make Mary pure because it was “fitting”.

Same thing, how can anything of a human being enhance God’s divinity?

Nothing enhances God’s divinity. It enhances our understanding of it. And it enhances our ability to provide apologia, and a reason for the faith which is in us.

God is unchanging, so regardless of our own state, God is still the same. He is not “enhanced” by whatever we are.

This is very Catholic.

Only if used in the proper context. The current explanation offered by those who adhere to the IC touches more on Gnosticism than true Christian belief.

It is because you keep using the argument that we believe God “needed” to do this.

That is not our argument. At least, it’s not mine, nor that of the apologists here on the CAFs staff.

 

[KathleenGee]

We also have to recognize that Mary is the refuge of sinners, she is our greatest advocate at death, she herself works for our salvation as a member of Christ’s Church, the communion of saints.

I recall a priest’s homily on Jesus. He said that Christ was so perfectly humble, that even He detracted from Himself and His due glory. Jesus alone could heal us, but He wants us to be in community and He gives us earthly doctors/physicians, guides and teachers, philosophers and counselors, so that through them He gets glory and His subjects are recognized as also serving and ministering in His mystical body.

Likewise, Mary is included in her role in bringing us closer to Christ.

We are Church, it is a human, social institution, and Jesus is the life of our Church and our own being. But without Mary’s yes, He would not be true Man.

Jesus Himself is the crown of Mary.

 

[PRmerger]

So you believe that God can be defiled by sin?

No. Do you?

This is why the IC does more harm than good, because people think that God who is all pure, all powerful, all holy, can be defiled by sin?

Only if you argue that God had to do this otherwise he would have been defiled.

That is not the argument that has been presented. At least not by me. Maybe you should pose this question to brumano?

How can a God who is all powerful and all holy be defiled by sin? If he can be defiled by sin, then he simply is not God. Darkness never defeats light, a metaphor used often in Scripture.

Again, very Catholic!

It wasn’t a reward just because God likes handing out shiny medals out of his whim.

This, too, is very Catholic.

Again, this introduces another issue to a God who is arbitrary, a God who is unfair. If he can immaculately conceive one person, why not do it for all of humanity?

He actually did it for 3 people, CTG.

2 of them messed it up for the rest of humanity.

We believe that the Theotokos isn’t a break in humanity, but rather she is the greatest example. All that has been given to her either has already been given to us or will be given to us. In fact, all of us are called to bear God (Theophorus). Of course the only unique “privilege” is being the Theotokos, but that is more of a metaphysical limitation. We can’t all humanly give birth to God, but we can bear Him in the sense that He lives within us and the divine uncreated light shines within us

Here it comes…

wait for it…
wait for it…

very CATHOLIC of you to say, CTG!

 

[GaryTaylor]

It disagrees in the sense that it wasn’t even in the mind of St. Athanasius or any of the Church Fathers that there was such a concept. Original Sin was simply not in the mind of the Fathers in any way.

What was is his mind I cannot fully say nor can you, we can read what he did say and view where the Saints words are in opposition to the IC.

“so by the one-fault which forfeited that life they incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world.”

"The Word, then visit the earth ‘which He was always present’ and saw these evils,

So we are talking the same Christianity and the Saint connects this too ‘Creation and Gods Incarnation are most intimately connected’ The specific focus on the Incarnation was important to him?

The self descriptive Virgin, along with spotless. Whats your thinking on that?

Is it safe to conclude this is the sin that’s original?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never seen any Patristic teaching that teaches it this way.

Ok.

Mary being undefiled is the result of Christ whom she bears. To believe that humanity is dirty and putrid again is a gnostic belief, not a Christian one.

You seem to be operating from an impoverished understanding of what sin actually is, CTG. If you cannot see how dirty and putrid it is, then you are not Christian.

And the gnostics believe that** the human body was dirty and putrid**. What they taught about sin, I couldn’t say.

Is it not?

Nope. Not even close. It is simply one (very good) articulation of the Catholic theology of the incarnation.

But for you to even question that it is not the *summum bonum *is, well, odd.

Again, one saint’s beautiful and insightful treatise on the incarnation does not a complete theology make.

f St. Athanasius’ teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of other Church Fathers, someone is making stuff up, and therefore in heresy. St. Maximos the Confessor centuries later used St. Athanasius’ teaching to defend his own teaching against monothelitism.

Oh, STOP RIGHT THERE, CTG.

You are (deliberately??) misrepresenting my argument. No one has posited that St. Athanasius’s teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of the Church.

