Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

prodromos · Jul 13, 2015

patricius79 said:
You are judging me, and its unfortunate.

Why else would you continue to misrepresent Orthodoxy after being corrected?

I've studied articles at sites like the Greek Orthodox Church of America, and have tried to understand Orthodox ecclesiology, including by asking you questions, to which you have sometimes not responded.

When it becomes apparent there is an agenda, responding becomes pointless.

I don't think I'm better than you or the Orthodox. But I do think that the Catholic Church is better than any other belief system. In Orthodoxy, Bishops are understood to be fallible, yet there is no power over a bishop, and the Church is understood as not being universal.

Bishops are subject to a council of their brother bishops. You've been told this, yet you continue to post falsehood. Agenda at work. I don't have a clue as to how you conclude the Orthodox Church is not universal.

Moreover, where the Church fathers said that the Church is built on Peter, the Orthodox Church of America says it is not built on Peter.

It is built on the rock, which is the confession of Jesus as the Christ, and all who make that confesion are as Peter. We are not at odds with the Church Fathers.

Clearly there is something wrong as to doctrine when the New Eve is understood by the Orthodox to have been under Original Sin and possibly to have sinned herself.

Nonsense. What is wrong is Catholic theology which makes Mary the great exception instead of the great example she is in Orthodoxy

The beautiful Mariological development in the Catholic Church, in books like the Glories of Mary and True Devotion to Mary--and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception-- is one proof of the Catholic Church.

Quite the opposite actually. Instead of elevating her, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has diminished her.

patricius79 · Jul 13, 2015

prodromos said:
Bishops are subject to a council of their brother bishops. You've been told this, yet you continue to post falsehood. Agenda at work. I don't have a clue as to how you conclude the Orthodox Church is not universal.
.

The articles I read at Orthodox sites said that there is absolutely no authority over a Bishop (the Greek Orthodox Church of America site was explicit about this), and that the Church is not a universal body, and that if it were the Catholic Church's doctrine of Papal Supremacy would be correct.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

The Orthodox Church of America said that the Church is not built on Peter. But the fathers never say that. They say the Church is built on Peter, and on Peter's Confession, and on Christ.

As far as the idea that the Immaculate Conception diminishes Mary, the New Eve, I don't agree, and neither does the early Church say this. To say it does diminish Mary--which was an argument made by an Orthodox poster I read--implies that the New Adam is likewise diminished in his humanity by being free of all Original and actual sin.

prodromos · Jul 14, 2015

patricius79 said:
The articles I read at Orthodox sites said that there is absolutely no authority over a Bishop (the Greek Orthodox Church of America site was explicit about this)

The writer qualifies this with "theologically and ecclesiologically". What he is saying is that the bishop is the head of the local church, there is no bishop of bishops. However, the bishop is head within the local church, he too is a member of the body of Christ, of which Christ Jesus is head. So the bishop is still accountable to the Church, he is not 'over' the Church.

and that the Church is not a universal body, and that if it were the Catholic Church's doctrine of Papal Supremacy would be correct.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

Our theological statement on the nature of the Church (1974) and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox‑Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the body of Christ. This kind of ecclesiology means that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole. Thus, if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.

Eucharistic ecclesiology affirms the catholicity of the local church, and allows no room for the categories of "parts" or "whole". It is the very essence of this ecclesiology that the universal Church subsists in totoin the local church. This kind of ecclesiology excludes the idea of primacy, understood as power over the local church and its bishop.

As noted in the above quote, it is a particular definition of "universal" which is rejected. The Orthodox Church is "catholic" according to the Greek understanding of the word, "kata holos" - according to the whole which reflects the Holy Trinity. Each person is fully God and not parts of God. Likewise all churches under their bishops are fully the Church and not parts of the Church. All local Churches are in communion with each other just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are inseperable.

The Orthodox Church of America said that the Church is not built on Peter. But the fathers never say that. They say the Church is built on Peter, and on Peter's Confession, and on Christ.

I would have to see the article in context to judge what is being said.

As far as the idea that the Immaculate Conception diminishes Mary, the New Eve, I don't agree, and neither does the early Church say this. To say it does diminish Mary--which was an argument made by an Orthodox poster I read--implies that the New Adam is likewise diminished in his humanity by being free of all Original and actual sin.

That is utter nonsense.

justinangel · Jul 19, 2015

abacabb3 said:
The testimony of tradition (Some quotes came from this link)

While none of the preceding verses definitively prove that Mary has ever sinned, several are suggestive that she had and two of them elevate the importance of discipleship above simply being Christ’s mother. Not surprisingly, the ancient church did not take a definitive stand on the issue because the Scriptural evidence did not demand it.

You're begging the question. You have already concluded beforehand that there is no scriptural evidence. By testimony from Tradition we mean what was taught by consensus. The ancient Church universally believed Mary was sinless. Some Church Fathers even appear to have believed in what has been defined as the Immaculate Conception, or believed something as a prelude to it without realising the full implications of their beliefs (highlighted in bold). This Marian dogma was still in its formative phase in the early centuries as was the dogma of original sin. Early Christian belief always associated Mary with Jesus in the divine plan. The ancient Church Fathers referred to Mary as the "new Eve," who cooperated with Christ, the "new Adam." Mary was portrayed as bringing life (Christ) into the world, whereas Eve brought death, and Mary's humility and obedience was contrasted with Eve's pride and disobedience and viewed as a secondary cause of our salvation. Mary's sinlessness in general was undisputed by early Christian writers. Moreover, the understanding of Mary being the pure and undefiled new Ark of the Covenant was taught and celebrated in the early centuries. Luke draws several parallels between Mary and the Ark by citing the Second Book of Samuel in his Nativity Narrative.

"He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word' (Luke 1:38). And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 (A.D. 155)

"And those of them who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, born of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man, the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33.11 (inter A.D. 180-189)

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle (the BVM) 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)

"Holy and wise in all things was the all-blessed Virgin; in all ways peerless among all nations, and unrivalled among women. Not as the first virgin Eve, who being alone in the garden, was in her weak mind led astray by the serpent; and so took his advice and brought death into the world; and because of that hath been all the suffering of saints. But in her alone, in this Holy Virgin Mary, the Stem of Life hath shot up for us. For she alone was spotless in soul and the body."
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily on the Holy Mother of God 11, 25, 27 (c. 262 A.D)

"The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father's bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent."
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily on the Annunciation

"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 stain of sin."
Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388)

"As he formed her without any 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 Theotokos was a woman, yet she did not suffer the pangs of childbirth because the field of marriage had not experienced the plow; the virginal vineyard was not tilled."
Hesychios of Jerusalem, Sermon on the Presentation (c. 451 A.D.)

