Question on Matthew 5:29

[tgGodsway]

On the contrary, it was a very hohum statement. The vast majority of the Church already believed it.

He took the CC to a place never seen in Church history before.

I’m sorry you are wrong here. The CC was hugely divided over what pope Pius IX decreed. It rocked the Church and many spoke out against it. Reaching all the way back to the council of Ephesus, 431 the discussion of Mary’s so-called immaculate conception was popular for discussion. Since the birth of Christ occurred without any taint of sin, Mary herself must have been without sin, even without original sin, which is the lot of all other human beings.

Augustine, who died in 430, A.D. and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii c. 24)

He also said, that “Mary, springing from Adam died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.” He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his sermon on Psalms 2.

The doctrine was opposed by Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, most of the great medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan, who was Luther’s opponent at Augsburg by the way, and also by two of the greatest of the popes, Gregory the Great, and Innocent III.

I thought Thomas Aquinas had some interesting points. He says that while Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatsoever, nevertheless, “the blessed Virgin did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth,” (Summa Theol. III, ad 2; Quest. 27, Art. 1-5) He goes on: "It is to be held, therefore, that she was conceived in original sin, but was cleansed from it in a special manner, (Compendium Theol. p. 224.)

Geddes MacGregor, in his book, the Vatican Revolution says: "So strong was St. Thomas Aquinas opposition to the doctrine that it became almost a point of honor throughout the Dominican Order to oppose the notion as theologically untenable. The Franciscans however following Duns Scotus, were more inclined to foster the notion; and the Jesuits, later on, made it one of their special concerns to do so.

Greddes goes on: “If Pope Pius IX was right, let alone infallible, it seems regrettable that the learned theologians of Christendom should have been left for eighteen hundred years with such a marked lack of guidance on the subject that they not only erred on it but erred almost in proportion to their stature as the leaders of the Church’s intellectual life, the luminaries in the firmament of her mind”
(P. 9; Beacon Press, Boston, Macmillan & Co. Ltd. London and Toronto.)

 

[Gorgias]

No… the Acts 1 qualifications were specifically for the original 12 Apostles and cannot be repeated without two things: being an eyewitness to the life of Christ and (2) an eyewitness to the resurrection.

So… how can you assert that subsequent apostolic succession retains those two things? C’mon, now… you’re the one who has brought up the putative ‘requirement’: let’s see you support it. . . .

The idea that he left his office of apostle and became a pope by 42 a.d. is neither seen in scripture,

I’m cool with that. Can you show that the entirety of the assertions of apostolic authority must be present in Scripture? Can you show a Scriptural warrant that this must be represented there? If not, then your argument has no legs. So… please demonstrate that your argument has Scriptural basis. . . .

Paul was NOT an eyewitness to the life of Christ but was clearly ranked as an Apostle

Dang. So… I guess your argument vis-a-vis Acts 1 falls apart, doesn’t it?

I’m not sure what you are talking about.

. . . . Let me ask the question again, then: can you demonstrate, through Scripture, that the requirements that Peter places in Acts 1 for Judas’ successor are the requirements for all future leaders in the Church? It’s an easy enough question. You understand it, I’m confident. Can you demonstrate your position, using Scripture?

 

[De_Maria]

I’m sorry you are wrong here. The CC was hugely divided over what pope Pius IX decreed. It rocked the Church and many spoke out against it.

Who?

Reaching all the way back to the council of Ephesus, 431

431 to 1854 is not a “couple of centuries” as you had said before:

These “Mary” ideas had been bounced around for a century or two but this pope was the one who dared to decree it… absolute heresy.

the discussion of Mary’s so-called immaculate conception was popular for discussion. Since the birth of Christ occurred without any taint of sin, Mary herself must have been without sin, even without original sin, which is the lot of all other human beings.

Not sure your point there. Sounds as though you’re arguing in favor of the Immaculate Conception.

Augustine, who died in 430, A.D. and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient church,

I wish you really believed that. If you did, you would be a Catholic. As he said:

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against Manichaeus, Ch 5)

contradicts the idea of immaculate conception,

Ok, first thing that proves is that this Doctrine is not an innovation which popped up in 1854, as many anti-Catholics claim. If, St. Augustine is contradicting the idea, it is because the Doctrine was already believed by some in the Church.

declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii c. 24)

And you believe that because of the weight of the opinion of the greatest theologian in the world, right?

Ok, do you believe this?

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor 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 (St. Augustine, Nature and Grace, Ch. 42).

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

He also said, that "Mary, springing from Adam died because of sin;

If he said that, he contradicted himself, because he is well known for saying that Mary never sinned.

and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin."

Sure.

He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his sermon on Psalms 2.

Hm. I have the sermon, here. Can you show me where he did that? I can’t find it.