To say that the entirety of the Church’s Incarnation-ology is not contained in St. A’s 57 paragraph treatise is NOT to say that his “teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of other Church fathers”

If he doesn’t mention the IC, so what? He does not represent the entirety of our apologia.

As if!

On what plane would you even think that 57 paragraphs could be the summum bonum of the primary dogma of Christianity?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Constantine. …what say you of these Church Fathers

*Mary’s Immaculate Conception

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”*Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”*Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”*Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”*Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”*Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every so tain of sin.”*Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”*Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”*Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”*Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”*Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.”*Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

"Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation."Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.”*Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

 

[joe371]

This still leaves me confused, were Mary’s parents completely without sin and therefore Mary was conceived without sin? If not how not? This part always gets me.

Why would Mary’s parents have to be free of sin for God to do something? If God wanted, God could have used Joseph and Mary to create the messiah, Jesus. Again, is it safe to say that there is no way I can know, on my own, with certainty, one way or the other, regarding this particular topic. And, would you say the same…?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. Do you?

Weird question, because I am not the one espousing that one needs to be Immaculately Conceived so that Christ is not contained in a “dirty and putrid” vessel.

Only if you argue that God had to do this otherwise he would have been defiled.

No, that is why we reject the IC.

Again, very Catholic!

This, too, is very Catholic.

We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church after all.

He actually did it for 3 people, CTG.

2 of them messed it up for the rest of humanity.

Here it comes…

wait for it…
wait for it…

very CATHOLIC of you to say, CTG!

The IC is a break in humanity, therefore it is not Catholic.

Ok.
You seem to be operating from an impoverished understanding of what sin actually is, CTG. If you cannot see how dirty and putrid it is, then you are not Christian.

My understanding of sin is what I have learned from Patristics. So definitely my views are very Christian, as far as I am concerned it is consistent with the belief in the early Church. Sin isn’t just about “dirty and putrid”. The Orthodox understanding of sin of course is not merely omitting offences against God, but about the corruption of our very nature both physically and spiritually, of us becoming something other than what God has intended us to be. Sin isn’t like us being a brand new car you drive out of the dealership, then you hit a puddle and then mud is on us and you just go to the car wash and viola, sin free. No. Sin is like a major accident that misaligned our wheels and our engine started vibrating heavily and squeaking noises come out of the engine bay. We’re not only damaged, we’re slowly going towards the scrap heap unless God does something about it. And He can’t just change it from afar, He has to go in and fix it as a mechanic. And he doesn’t only fix our parts, He needs to add His own parts to ours to ensure that we don’t break down again.

And the gnostics believe that** the human body was dirty and putrid**. What they taught about sin, I couldn’t say.

They believed everything in the physical world is dirty and putrid and to be discarded, and that heaven is a purely spiritual place and that we are to shed our own physical bodies and live in a purely spiritual heaven as purely spiritual beings.

True Christian teaching is that all physical creation is good. Read Genesis 1. And only God is good, so therefore if everything God created is good then they cannot be dirty and putrid.

Nope. Not even close. It is simply one (very good) articulation of the Catholic theology of the incarnation.

But you think here that one articulation can be completely different from another. If you are speaking of the same truth, how can it be any different from any others? And why hasn’t anyone come up in the following 1600 years with anything better? Why is it still to this day the de facto Christian teaching on the incarnation?

But for you to even question that it is not the *summum bonum *is, well, odd.

Again, one saint’s beautiful and insightful treatise on the incarnation does not a complete theology make.

Read it, it actually does. The Roman Church doesn’t call him a doctor of the Church for nothing. Unless you think “doctor of the Church” means he went to Vatican Medical School and passed a licensing exam

Oh, STOP RIGHT THERE, CTG.

You are (deliberately??) misrepresenting my argument. No one has posited that St. Athanasius’s teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of the Church.

You are. You want to disregard his own teachings claiming that there are others out there that offer something different. If there is consistency, then what difference can others offer? There is one truth, so regardless of how one formulates their argument, the teaching should still be the same. So why make a claim that there are others? If they are the same thing, why do we need to disregard one because of others?

To say that the entirety of the Church’s Incarnation-ology is not contained in St. A’s 57 paragraph treatise is NOT to say that his “teachings aren’t consistent with the teaching of other Church fathers”

If he doesn’t mention the IC, so what? He does not represent the entirety of our apologia.