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.
Genesis 3, 15

And coming to her, the angel said: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28 (cf. Jn. 1:14)

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

However, quite a few Church Fathers appear to credit Mary with wrongdoing or insufficient faith. Examples of insufficient faith:

He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).

Tertullian embraced the Montanist heresy and afterwards started his own heterodox sect, having died out of communion with the Catholic Church. So he isn't exactly a bona fide Church Father.

For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass?and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought

Click to expand...

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).

A lack of understanding or a fleeting moment of doubt or a sudden pang of fear isn't exactly insufficient faith which in and of itself is something habitual. Do you think Jesus had insufficient faith when he cried out upon the cross: "My God. my God! Why have you abandoned me?" He couldn't have had insufficient faith or else he would have abandoned his quest when Passover arrived or fled from the Garden of Gethsemane along with the Eleven after Judas appeared. Even those who are faithful may experience a sudden, transient moment of doubt through fear and anxiety, but this is no sign of a lack of faith. A faithful person has the ability to master and dismiss all rising doubt, which Jesus and Mary were able to do. Faithlessness is something far more permanent and does not result from something undeliberate such as a human impulse. Mary was no less human than her divine Son was in his humanity. Moreover, Cyril is simply speculating that doubts must have passed through Mary's mind, but he couldn't have known for sure, seeing there is no scriptural evidence in the Gospels to support his conjecture.

Wrongdoing:

And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, Who is My mother, and who are My brethren? Matthew 12:48, because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honour His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

They have no wine. For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, Show yourself to the world John 17:4, desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

I'm surprised that an Eastern Church Father could be so negligent in his understanding of NT Koine Greek or as a Church Doctor show a lack of knowledge of Hebrew or NT Aramaic. It goes to show just how fallible individual Church Fathers are when they venture into the sphere of private opinion and deviate from the general consensus to accommodate a theme of theirs in a homily. Jesus used a familiar Jewish expression when he asked his mother Mary: "Woman, what have I to do with you?" At first it may appear to us that our Lord addressed his mother abruptly. We may have the impression that what concerned Mary was of no concern of her Son's. However, both the Mother and the Son shared one vital concern ever since she consented to be the mother of the Messiah: the salvation of Israel and the whole world. Thus in the Greek text of John's Gospel the Hebraism used by Jesus reads te emoi kai soi: literally "what to me and to you". This idiom denotes a close personal relationship between the one who is asking the question and the one who is being asked. It can be used by one who is at first reluctant to do a favour for someone, but complies nonetheless out of respect for her. The closest equivalent to this expression in English is "What is that between friends (mother and son)?" It suggests that the one who is seeking the favour should not even have to ask. In the Hebrew NT this expression reads mah-liy walak isah: literally "what is there to me and you". In other words, "What would you have of me, woman?" This is the polite form of asking "What would you have me do woman?" and implies that the speaker already has an idea of what she would like him to do.

…St Hilary in his Annotations on the 20th verse of the cxixth [119th] Psalm, “My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments,” applies it unto the future judgment and among other observations has this passage, “Seeing we must render an account for every idle word do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through in which those grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin [1 Cor 3:12], a sword shall pass through the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed [Luke 2:35]. If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the severity of the judgment will any one dare desire to be judged by God?” (Excerpt of Hilary of Poitiers Homily on Psalm 119).

Hilary is speaking hypothetically here.

Although they [Christ’s family] had like the rest power to come in, yet they abstain from all approach to Him, “for he came unto his own, and his own received him not

Click to expand...

” (Hilary of Poitiers commenting of Matt 12:50

A surprising example of eisegesis on Hilary's part.

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Psalm 69, 8-9

Some Protestants cite Psalm 69:4-9 as evidence that Jesus actually did have uterine brothers, and they point to v v. 8-9 as a prophecy of our Lord being distanced from them and rejected. This Psalm is indeed a Messianic prophecy, but only to a certain extent. In the original or primary context, God is speaking to us about King David, saying he will be a father unto him. What is said about David in this Psalm may at some point allude to Jesus Christ. But the Psalm is not a Messianic prophecy in its entirety. It does not allude to our Lord where we have "when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him." The Son of Man never committed iniquity, since he was sinless. This passage refers strictly to David. It deals with the original context and primary fulfilment. In like manner, v.v. 8-9 are not alluding to the Messiah when read in their original context: David's relationship with his biological brothers.

Verses 8-9 find their secondary fulfilment in John 1:11: He came to his own, but his own people did not receive him. But these "people" who are mentioned are not the offspring of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Gospel we have the expression "his own" [neuter: literally his own property and possession] and "his own people" [the Israelites, who belonged to God as his own possession but rejected his Only-begotten Son, the Messiah]. In this sense we could say that Jesus was rejected by his "brothers". The law was fulfilled and brought to completion in Jesus through his rejection by the Jews (Jn 19:14-16). Thus the brothers who distanced themselves from him were actually at the foot of the cross mocking and reviling him. Our Lord was consumed as a sacrifice by the blind religious zeal of the priests of the temple.

Finally, we should note that at the time Jesus was preaching, women were not allowed to enter the inner court of the temple, if not by then the upper gallery was constructed to accommodate them, while men met with the Pharisees and teachers of the law to discuss religious matters. In Matthew 12, Jesus was with a crowd of people outside, presumably men, contending with the scribes and Pharisees when his mother Mary and relatives arrived. If Mary had stood outside the crowd, it would be because she was a woman who understood her place in Jewish religious society. It wasn't because she was apprehensive about her Son's activities and had alienated herself from him.

PAX

abacabb3 · Jul 21, 2015

You're begging the question.

Maybe? My conclusion was neither side was conclusive.

You have already concluded beforehand that there is no scriptural evidence.

There isn't any.

By testimony from Tradition we mean what was taught by consensus.

There isn't a consensus, as I have shown.

The ancient Church universally believed Mary was sinless.

Honest question: Why do you say this when Chrysostom, Hilary, and others did not say this was the case but rather contradicted it? That does not sound universal to me, what is your definition of universal?

This Marian dogma was still in its formative phase in the early centuries as was the dogma of original sin.

Apostolic doctrine does not form over time, it is preserved. If something is developed over time and was not taught by the Apostles, it isn't true.

Mary's sinlessness in general was undisputed by early Christian writers.

Again, you keep repeating this but ignore the church fathers I quoted that contradict you.