The doctrine was opposed

Again, this proves that the Doctrine existed early in Catholic Church history. Otherwise, no one could oppose it.

by Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose,

Not St. Ambrose. This is from a translation of his commentary on the Song of Songs by someone writing a dissertation. St. Ambrose’s Latin and the translation are side by side.

“Lift me up in the flesh that in Adam
fell. Lift me up, [born] not of Sarah but of Mary,
as she is a virgin incorrupt, indeed a virgin by
grace free from all stain of sin.” (St. Ambrose, commentary on Song of Songs, pg 507).

Anselm, most of the great medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan, who was Luther’s opponent at Augsburg by the way, and also by two of the greatest of the popes, Gregory the Great, and Innocent III.

Again, why do you believe them on this instance, but not on everything else? The Sacraments, the infallibility of the Pope, the infallibility of the Catholic Church, the Eucharist, the communion of Saints, etc.

Ok, well, as you said, they opposed the Doctrine. But these, from the same times in history, were proponents.

Hippolytus, Origen, Ephraem, Athanasius, Ambrose, Peter Chrysolugus, etc.

Equally great men whom we number amongst the Church Fathers.

I thought Thomas Aquinas had some interesting points. He says that while Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatsoever, nevertheless, “the blessed Virgin did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth,” (Summa Theol. III, ad 2; Quest. 27, Art. 1-5)

Interesting. Do you believe this?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

He goes on: "It is to be held, therefore, that she was conceived in original sin, but was cleansed from it in a special manner, (Compendium Theol. p. 224.)

Too bad he didn’t use St. Augustine’s logic. “We believe this out of honor for the Lord”. If he had, he would not have split hairs.

Geddes MacGregor, in his book, the Vatican Revolution says: "So strong was St. Thomas Aquinas opposition to the doctrine that it became almost a point of honor throughout the Dominican Order to oppose the notion as theologically untenable. The Franciscans however following Duns Scotus, were more inclined to foster the notion; and the Jesuits, later on, made it one of their special concerns to do so.

So far, you have proved that this Doctrine existed long before 1854. And no, it did not tear the Church asunder.

Greddes goes on: “If Pope Pius IX was right, let alone infallible, it seems regrettable that the learned theologians of Christendom should have been left for eighteen hundred years with such a marked lack of guidance on the subject that they not only erred on it but erred almost in proportion to their stature as the leaders of the Church’s intellectual life, the luminaries in the firmament of her mind”
(P. 9; Beacon Press, Boston, Macmillan & Co. Ltd. London and Toronto.)

And now, you’re pitting someone named “Greddes” against the Catholic Church. I don’t understand why?

Ok, so, in summary, it seemed originally that you had accused the Catholic Church of surprising everyone with this Doctrine in 1854. But you have proved that it wasn’t so, since you’ve provided evidence of arguments against the Doctrine all the way back to the 4th century. This proves that the argument existed back then.

Next, St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, as you admitted, also believed that Mary was cleansed of Original Sin with the difference that he makes it, before she was born. I don’t think you believe this version of the doctrine, either, but this is the argument you are pitting against the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We could say that you are pitting a doctrine of Immaculate birth with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Now, you described the CC as being “hugely” divided over this Doctrine. But this explanation does not show a huge difference. It seems an example of hair splitting.

So do the rest. Because all of the Church Fathers, without exception, believed that Mary was sinless throughout her life. See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/05/church-fathers-mary-is-sinless.html

 

[C.Longinus]

So when Acts says Peter made his speech with the Eleven, it should read the Ten no?

So, the question becomes: does the person who assumes this ministry become “one of the 12”, or does he merely assume the ministry of the 12? Clearly, it’s the latter: his role is “to take the place in this apostolic ministry” (Acts 1:25). Is Matthias identical to the apostles? Nope. He was “he was counted with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26), and not as a ‘thirteenth apostle’.

 

[Gorgias]

So when Acts says Peter made his speech with the Eleven, it should read the Ten no?

No.

Acts 1:25-26 says:

show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Matthias was chosen for “apostolic ministry”. The only other folks, at that point in time, who were exercising apostolic ministry, were “the eleven apostles”. So, Matthias was counted with them, in virtue of now exercising apostolic ministry.

Later, as the Church grew, and as apostles died, others were granted a share in apostolic ministry. They were not members of the “eleven”, though. Today, all the valid bishops of the world share in apostolic ministry. That’s what it means to be a bishop – that’s your ministry! You are, in a literal way, a “successor of the apostles”! Still, though, none of these are one of “the eleven.”