Because if the IC is indeed a dogma, it is important that the Church Fathers themselves already know about it, even if it was called something else at that time. Given that it wasn’t even remotely mentioned in his teaching, it goes to show that it wasn’t even a popular theological opinion, let along a dogma.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CTG you are saying the same thing which excludes the “need” and of course we agree. There is no disagreement with the specific Saint mentioned. Nor is there this stark difference you suggest. The doctrines are completely compatible. Its indicative of a 1000-year union, the One Holy Catholic Church which the Saint also agrees with.

Here’s the link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin

Note: “The notion of inheritance of the guilt of Adam is excluded.” affirmed by the CCC.

Difference being is you arguing from the point of different Saints and not well from what I am reading. We are on the Teaching Authority of the Church, which is doing just as yourself, and studying all the Saints, Doctrines, Bulls Councils, and giving a precise overview of Church teaching. Good idea? Are you saying the Church shouldn’t speak for their Saints, but everyone should read them individually and measure all other Saints from one Saint? Even with that we see no difference above contrasting the IC. That’s not a fact.

Now you can hardly claim IC when St. Gregory of Palamas is referenced above. How’s that logical? That’s that tired development doctrine argument that from what I see, you can find no fault with but from your own perspective.

And we have to conclude we are all talking the same theology, self evident above, and the Incarnation was the Saints focus within that theology? Affirmed?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As if!

On what plane would you even think that 57 paragraphs could be the summum bonum of the primary dogma of Christianity?

Do you think most of what you believe today has been elaborated in 1,000,000 page books? Even the writings of many saints that went on to elaborate many of our beliefs, those are just mere elaborations of what often can be captured in a few paragraphs, or even a few sentences. Even a word captures a world of meaning. For example, in the Orthodox Church, our entire doctrine and dogmatics is codified in the Divine Liturgy. Sure, how many words are there in the Liturgy? Definitely you can further elaborate from there, but every required belief is captures in some way, shape or form in the Divine Liturgy even if it may be concise. And yes, that would mean that further elaboration is often necessary, but that just points to the fact that the entirety of the faith can be surmised in as little words as possible.

 

[joe371]

ConstantineTG;10871934]Weird question, because I am not the one espousing that one needs to be Immaculately Conceived so that Christ is not contained in a “dirty and putrid” vessel.

I can never get an exact answer from Orthodox Christians regarding Mary being a sinner. Does the church to which you belong teach that Mary was like you and me in terms of being a sinner? Let’s leave the IC appellation out of it. Or, can each orthodox Christian believe as they wish due to the fact that there is no formal teaching on the matter?

We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church after all.

Does that include the Catholic Church?

 

[PRmerger]

Weird question, because I am not the one espousing that one needs to be Immaculately Conceived so that Christ is not contained in a “dirty and putrid” vessel.

I am not espousing that either.

I have quite consistently said the Mary did NOT need to be immaculately conceived. It was simply most fitting that she was.

So if you want to ask that question, ask it of someone who is actually claiming that Mary “needs to be immaculately conceived so that Christ is not contained in a ‘dirty and putrid’ vessel.”

 

[PRmerger]

We are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church after all.

Except that when someone comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?”, everyone would point to, well, a Catholic church. Not an EO one.

 

[PRmerger]

Sin isn’t just about “dirty and putrid”.

Great. You have at least admitted the Catholic position that it is, at least, partially about “dirty and putrid.”

The Orthodox understanding of sin of course is not merely omitting offences against God, but about the corruption of our very nature both physically and spiritually, of us becoming something other than what God has intended us to be. Sin isn’t like us being a brand new car you drive out of the dealership, then you hit a puddle and then mud is on us and you just go to the car wash and viola, sin free. No. Sin is like a major accident that misaligned our wheels and our engine started vibrating heavily and squeaking noises come out of the engine bay. We’re not only damaged, we’re slowly going towards the scrap heap unless God does something about it. And He can’t just change it from afar, He has to go in and fix it as a mechanic. And he doesn’t only fix our parts, He needs to add His own parts to ours to ensure that we don’t break down again.

Very Catholic!

They believed everything in the physical world is dirty and putrid and to be discarded, and that heaven is a purely spiritual place and that we are to shed our own physical bodies and live in a purely spiritual heaven as purely spiritual beings

Yep.

True Christian teaching is that all physical creation is good. Read Genesis 1. And only God is good, so therefore if everything God created is good then they cannot be dirty and putrid.

It was indeed good.

And then came Adam and Eve.

And all one needs to do is read this, to see how very clearly everything God created is not how it was meant to be.

But you think here that one articulation can be completely different from another.

Nope. I don’t think one articulation can be completely different from another.

I am simply saying that if St. A did not mention the IC, so what?