'Be it unto me according to your word'

Click to expand...

(Luke 1:38). And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 (A.D. 155)

Where does the Bible specifically say that Mary was undefiled with original sin or any sin? This may be Justin Martyrs conclusion, but you said the Scripture taught it.

"And those of them who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, born of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the

Click to expand...

Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man, the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33.11 (inter A.D. 180-189)

Click to expand...

Where does Irenaeus explain what he means by "pure womb?"

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle (the BVM) was exempt from putridity and corruption."

Click to expand...

Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235)

Click to expand...

Again, does Hippolytus explain that this specifically means sinlessness?

"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)

Click to expand...

" For she alone was spotless in soul and the body."
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily on the Holy Mother of God 11, 25, 27 (c. 262 A.D)

Click to expand...

Indeed, several Church Fathers such as Jerome and Augustine likewise affirmed Mary's complete sinlessness, as did reformers Luther and Calvin.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.

Click to expand...

Genesis 3, 15

Click to expand...

What does enmity necessarily have to do with sinlessness?

And coming to her, the angel said: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28 (cf. Jn. 1:14)

Click to expand...

Isn't she full fog race by virtue of God's choice of her? Being sinless does not make someone full of grace, as grace originates in God by definition--grace is an unmerited gift. If Mary was sinless, "full of grace" is robbed of its power unless full of grace is a reference to how she was made sinless by God's grace. While this is possible this is not a necessary interpretation.

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

Click to expand...

Yes, no mother was more blessed to have a child than the one who gave birth to God.

Tertullian embraced the Montanist heresy and afterwards started his own heterodox sect, having died out of communion with the Catholic Church. So he isn't exactly a bona fide Church Father.

Click to expand...

I agree, but you quoted Origen who is likewise a heretic.

[Concerning Cyril of Alexandria:] A lack of understanding or a fleeting moment of doubt or a sudden pang of fear isn't exactly insufficient faith which in and of itself is something habitual.

Click to expand...

But it is a moment of lacking faith, so you would have to say that Mary did not have faith at all times. "Whatever is not of faith is sin." Then,b y default, Mar sinned even if momentarily.

Do you think Jesus had insufficient faith when he cried out upon the cross: "My God. my God! Why have you abandoned me?"

Click to expand...

No, because he was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Further, it gets into the issue of substitutionary atonement, which would mean what Jesus said was literally true.

I'm surprised that an Eastern Church Father could be so negligent in his understanding of NT Koine Greek or as a Church Doctor show a lack of knowledge of Hebrew or NT Aramaic. It goes to show just how fallible individual Church Fathers are...

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you just said earlier that the Church Fathers were universal in their understanding of Mary's sinlessness. Now you would ahve to take that back. For what it is worth, Chrysostom spoke Koine Greek and probably knew it better than any modern scholar.

A surprising example of eisegesis on Hilary's part.

Click to expand...

Again, you can disagree with him, and that's fine, but my point is that the church fathers were not universal in their understandings concerning Mary.

God bless,
Craig

justinangel · Jul 22, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Maybe? My conclusion was neither side was conclusive.

The list I provided isn't nearly half. Practically all the Patristic Fathers up to the 2nd millennium unanimously taught Mary was sinless - at least personally since the day she was born. I believe only a couple had taught that she had personal faults or committed venial sins. But there's no indication in the Scriptures to support these opinions. The Gospels reveal how faithless and vain the apostles could be to the extent that Jesus clearly rebukes them, but there's absolutely nothing of the sort with regard to Mary. This in itself is a statement about her purity and faithfulness. If it weren't for Mary's faith working through love, the Incarnation would not have happened according to God's plan.

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38

"Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
Luke 1, 45

"For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."
Luke 1, 48

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Luke 11, 28

In His wisdom and mercy (not to be confused with the Divine justice), God chose Mary to associate her with His dispensation of grace for the salvation of souls through the incarnation of Christ. Our heavenly Father acted purely on his own initiative which was then followed by Mary’s free act of faith working through love in collaboration with the Holy Spirit. In the Christian life the merit of our good works done in grace is first attributed to the grace of God and only then to the faithful “whose good works proceed in Christ” by cooperation with divine grace (c.f. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2008). And since we are created in the image of God and have free will, we can either accept or reject His grace (cf. Acts 7:51).

Elizabeth praised her kinswoman Mary as blessed for having believed in the word of God and consenting to become the mother of her Lord (cf. Lk 1:45). Our Lady’s participation was both passive and active. Thus she was no mere physiological instrument of God, but an autonomous human being who was totally free to respond to His grace and call. The Magisterium of the Church teaches that “since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification at the beginning of conversion.” Mary was justified at the first instant she was immaculately conceived and preserved free from the stain of original sin in view of the merits of her divine Son. Our Lady had to be redeemed herself by a preventive divine measure before she could be called to become the Mother of God. However, “moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” (c.f. CCC 2010). The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that sanctification is the formal cause of justification. Individually we are reckoned as just in the sight of God upon being sanctified by His grace whose dispensation Christ has originally gained for us. Being so reckoned because of her sanctity, Mary was able to merit for us the coming of the Source of all grace into the world.

Mary finally merited for herself the gift of the divine motherhood by freely consenting to conceive and bear Jesus in faith and love. But she had already proven herself worthy before the angel Gabriel appeared to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God” (Lk 1:30). The Mother of our Lord had certainly increased in grace and charity in her life of faith before the Annunciation, or else the angel would not have appeared to her with these reassuring words. Hence, one cannot honestly deny that Mary’s collaboration with the Holy Spirit helped make “the attainment of eternal life” possible for those who will persevere in faith. Mary’s good work in charity and grace took the form of her fiat out of love for God and humankind. Meanwhile she understood that she was chosen to be the mother of her Lord by no natural merit of her own: “He has looked upon the lowliness of his handmaid” (Lk 1:48). Grace preceded her, but by her free consent to be the Mother of our Lord in cooperation with divine grace, the world has been “given what is due” to everyone else who cooperates with God’s grace: eternal salvation (c.f. CCC 2009). This is because divine grace gives our human merits a supernatural quality as we "participate in the divine life" (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4). Having found favour with God, Mary was able to merit for us the grace of salvation gained for us by Christ for the glory of God the Father.