 

[tgGodsway]

De_Maria continued:

Of goodness. does he mean the CC fumbled the ball for centuries on this matter. Yes…

Most of the theologians of the middle ages opposed the doctrine of immaculate conception because they were unable to harmonize it with the universality of original sin. For Mary to NOT be a sinner would be a huge problem connecting her humanity to Christ deity was the argument.

But 1854 was the last driving nail of debate whether Catholics liked it or not. If only those leaders would have just stuck to their bibles, they wouldn’t be in such a blunder today.

 

[tgGodsway]

I did not say the CC today is divided over this. You have it right. Either Thomas was correct or the pope of 1854. I side with Thomas. But as to a special miracle at her birth, we both can’t seem to find an Apostolic voice to validate any of it. All we have is a pope who decreed against others within the same CC

 

[C.Longinus]

A ministry Matthias was part of as the new 12th Apostle.

Matthias was chosen for “apostolic ministry”. The only other folks, at that point in time, who were exercising apostolic ministry, were “the eleven apostles”. So, Matthias was counted with them, in virtue of now exercising apostolic ministry.

 

[C.Longinus]

Most of the theologians of the middle ages opposed the doctrine of immaculate conception because they were unable to harmonize it with the universality of original sin. For Mary to NOT be a sinner would be a huge problem connecting her humanity to Christ deity was the argument.

Thomas still believed Mary was born without sin. The issue is whether she was CONCEIVED without sin.

 

[Gorgias]

A ministry Matthias was part of as the new 12th Apostle.

Nope. But, if you have something to demonstrate that this was the case, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Thomas still believed Mary was born without sin. The issue is whether she was CONCEIVED without sin.

Aquinas’ problem was his misunderstanding of human biology. He held – along with the scientists of his day – that the point at which a human became ‘human’ was at its “quickening”. So, although he could hold that Mary was sinless from her quickening, he couldn’t see how she was sinless from her conception. His error was one of biology, not one of theology.

 

[C.Longinus]

Nope. But, if you have something to demonstrate that this was the case, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Acts 2:14.

“Peter stood up, with the Eleven, and proceeded to speak.”

 

[C.Longinus]

Also the ministry Matthias assumed was already mentioned in Matthew 10:1.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Nope. But, if you have something to demonstrate that this was the case, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Acts 2:14.

“Peter stood up, with the Eleven, and proceeded to speak.”

Nope. Acts 1 talks about Matthias and the Eleven, and identifies who the Eleven are (Acts 1:13):

Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

So, your citation kinda proves my point, not yours. “The Eleven” is Luke’s way of saying “The Apostles”. You’ll find him using that appellation in Acts 1 and 2, as well as in Luke 24. And, we know who The Eleven are (see quote above).

In other words, even when Matthias is around, participating in apostolic ministry, it’s still “The Eleven”, not “The Twelve”.

 

[C.Longinus]

Simple math. Peter is one Apostle. The eleven Apostles are the ten mentioned plus Matthias. Which means the burden of proof is on you because almost every Catholic Commentary disagrees.

 

[Gorgias]

Simple math. Peter is one Apostle. The eleven Apostles are the ten mentioned plus Matthias.

That would work, except that the NAB rendering of Acts 2 capitalizes it and uses it as a title: it’s “the Eleven,” not “the eleven.” If it were the latter, then I’d say that the “simple math” argument works. (Note that I’m not suggesting that the Greek manuscripts make the distinction in this way, since the best manuscripts use uncial script.)

Which means the burden of proof is on you because almost every Catholic Commentary disagrees.

I would suggest that the actual text of Scriptures trumps a commentary. And, if the text of the NAB goes out of its way to make it an appellation, then we have to understand it as such, no? So… if it’s “the Eleven” (and it is ), then we have to ask “is Peter outside of the Eleven? And, if not – and Peter is part of the Eleven – then who are the Eleven (and doesn’t that imply that it’s Matthias who stands apart from the apostles)?”

 

[C.Longinus]

I would suggest that the actual text of Scriptures trumps a commentary.

The translation of a text you mean. Are you suggesting you know more than those who made the commentary?

 

[Gorgias]

Are you suggesting you know more than those who made the commentary?

No. I’m suggesting that those who prepared the NAB translation do.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes as stated before it is really a mute point. Whether Mary by special miracle became sinless at conception, or sinless at her birth by the same, doesn’t really matter.
There was NO validation of either position by the founders of the Christian faith. Those who followed Thomas and his side of the argument, or, those who sided with the pope of 1854, it is irrelevant.

There was NO apostolic voice to confirm, validate or certainly teach any of it. Only to the contrary. “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Ro. 3.
The deification of Mary was a slow but progressive idea unknown and untaught by Mary’s first-born Son or gospel writers. The CC should repent of it and face the reality of the written word of God over the ideas that came by the mainstream theologians of the CC who got it wrong about Mary.