St. Paul never mentions the virgin birth. Are you saying that we shouldn’t believe it because he didn’t mention it?

I think you get the point. St. Paul’s writings, while the inspired Word of God, are not the totality of the Word of God. Because he doesn’t mention the virgin birth doesn’t mean we ignore all the other places in the Word where it is mentioned.

Similarly, St. A’s writings are not the totality of our explication of the Incarnation. Because he doesn’t mention the IC doesn’t mean we ignore all the other places where the IC is mentioned.

 

[joe371]

Except that when someone comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?”, everyone would point to, well, a Catholic church. Not an EO one.

:yup:

Eastern Orthodox churches do not identify their churches as Catholic Churches, which makes me wonder why they don’t stick with the name on their building, like the CC does. It would be odd if the CC referred to itself as the EOC as well as the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

Read it, it actually does.

No, CTG. It does not. That the entirety of the Catholic understanding is summed up in 57 paragraphs, when tomes and tomes have been written on the Incarnation is, frankly, the most absurd thing I’ve read on this thread.

The Roman Church doesn’t call him a doctor of the Church for nothing.

Sure.

And the CC calls St. Paul an Evangelist.

He doesn’t mention the virgin birth. At all.

So I ask you, CTG, do you reject the virgin birth because he never mentions it? Not even once.

I’d like a yes or no answer. Not an equivocation.

Because I am sure you will see my point. You want us to say that since St. A did not mention the IC, even though it is part of Catholic teaching, the IC ought not be believed…

and I want to show you that you will need to also say, “Since St. P did not mention the VB, even though it is part of the gospel, the VB ought not be believed”.

Yes?

You are. You want to disregard his own teachings claiming that there are others out there that offer something different.

This sets you up to reject another major dogma of Christianity: the VB.

Remember, St. Paul doesn’t mention it at all.

And we are both agreed, are we not, that St. P has a position of primacy over St. A, regarding inspired truths, yes?

If there is consistency, then what difference can others offer? There is one truth, so regardless of how one formulates their argument, the teaching should still be the same. So why make a claim that there are others? If they are the same thing, why do we need to disregard one because of others?

2 words: Virgin Birth.

Because if the IC is indeed a dogma, it is important that the Church Fathers themselves already know about it, even if it was called something else at that time. Given that it wasn’t even remotely mentioned in his teaching, it goes to show that it wasn’t even a popular theological opinion, let along a dogma.

Because if the -]IC/-] VB is indeed a dogma, it is important that -]the Church Fathers themselves/-] St. Paul already knew about it, even if it wasn’t even remotely mentioned in his teaching, it goes to show that it wasn’t even a popular theological opinion, let along a dogma.

Are you willing to agree to the above, CTG?

 

[PRmerger]

:yup:

Eastern Orthodox churches do not identify their churches as Catholic Churches, which makes me wonder why they don’t stick with the name on their building, like the CC does. It would be odd if the CC referred to itself as the EOC as well as the CC.

Yep. Everyone wants to be called “Catholic”, as St. Augustine was fond of saying.

 

[PRmerger]

I am simply saying that if St. A did not mention the IC, so what?

St. Paul never mentions the virgin birth. Are you saying that we shouldn’t believe it because he didn’t mention it?

I think you get the point. St. Paul’s writings, while the inspired Word of God, are not the totality of the Word of God. Because he doesn’t mention the virgin birth doesn’t mean we ignore all the other places in the Word where it is mentioned.

Similarly, St. A’s writings are not the totality of our explication of the Incarnation. Because he doesn’t mention the IC doesn’t mean we ignore all the other places where the IC is mentioned.

The above is so trenchant, that I think it bears repeating, and I want to make sure that this post is not missed, so I am re-posting.

EVERYONE: please note the argument that is being made:

ConstantineTG is saying that since St. A did not mention the IC, and he wrote about the Incarnation, it ought not be a part of Christian belief.

It is therefore consistent for CTG to reject the Virgin Birth, as St. Paul, who is actually an Inspired Writer who wrote the Word of God, not simply an early church father, does not mention the VB.

 

[joe371]

The above is so trenchant, that I think it bears repeating, and I want to make sure that this post is not missed, so I am re-posting.

EVERYONE: please note the argument that is being made:

ConstantineTG is saying that since St. A did not mention the IC, and he wrote about the Incarnation, it ought not be a part of Christian belief.

It is therefore consistent for CTG to reject the Virgin Birth, as St. Paul, who is actually an Inspired Writer who wrote the Word of God, not simply an early church father, does not mention the VB.