“Hail, Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), venerable treasure of the whole world…it is through you that the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored, through you, the precious cross is venerated and adored throughout the whole world, through you that demons are put to flight,…through you that the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through you that all creation, once imprisoned in idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, that the faithful obtain baptism and the oil of joy, churches have been founded in the whole world, that peoples are led to conversion.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 4 at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)

“Let us entrust ourselves with all our soul’s affection to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin: let us all, with all our strength, beg her patronage, that…she herself may deign in heaven to commend us with fervent prayer. For without any doubt she who merited bringing ransom for those who needed deliverance, can more than all the saints benefit by her favour those who have received deliverance.”
Ambrose Autpert, Assumption of the Virgin (ante A.D. 778)

There isn't any (evidence in the Scriptures that she was sinless).

And coming to her the angel said, "Hail, full of grace!* The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

[* kecharitomene]

Allow me to present one piece of evidence, although it might not be explicit enough for you. The female vocative kecharitomene can be paraphrased as "enduringly endowed with grace" (cf. Blass and De Brunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). It is because Mary was to be the mother of our Lord, that the perfect past participle does "show a completeness with a permanent result" (Blass & De Brunner) and denotes "continuance of a completed action" (cf. H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar). Finally, the expression kecharitomene is in the vocative case. The angel is addressing Mary as the embodiment of all that this expression denotes. When he greets her, he doesn't call Mary by her name, but by her spiritual state. Our names are something that we have had since the beginning, and normally they are something that we keep until the end of our lives.

Blass and De Brunner have the morphological aspectual (not tense marked) stem of kecharitomene in mind: ke. This is the perfect stem of the root verb charitoo which may denote a perpetuation of a completed past action. The perfect stem is distinguished from the aorist stem which we have in Ephesians 1:6, for example: escharitosen: es. In this active indicative form the aorist stem describes a completed action which has come to pass and is finished. It is temporal in aspect and a momentary result. The aorist stem does not signify a permanent state of grace. The perfect aspect, on the other hand, exclusively denotes a state which prevails after an event has taken place and which is caused by this event. We Catholics believe this is the Immaculate Conception - the first instant when God fashioned and sanctified Mary's soul in view of the foreseen merits of Christ on account of her election to the Divine Maternity.

What I understand is that the perfect may denote an action as already finished at the present time, but it may also express the continuance of the result down to the present time without necessarily ending there. Our Lord's expression "It is written" is literally 'It has been written'. And what has been written remains in force beyond the present time. Thus the perfect may implicitly include the future and be connected to it conceptually in its aspectual form. Ephesians 1:6 refers to our predestination to grace as opposed to glory. The active indicative aorist which modifies the root verb refutes the false idea of once-saved-always-saved. Not everyone perseveres in grace. Hence, escharitosen does not imply a permanent state of sanctifying grace for all believers. In Catholic theology sanctifying grace is a habitual grace - nothing more.

Here are a couple of scriptural comparisons I've formed between the perfect and aorist aspects of verbs to better distinguish them:

"By grace you have been saved." (Perfect)
Ephesians 2,5

Christ's formal redemption of the world continues on.

"After that you believed (Aorist), you were sealed (aor.) with the Holy Spirit."
Ephesians 1, 13

The believing and sealing are definite and completed acts confined to the present moment. Some of those who believed, however, may eventually have lost their faith. But Paul is not concerned with that in this statement.

Perfect Tense

The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

For example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated "I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ," indicating that not only was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that present condition.www.ntgreek.org

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2, 20

'I have been crucified with Christ' (Χριστωι συνεσταυρωμαι — Christōi sunestaurōmai). One of Paul‘s greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of συσταυροω — sustauroō with the associative instrumental case (Χριστωι — Christōi).)

The Greek perfect tense has to do with the person's present condition or state. Thus Luke is telling us that the grace Mary was endowed with in the past is the state of grace she continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation. Theologically we may assume that Mary remained in this state of grace after the angel departed, since he left as soon as Mary consented to be the mother of our Lord - the Divine Maternity being the reason for this singular endowment of grace. In Luke 1:30 the angel says, "Fear not Mary, for you have found favour with God." In other words, the angel is reiterating what he said when he first greeted Mary, that God has bestowed grace on her as a favour for a special vocation. This vocation is the Divine Maternity which actualized in real time at the precise moment when Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." The completed action of having been bestowed with grace may continue on the condition that Mary actually is the mother of our Lord. In his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX cites the Divine Maternity as the "Supreme reason for the privilege" of the Immaculate Conception. We should keep in mind that when God predestined Mary to be the mother of Christ, He knew that she would pronounce her fiat that first instant He fashioned and sanctified her soul. The perfect tense itself does not function to indicate that this state of grace will necessarily continue to exist after the present time. Paul continues to be in the state of being crucified with Christ on the condition that Christ lives in him, and as long as he lives his life "by faith in the Son of God," just as Mary continues to be in the state of sanctifying grace provided she is the mother of our Lord.

It is important to keep in mind that the word kecharitomene is in the vocative case. The angel does not say: "Hail, Mary. You have been perfectly and completely endowed with grace." Rather he directly addresses her by substituting her name for the word: ' full of grace.' Kecharitomene is the name the angel gives Mary when he addresses her. So the state of grace Mary continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation can be considered to be of an enduring and permanent quality. In Scripture the names God gives his servants (Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Jacob-Israel, Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul) refer to their defining characteristics. The name Sarah ("exalted princess" in ancient Hebrew), for example, points to the status of being the Matriarch of the Covenant, who foreshadows the Davidic Queen Mother (Gebirah). Thus the name Kecharitomene points to something essential about Mary's nature. She isn't simply full of grace, but is actually called full of grace; she embodies in her person what it means to be completely and perfectly endowed with grace. And the names God gives His servants are permanent. Grammatically and linguistically we must keep both the verb tense and the form of case in mind to fully understand what is being indicated here by the word kecharitomene. The perfect tense is being used here in a way that isn't ever for any other person in the Scriptures.

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption.”
Timothy of Jerusalem, Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]

There isn't a consensus, as I have shown.

Three Church Fathers don't amount to a consensus. :doh:

Honest question: Why do you say this when Chrysostom, Hilary, and others did not say this was the case but rather contradicted it? That does not sound universal to me, what is your definition of universal?

Let me ask you a question: Who are these others? By universal belief we mean unanimous belief. Although there were a few dissenters, for the first millennium of the Church there was a broad consensus among the Fathers on all the basic tenets of the faith. The Patristic Fathers set the standard for what we Catholics regard biblical Christian teaching.

Apostolic doctrine does not form over time, it is preserved. If something is developed over time and was not taught by the Apostles, it isn't true.

Apostolic doctrine is preserved, but it isn't static. The doctrine of original sin, for instance, which originated with Paul has been preserved, but it is no longer understood in exactly the same terms as it was by the apostle. With the advancement and discoveries of the applied and social sciences, original sin is seen in a greater light while this doctrine is preserved according to its rudimentary principles. If you think the apostles knew as much as God does by His revelations, you are greatly mistaken. The fullness of the divine mysteries does take time to unfold under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to his Church - not only to the apostles- to be with his bride until the end of time (cf. Jn. 14:16;16:12-13). To preserve the Apostolic teachings, Apostolic succession is necessary (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2) as is a centralised hierarchical teaching authority (cf. Mt.16:18). The ecumenical councils were convoked to preserve the Apostolic teachings of the Church as the basic tenets of the faith were seen in a greater light. If the apostles had absolutely comprehended all the divine mysteries and passed their knowledge on to their appointed successors, no Trinitarian and Christological controversies would have arisen. The apostles basically planted the seeds of our faith which is something organic and dynamic. The Church as the Rule of Faith is like a gardener who has the appointed task of watering the plant as it grows to keep it healthy and alive with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit.

To be continued.

PAX

justinangel · Jul 22, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Where does Irenaeus explain what he means by "pure womb?"

"Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary—received the good news from an angel's announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin's disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin's obedience..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies., 5, 19, 1 [inter A.D. 180-189]

32. "Whence then is the substance of the first-formed (man)? From the Will and the Wisdom For God had not sent rain, the Scripture says, upon the earth, before man was made; and there was no man to till the earth. From this, then, whilst it was still virgin, God took dust of the earth and formed the man, the beginning of mankind. So then the Lord, summing up afresh this man, took the same dispensation of entry into flesh, being born from the Virgin by the Will and the Wisdom of God; that He also should show forth the likeness of Adam's entry into flesh, and there should be that which was written in the beginning, man after the image and likeness of God.

33. "And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life. For the Lord came to seek again the sheep that and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation, but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation. For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin's intercessor, and by a virgin's obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin.

54. “Behold, He saith, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son; and He, being God, is to be with us. And, as if altogether astonished at these things, he proclaims in regard to these future events that With us shall be God. And yet again concerning His birth the same. prophet says in another place: Before she that travailed gave birth, and before the pains of travail came on, she escaped and was delivered of a man-child. Thus he showed that His birth from the virgin was unforeseen and unexpected. And
again the same prophet says: Unto us a son is born, and unto us a child is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God."
Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (c.A.D.190)

We must look elsewhere in his writings. By pure womb, Irenaeus means the untilled virginal soil from which the new Adam came forth, just like the original Adam was formed from untilled virginal soil before the fall. Irenaeus understood Mary to be Eve's anti-type and advocate. He equated Mary's chastity with her sinlessness. Thus he believed that the penalty of giving birth in pain which befell Eve (woman) did not apply to Mary, the new Eve: "the pure One opening purely that pure womb which He Himself made pure." In his Proof, Irenaeus cites Isaiah 66:7: "Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy." Jesus addressed his mother as "Woman" in allusion to Eve, who got her name after the fall. Before then, she was simply Woman (cf. Gen. 2:23; 3:13-20).

Chapter XXI.-A Vindication of the Prophecy in Isaiah (VII. 14) Against the Misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint Version.arguments in Proof that Christ Was Born of a Virgin.

"For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained a place through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam into Himself from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should require to be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up in Christ as had existed in Adam, the analogy having been preserved."
A.H. 3:21.10

Irenaeus is drawing a perfect analogy between Adam and Jesus - the new Adam - to show the Gnostics (who believed Jesus only appeared to be human in the flesh) how God intended to redeem humanity in the most perfect manner; that is by way of recapitulation which required that the Redeemer be as much man as Adam was, but not from tilled soil. So to be fully human the Divine Word had to virginally assume his flesh and blood from a woman. Up to the time of the Incarnation Mary was that virgin, of whose untilled and virgin flesh Jesus would be formed by the power of the Holy Spirit just as God had made Adam from untilled and virgin soil – not through paternal seed. Irenaeus is strictly concerned with convincing the Gnostics of the reality of the Incarnation as it was traditionally believed and taught by the Catholic Church: that Jesus was fully God and fully man born of the Virgin Mary. Mary’s pure womb provided the source of untilled virgin flesh her Son would take from her by his virginal conception, for up to that time she had had no relations with Joseph, just as the soil was still untilled and virginal at the time Adam was created. Neither Adam nor Jesus had earthly fathers but, nevertheless, they were both fully human. Jesus was no more an appearance of man than Adam was.

Again, does Hippolytus explain that this specifically means sinlessness?

Hippolytus is drawing a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the most sacred and highly venerated religious relic in ancient Judaism. This was because God commanded that it be fashioned for Him to be present among His chosen people, and according to God's specifications it had to be made of the purest materials: gold and acacia wood. The ark held the two stone tablets on which the 10 commandments were inscribed, the rod of the High Priest Aaron, and a golden jar of the manna which came down from heaven. When the ark was carried in procession, it was accompanied by joyous singing and the playing of several musical instruments. The procession was an occasion for having been blessed by God and receiving the grace of His covenant. It was also associated with God’s intervention and providential care. In the Battle of Jericho the ark was carried round the city’s walls for seven days until the walls finally came down. When the Israelites venerated the ark because it was associated with the Divine Presence and the dispensation of God’s grace, they were in fact worshipping and praising God.

Since nascent time, the Church has venerated Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. The Mother of our Lord is honoured because of her association with God’s presence among us in the person of Christ. Mary is revered as a type of God’s holy temple or meeting tent. Her womb is a type of sacred sanctuary in which was held the Divine Word, the High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, and the “true manna come down from heaven – the bread of life –“in the person of her divine Son Jesus. And not unlike the Ark of the Old Covenant, Mary had to be fashioned according to God's standard of purity. Analogically we can infer that Mary was made sinless.

In Judaism, the ark of the Covenant was the only religious relic that was ever venerated because it was regarded as intrinsically holy, being the point in time and space wherein God physically manifested Himself. The ark was God’s personal dwelling place in the world as was the temple in Jerusalem, and so it had no relation with anything profane. The purpose for which the ark was constructed rendered it holy. Mary was predestined to be God’s personal dwelling place on earth with His incarnation and physical manifestation in the Person of the Divine Word. For this reason Mary’s soul was sanctified at the first instant of her conception and she received plenitudes of grace which helped her to remain personally spotless and without blemish as God’s holy temple and sanctuary. The Ark was so holy in fact, that if anyone were to touch it they could actually fall down and die! It was housed in the Holy of Holies, which was a perfectly clean place where the Jewish high priests could enter only once a year according to their law (See Lev. 16:2-4). It only makes sense that for Mary to hold God in her womb, she too would be completely pure and without any sin.“ The nearer one approaches to the source of all grace the more grace one receives; but Mary came nearest of all to Christ, who is the principle of grace” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa lll a, q.27,a.5). It was Mary's closeness to Christ that made her receive God's "fullness of grace" to be sinless. Without God's grace, it would have been impossible for Mary to be sinless, and she too would be like the rest of humanity. Catholics believe that God wanted a perfectly pure woman to carry His Son, for nothing else short of perfection would do.

"For as the Word of God was without flesh, he took upon himself the holy flesh of the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which he wove for himself."
Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 (A.D. 200)

Jesus not only loves his mother with a perfect and infinite love, but, more importantly, as the perfect observer of Divine law, he has honoured his mother by sparing her the curse of the corruption of sin and death. We read in Deuteronomy 5:16: “Honour your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you.” The Hebrew word “honor” is kabodah, which means “bestow glory”, derived from kabod : glory. Jesus has honoured or glorified his heavenly Father by obeying His eternal command, having righteously bestowed unprecedented glory upon the woman whom he had chosen from all eternity to be his mother.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.
John 1, 14

“The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 49

What does enmity have to do with sinlessness?

Genesis 3:15 is the first verse that reveals to us how Mary would become the New Eve. The woman alluded to as being at enmity or hostility with the serpent is Mary. It was God who put this total opposition between Mary and Satan, and we believe it to be in the same likeness as Christ's hostility with the seed of the serpent: sinful humanity. For Mary to be like Christ in His hostility with Satan and his offspring, it is reasonable to say that this passage implies Mary's lack of sin and affinity with the devil. There is no surer way to be in total hostility with Satan than to be in God's constant grace. It was by His grace, that God put Mary and Satan in a complete state of opposition and had the woman and the serpent become genuine enemies with hatred for each other, which the Hebrew word for enmity (eybah) denotes. Mary would be a friend of Satan and no longer Eve's anti-type if at any moment she had sinned and consequently been an unworthy mother of our Lord. Eve was at enmity with God at the time she mortally sinned against Him and did what was hateful in His sight.

Shall continue another day.

PAX

justinangel · Jul 24, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Isn't she full of grace by virtue of God's choice of her? Being sinless does not make someone full of grace, as grace originates in God by definition--grace is an unmerited gift. If Mary was sinless, "full of grace" is robbed of its power unless full of grace is a reference to how she was made sinless by God's grace. While this is possible this is not a necessary interpretation.

The Divine Maternity is the supreme reason for this singular privilege granted by God.

Yes, no mother was more blessed to have a child than the one who gave birth to God.

Click to expand...

"Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
Luke 1, 45

Mary was more blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it than for having conceived and borne Jesus.

I agree, but you quoted Origen who is likewise a heretic.

I quoted Origen because he believed what was a prelude to the Immaculate Conception as most of the Patristic Fathers did. I have quoted Tertullian on his orthodox views of the Holy Trinity.

But it is a moment of lacking faith, so you would have to say that Mary did not have faith at all times. "Whatever is not of faith is sin." Then,b y default, Mar sinned even if momentarily.

First of all, there is no record of Mary having shown any doubts, unlike the apostles. Further, what might be construed as a moment of doubt may just be a lack of understanding which would not entail a lack or loss of faith. One must have knowledge of the truth in order to have faith. When Jesus calmed the storm, he noticed that his disciples were afraid, although by then they should have known better. Yet Jesus did not condemn them for having sinned. Rather he rebuked them for having little faith. What Paul means by saying "Whatever is not of faith is a sin" (Rom. 14:23) is that whatever a person does against what he believes or knows is right and against his well-formed conscience is a sin and therefore not of faith. The precise instant Peter doubted and cried out to the Lord, as he began to sink after Jesus invited him out to walk on the water, was an irrational moment of impulse in which instant he had no sufficient time to deliberate with his conscience. Of course, he showed little faith. But if he had no faith, then he wouldn't have beseeched the Lord to save him. Even at this point in his fear he was acting impulsively and not fully rationally. Let's not create a false dichotomy.

No, because he was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Further, it gets into the issue of substitutionary atonement, which would mean what Jesus said was literally true.

Click to expand...

First of all, Jesus did not cry out in a fleeting moment of despair to follow a designed script in order to prove that the prophecies pointed to him. Nor did he act against his conscience, even when he wept after Lazarus had died. Jesus was fully human, having subjected himself to our weaknesses, but was without sin. And this brings us to the subject of substitutionary atonement. This theological concept can be explained in more than one way. I presume that what you mean is penal substitution which has arisen in some parts of Protestantism. According to this understanding, God poured out his wrath on His Son instead of on us. Jesus not only atoned for our sins, but was also punished for our sins. Thus when he cried out in agony from the cross, it was through a sense of complete alienation from God tantamount to what the poor souls in hell might experience. In other words, Jesus faithfully took the place of the unfaithful. I'm afraid this erroneous doctrine is not contained in the Scriptures; nor was it taught by any of the Church Fathers. In fact, it blatantly contradicts our traditional understanding of God's divine essence, and I should add our definition of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ: the divine and the human in one person. A righteous God does not punish the innocent, especially not the incarnate divine Word.The idea of vicarious satisfaction is more compatible with the Catholic faith and ancient Christianity.

Perhaps, but you just said earlier that the Church Fathers were universal in their understanding of Mary's sinlessness. Now you would have to take that back. For what it is worth, Chrysostom spoke Koine Greek and probably knew it better than any modern scholar.

The Church Fathers weren't modern scholars. And John Chrysostom was just as fallible as a modern exegete which explains his oversight. He wasn't exempt from unintentional failures being human like the others.

Again, you can disagree with him, and that's fine, but my point is that the church fathers were not universal in their understandings concerning Mary.

Because only three of them ventured a little off course? I'm confused. What is your definition of universal?

PAX

abacabb3 · Jul 27, 2015

Universal means everyone without exception. At least to me.

justinangel · Aug 1, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Universal means everyone without exception. At least to me.

Well, Americans universally hold to the principles of political democracy and a free market economy, wouldn't you agree? However, about 11% of the population doesn't. Morally this minority prefers the Communist system minus the element of a fascist dictatorship. The term universal is taken in a collective sense rather than a distributive one.

PAX
:angel:

Standing Up · Aug 1, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Where does Irenaeus explain what he means by "pure womb?"

God bless,
Craig

Earlier in the same letter. Irenaeus defines "pure womb" is the church, giving birth to believers.

"4. He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And how shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not by means4271 4271 The text is obscure, and the construction doubtful. of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected manner (but as a sign of salvation) by God—[I mean] that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith?4272 4272 The Latin here is, “quæ est ex virgine per fidem regenerationem.” According to Massuet, “virgine” here refers not to Mary, but to the Church. Grabe suspects that some words have been lost. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

And so, Irenaeus' "pure womb" makes sense here, not as referring to Mary, but to the church that regenerates:

"... and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared."

IOW, Mary didn't regenerate you or I, the church or messenger who preached the Good News did. It is the pure womb which regenerates men unto God.

justinangel · Aug 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
Earlier in the same letter. Irenaeus defines "pure womb" is the church, giving birth to believers.

"4. He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And how shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not by means4271 4271 The text is obscure, and the construction doubtful. of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected manner (but as a sign of salvation) by God—[I mean] that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith?4272 4272 The Latin here is, “quæ est ex virgine per fidem regenerationem.” According to Massuet, “virgine” here refers not to Mary, but to the Church. Grabe suspects that some words have been lost. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

And so, Irenaeus' "pure womb" makes sense here, not as referring to Mary, but to the church that regenerates:

"... and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared."

IOW, Mary didn't regenerate you or I, the church or messenger who preached the Good News did. It is the pure womb which regenerates men unto God.

"Again, there are those who say, "He is a man, and who shall know him?"(14) and, "I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;"(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. "
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.]

Massuet is obviously confused, unless you're saying that he refers to the womb as the Church. The text is clear. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary - not of the Church. Irenaeus is talking about the Incarnation. It is the Virgin Mary's womb, 'that pure womb which regenerates men unto God', that designates her as the new Eve, the spiritual mother of all the living: "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev 12:17; cf. Jn 19:26-27). Mary is the prophesied Woman of Promise (Gen 3:15). The idea of Mary being our co-Redemptrix had already existed by the 2nd century.

Irenaeus perceived Mary as Eve's anti-type. By her obedience, Mary untied the knot of Eve's disobedience. It was through Mary's faith working through love that the divine Word became man to save humankind from sin and death. And as a result of our Lord's work of salvation in association with his mother, the Church was born. For Irenaeus, Mary is the causa salutis (cause of salvation) in a secondary and subordinate way and the advocatae Evea (advocate of Eve). Her womb regenerates humanity, for from it came forth the living Source of all grace: our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is the first fruit of all who shall die and rise with him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-22; Rom. 8:29).

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” For the Lord, having been born “the First- begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. "
(3, 22, 4)

"And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience."
(5, 19, 1)

PAX

Standing Up · Aug 2, 2015

"Again, there are those who say, "He is a man, and who shall know him?"(14) and, "I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;"(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. "
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.]
—[I mean] that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

Irenaeus is saying that the "pure womb" is the church. Her womb regenerates humanity through faith. You must be born again, not of Mary, but of the faith.

For Irenaeus, there is no teaching of ever-virgin (EV) mythology in the church. He says, Mary, while yet a virgin, obeyed. Eve, while yet a virgin, disobeyed. Everyone knows Eve had children, thus the word "yet", just as scripture says Mary/Joseph had children, brothers/sisters of Christ (same mother, different father). So also, Irenaeus says regarding Mary "yet". There's no idea from Irenaeus of EV.

Standing Up · Aug 2, 2015

Just a bit more on Irenaeus' teaching that the church is the "pure womb" from whom men are regenerated.

2. Thus, after their simplicity and innocence, did these daughters [of Lot] so speak, imagining that all mankind had perished, even as the Sodomites had done, and that the anger of God had come down upon the whole earth. Wherefore also they are to be held excusable, since they supposed that they only, along with their father, were left for the preservation of the human race; and for this reason it was that they deceived their father. Moreover, by the words they used this fact was pointed out—that there is no other one who can confer upon the elder and younger church the [power of] giving birth to children, besides our Father. Now the father of the human race is the Word of God, as Moses points out when he says, “Is not He thy father who hath obtained thee [by generation], and formed thee, and created thee?”4234 4234 Deut. xxxii. 6, LXX. [Let us reflect that this effort to spiritualize this awful passage in the history of Lot is an innocent but unsuccessful attempt to imitate St. Paul’s allegory, Gal. iv. 24.] At what time, then, did He pour out upon the human race the life-giving seed—that is, the Spirit of the remission of sins, through means of whom we are quickened? Was it not then, when He was eating with men, and drinking wine upon the earth? For it is said, “The Son of man came eating and drinking;”4235 4235 Matt. xi. 19. and when He had lain down, He fell asleep, and took repose. As He does Himself say in David, “I slept, and took repose.”4236 4236 Ps. iii. 6. And because He used thus to act while He dwelt and lived among us, He says again, “And my sleep became sweet unto me.”4237 4237 Jer. xxxi. 26. Now this whole matter was indicated through Lot, that the seed of the Father of all—that is, of the Spirit of God, by whom all things were made—was commingled and united with flesh— that is, with His own workmanship; by which commixture and unity the two synagogues—that is, the two churches—produced from their own father living sons to the living God.

3. And while these things were taking place, his wife remained in [the territory of] Sodomm, no longer corruptible flesh, but a pillar of salt which endures for ever; and by those natural processes, which appertain to the human race, indicating that the Church also, which is the salt of the earth,4240 4240 Matt. v. 13. has been left behind within the confines of the earth, and subject to human sufferings; and while entire members are often taken away from it, the pillar of salt still endures, thus typifying the foundation of the faith which maketh strong, and sends forward, children to their Father.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxii.html

justinangel · Aug 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
"Again, there are those who say, "He is a man, and who shall know him?"(14) and, "I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;"(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. "
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.]
—[I mean] that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

Irenaeus is saying that the "pure womb" is the church. Her womb regenerates humanity through faith.

Not in paragraph 11, he doesn't. Catholics have always seen the Church as a type of mother as well, but from a different perspective. And we have perceived Mary as a figure and model of the Church because of her faith and charity which resulted in the Incarnation. Mary has regenerated humankind by bringing the Source of all grace into the world. The Church does so through her doctrines and the sacraments which are physical instruments of grace. Finally, Catholics have always believed that Mary is the Mother of the Church, which Irenaeus believed as well. As the new Eve, Mary is our mother.

For Irenaeus, there is no teaching of ever-virgin (EV) mythology in the church. He says, Mary, while yet a virgin, obeyed. Eve, while yet a virgin, disobeyed. Everyone knows Eve had children, thus the word "yet", just as scripture says Mary/Joseph had children, brothers/sisters of Christ (same mother, different father). So also, Irenaeus says regarding Mary "yet". There's no idea from Irenaeus of EV.[

Irenaeus says, "being a virgin" she obeyed. I already pointed this out to you before and demonstrated how faulty your understanding of the paragraph was. Here it is again, since you persist in your error.

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve being disobedient, for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin ... being nevertheless as yet a virgin ... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and the entire human race... so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race... And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve."
[A.H. 3:22.4]

The sentence which reads "so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation" explains how Irenaeus had intended the phrase "as yet" to be understood in the previous passage. The father simply meant that Mary was still a virgin up to the time of the birth of Christ, being legally married to Joesph as his wife in the first stage of their marriage - the period of betrothal - as set by Mosaic law. In other words, Mary was the wife of Joseph but, nevertheless, she was still (as yet) a virgin at the time she conceived Christ. Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus. Mary conceived her child at the moment she pronounced her Fiat at the annunciation, "being a virgin." A comparison could therefore be made between Eve and Mary, since the two were married and virgins up to the time of the two respective pivotal events in human history: the Fall and the Incarnation. Eve was a married virgin at the time when she disobeyed God. Mary was a married virgin at the time when she obeyed God. Mary undid Eve's disobedience by her obedience in a perfectly analogous way according to God's design. In hindsight we know that Eve eventually gave birth to children after the fall, so it's easy to assume that Irenaeus meant that she disobeyed God while she was still a virgin. But what he meant was that Eve was a virginal wife of Adam when she disobeyed God. He wasn't concerned with what came after no more than Matthew was in 1:25 of his gospel. Irenaeus wrote his A.H. in Greek. Note that he doesn't write that Mary disobeyed God while she was still a virgin, but rather she "yielded obedience being a virgin," although she was married - not unlike her anti-type who was also married but still a virgin at the time when she was disobedient to God.

PAX
:angel:

Standing Up · Aug 2, 2015

justinangel said:
Catholics have always seen

I suspect that's really the problem of conversing with you. It's simply a false notion to think your RC today is the same as the church at Pentecost. It is so far removed, it is ludicrous you're even saying it. None of your bishops/popes have such a weak sense of faith to cling to the false idea that RC hasn't evolved.

Irenaeus says, "being a virgin" she obeyed. I already pointed this out to you before and demonstrated how faulty your understanding of the paragraph was. Here it is again, since you persist in your error.

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve being disobedient, for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin ... bei[ng nevertheless as yet a virgin ... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and the entire human race... so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race... And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve."
[A.H. 3:22.4]

No, you have persisted in reading through your RC lenses. See the bolded "yet". Had Irenaeus taught the nonsense pagan idea of EV as regards Mary, he wouldn't have used the word "yet". He would have said, when the ever-virgin.

Again, it is a waste of time to talk with you.

C/u around.

PS Irenaeus maintains the church is the ever virgin, just as Clement of Alexandria maintained scripture is the ever virgin. But both have the same belief that it is the church the pure womb it is from which men are regenerated (born again) to God.

justinangel · Aug 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
I suspect that's really the problem of conversing with you. It's simply a false notion to think your RC today is the same as the church at Pentecost. It is so far removed, it is ludicrous you're even saying it. None of your bishops/popes have such a weak sense of faith to cling to the false idea that RC hasn't evolved.

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve being disobedient, for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin ... bei[ng nevertheless as yet a virgin ... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both to herself and the entire human race... so, also did Mary, having a man betrothed to her, and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race... And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve."
[A.H. 3:22.4]

No, you have persisted in reading through your RC lenses. See the bolded "yet". Had Irenaeus taught the nonsense pagan idea of EV as regards Mary, he wouldn't have used the word "yet". He would have said, when the ever-virgin.

All Catholics, not only those of the Roman rite, believe in the PVM. Also the EO and many mainstream Protestants do. That the PVM is a pagan myth is pure conjecture with no support - a straw to clutch. Your blind anti-Catholic zeal is clouding your ability to think coherently. You are the one who is reading into the text what you wish to believe and wasn't believed until the post-Enlightenment era in fundamentalist Protestantism outside the Church.Irenaeus was a Catholic Bishop who bore witness to and preserved the Apostolic Tradtion of the Catholic Church - not a self-complacent Fundamentalist Christian outside the Church of the 21st century who is disconnected from historical Christianity.

Eve was stiil / as yet a virgin when she disobeyed God just before the fall. Mary being nevertheless a virgin (like Eve), having been betrothed to Joseph before she gave birth to Christ was obedient. This is what Ireneaus is saying. What Eve and Mary have in common is that they were virgins either before the fall or the Incarnation. Nothing more!

Again, it is a waste of time to talk with you.

That's just it. All you do is talk. I can hear you, but there's nothing to listen to. :sleep:

I'll have any further discussion with you - not that anyone can have a discussion with you - as soon as you learn your grammar.

PS Irenaeus maintains the church is the ever virgin, just as Clement of Alexandria maintained scripture is the ever virgin. But both have the same belief that it is the church the pure womb it is from which men are regenerated (born again) to God.

As an ESL high school teacher, I give you an F for reading comprehension.

C/u around.

I hope not!

PAX

patricius79 · Aug 15, 2015

justinangel said:
"Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary—received the good news from an angel's announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin's disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin's obedience..."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies., 5, 19, 1 [inter A.D. 180-189]

I love that quotation. It shows how the Church even from the earliest times was seeing Mary as the New Eve.

And since even the first Eve was created without Original Sin, so the New Eve was created without Original Sin, and was preserved from all personal sin.

bbbbbbb · Aug 15, 2015

patricius79 said:
I love that quotation. It shows how the Church even from the earliest times was seeing Mary as the New Eve.

And since even the first Eve was created without Original Sin, so the New Eve was created without Original Sin, and was preserved from all personal sin.

Yep, just like Adam and Eve were created without sin and were preserved from all personal sin forever.

justinangel · Aug 16, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Yep, just like Adam and Eve were created without sin and were preserved from all personal sin forever.

What makes Mary the new Eve and Jesus the new Adam is that neither of them fell from grace.

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed."
Genesis 3, 15

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

And coming to Mary, the angel said, "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1, 14

PAX
:angel:

Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

Senior Veteran

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

Newbie

On and on

On and on

Newbie

On and on

Newbie

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads