Immaculate Conception???

[Athanasius377]

Also didn't St Athanasius of Alexandria say

"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 Ark of the New] 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. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them, for it is written: “The earth is my foostool”. But you carry within you the feet, the head, and the entire body of the perfect God.

If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you, for it is writen: “Heaven is My throne”, while you are God’s place of repose. If I say that the angels and archangels are great — but you are greater than them all, for the angels and the archangels serve with trembling the One Who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in His presence, while you speak to Him freely.

If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne, while you hold God in your hands. If we say that the serphim are great, you are greater than them all, for the seraphim cover their faces with their wings, unable to look upon the perfect glory, while you not only gaze upon His face but caress it and offer your breasts to His holy mouth.

As for Eve, she is the mother of the dead, “for in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive”. Eve took fruit from the tree and made her husband eat of it along with her. And so they ate of that tree of which God had told them: “The day you eat of it, you shall die”. Eve took fruit from it, ate some of it, and gave some to her husband that he might eat with her. He ate of it, and he died.

In you, instead, O wise Virgin, dwells the Son God: He, that is, Who is the tree of life. Truly He has given us His body, and we have eaten of it. That is how life came to all, and all have come to life by the mercy of God, your beloved Son. That is why your spirit is full of joy in God your Savior!"

Or was that a different Athanasius?

I cannot find this quote in my library though as you know given the amount of material from the ECF that remain untranslated doesn't mean it wasn't said by Athanasius of Alexandria. The source of the quote seems to be from a work called Homily of the Papyrus of Turin. According to what I can find is pseudepigrapha and not from Athanasius of Alexandria or at best it is disputed as it has an uncertain provenance.

 

[1stcenturylady]

How many gods? Catholics have ONE God and Mary is not it.

Being sinless does not make a person a god. Being God is one way to be sinless. Another way is to be created sinless by God. Adam was made that way. Eve was made that way. See. God does know how to do it, how to create people that are sinless. And Catholics contend that God made Mary sinless as well. That's the whole idea of Luke 1.

You have decided that Mary being sinless is a made up idea. You had presumed that it was made up to allow for Jesus being born sinless, as some sort of requirement in the mind of Catholics. But I told you that was not considered by Catholics to be necessary. Only that it was considered 'fitting'. Now you understand that, maybe. The roots of it are not in theological necessity but in Luke 1 and in the living memory of a very holy woman and how to understand that. I maintain that the theological understanding of Mary as sinless that developed would never have been possible without Luke 1. It's Luke's fault.

Right! Luke should have told me, because I go by what's written.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I refer to a 'bent human nature', but it can also be looked at as a 'heart of darkness', or in many other ways including Augustine's 'original sin' or the way the Orthodox do it without referring to Augustine at all. I don't mean to exclude any of the usual ways of looking at it, but I do insist that the idea of 'sin nature' is all wet.

Okay, I understand what you believe about Mary.

I'd like to discuss your last paragraph. I like your terms, especially "heart of darkness."

When we receive Christ and the Holy Spirit, what do Catholics believe happens to our nature?

 

[☦Marius☦]

I cannot find this quote in my library though as you know given the amount of material from the ECF that remain untranslated doesn't mean it wasn't said by Athanasius of Alexandria. The source of the quote seems to be from a work called Homily of the Papyrus of Turin. According to what I can find is pseudepigrapha and not from Athanasius of Alexandria or at best it is disputed as it has an uncertain provenance.

I appreciate you finding that for me. Shame I can't seem to find the Athanasius it's attributed to.

 

[Fidelibus]

[Staff edit].

It is not MY understanding, it is the author's understanding.

The question I asked, and with all respect, which you seem to be dodging is..... could "your" understanding/interpretation of what John was trying to get across be in error?

If not, why not?

[Staff edit].

 

[chevyontheriver]

Agreed, but that’s not exactly the claim I was responding to. The claim was that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus. According to the catechism, that is exactly what they teach.

I'm not debating the validity of that dogma, but rather the fact that it exists.

There is a distinction to be made. We were saying, rightly, that from the Catholic point of view it was not necessary for Mary to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. It was fitting but not necessary. You are saying, with support from the Catechism, that Mary's choice was significant enough that it required the freedom that comes from being sinless to make that choice freely. That says a different thing. And I'm even fine with what it says.

But the OP was about how the Immaculate Conception doctrine was UNNECESSARY because sin simply, according to her theory, is not passed on from the mother. She thought then that since sin is not passed on from the mother that Jesus would be sinless without any need for an immaculate conception. When we agreed that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary to produce a sinless Jesus, it kind of shot down the main point of her initial post.

I'm not debating with you the validity of the dogma, but it's good to know the scope of it. So thank you for raising this semi-related issue from the Catechism. You raise an interesting point that it was necessary, in Catholic teaching, for Mary to be sinless so she could freely accept the challenge of being the mother of Jesus. What I normally see (from Protestants) is the straw man argument that Mary had to be sinless so Jesus could be sinless. God knows how to make sinless people, so that has always been a non-starter for me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Right! Luke should have told me, because I go by what's written.

Er, you are presuming a personal infallibility there which is rather large. That you or I don't see something in Scripture doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Phil 1:21]

There is a distinction to be made. We were saying, rightly, that from the Catholic point of view it was not necessary for Mary to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. It was fitting but not necessary. You are saying, with support from the Catechism, that Mary's choice was significant enough that it required the freedom that comes from being sinless to make that choice freely. That says a different thing. And I'm even fine with what it says.

But the OP was about how the Immaculate Conception doctrine was UNNECESSARY because sin simply, according to her theory, is not passed on from the mother. She thought then that since sin is not passed on from the mother that Jesus would be sinless without any need for an immaculate conception. When we agreed that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary to produce a sinless Jesus, it kind of shot down the main point of her initial post.

I'm not debating with you the validity of the dogma, but it's good to know the scope of it. So thank you for raising this semi-related issue from the Catechism. You raise an interesting point that it was necessary, in Catholic teaching, for Mary to be sinless so she could freely accept the challenge of being the mother of Jesus. What I normally see (from Protestants) is the straw man argument that Mary had to be sinless so Jesus could be sinless. God knows how to make sinless people, so that has always been a non-starter for me.

Oh, I understand the OP. I was responding to a specific post that stated the Cathiolic Church doesn't believe Mary needed to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus. The catechism states otherwise.

Of course Mary didn't need to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. There's nothing in the catechism that states such a thing, and besides, Jesus is God. To be honest, I've never heard that statement, either in my time growing up in the RCC or in my faith since outside of it. That claim is a new one on me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Okay, I understand what you believe about Mary.

Woot! Finally. Hopefully.

I'd like to discuss your last paragraph. I like your terms, especially "heart of darkness."

When we receive Christ and the Holy Spirit, what do Catholics believe happens to our nature?

First, we receive Christ and the Holy Spirit (and the Father) at baptism. I think you may disagree. The water is a water of washing, and it is an interior washing where our sins are forgiven. We become righteous, both imputed to be righteous and in fact righteous before God. We become 'new' in that regard, and with a blank slate where the slate before that was not clean and may have been very marked up. Our 'nature' stays the same. We have the same human nature we had before. We also have the same predispositions, bad habits, proclivities, temptations that have developed as a consequence of our sinfulness. So we have struggles that may continue, while we do have the indwelling of God to assist us in resisting sin. Resisting sin is not guaranteed, not at all. Which is why John can say that if we say we do not sin, we lie. We can and do sin, but we can confess it and be forgiven and be helped back on the bus.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh, I understand the OP. I was responding to a specific post that stated the Catholic Church doesn't believe Mary needed to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus. The catechism states otherwise.

If I ever said that, it was an imprecision on my part. Something I often do. The normal language used in Catholic teaching is that it is 'fitting'.

Of course Mary didn't need to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. There's nothing in the catechism that states such a thing, and besides, Jesus is God.

We agree.

To be honest, I've never heard that statement, either in my time growing up in the RCC or in my faith since outside of it. That claim is a new one on me.

I have never heard a Catholic make it. Doesn't mean a less informed one might not say it or think it though. But I have heard it with regularity from (some) Protestants. And it often is followed up with the claim that then Mary's parents and grandparents and on and on would also have to be sinless, creating a sort of reductio ad absurdum thingie. It may be new to you but I've seen it multiple times. It's like they read the same anti-Catholic apologetics book at some point.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I have never heard a Catholic make it. Doesn't mean a less informed one might not say it or think it though. But I have heard it with regularity from (some) Protestants. And it often is followed up with the claim that then Mary's parents and grandparents and on and on would also have to be sinless, creating a sort of reductio ad absurdum thingie. It may be new to you but I've seen it multiple times. It's like they read the same anti-Catholic apologetics book at some point.

I hear ya. Some Protestants have odd ideas about Catholic theology just like some Catholics have odd ideas about Protestant theology. Open communication, humility, and mutual understanding is the key.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I hear ya. Some Protestants have odd ideas about Catholic theology just like some Catholics have odd ideas about Protestant theology. Open communication, humility, and mutual understanding is the key.

I try to keep my odd ideas about Protestants to a minimum, but I still have them. Patience is key in trying to get us all to at least understand each other even if we can't agree yet. We will never be able to agree if we only see straw men though. Thanks for a cool head.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Woot! Finally. Hopefully.

First, we receive Christ and the Holy Spirit (and the Father) at baptism. I think you may disagree. The water is a water of washing, and it is an interior washing where our sins are forgiven. We become righteous, both imputed to be righteous and in fact righteous before God. We become 'new' in that regard, and with a blank slate where the slate before that was not clean and may have been very marked up. Our 'nature' stays the same. We have the same human nature we had before. We also have the same predispositions, bad habits, proclivities, temptations that have developed as a consequence of our sinfulness. So we have struggles that may continue, while we do have the indwelling of God to assist us in resisting sin. Resisting sin is not guaranteed, not at all. Which is why John can say that if we say we do not sin, we lie. We can and do sin, but we can confess it and be forgiven and be helped back on the bus.

I agree we are given a blank slate, because Peter said, 2 Peter 2:9 "For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." The heresy that many Protestants believe that Christ forgave our past, present and future sins is not scriptural. They reason, because even our past sins were future to when Christ died, that it covered them all. So many of them live as they please. I believe it was based on Augustine who said something like, 'believe in God, and live as you like.' Then Luther took it a bit further and said, "make your sins strong, but love God more." No apostle taught any such thing.

I guess it is at that point where I stop agreeing with you. I am frustrated, that you too apply 1 John 1:8 to true Christians. Mankind since Adam, yes, but John distinguishes between before and after Christ. 1 John 1:7 is a Christian. 1 John 1:8-9 is how to become one. Maybe the Good News Translation will help you see clearer.

5 Now the message that we have heard from his Son and announce is this: God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him. 6 If, then, we say that we have fellowship with him, yet at the same time live in the darkness, we are lying both in our words and in our actions. 7 But if we live in the light—just as he is in the light—then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. 9 But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and purify us from all our wrongdoing. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make a liar out of God, and his word is not in us.

What you believe about 1 John 1:8 is completely incompatible and contrary to 1 John 3:5-9. The person in 1 John 1:8 has never become a Christian in the first place because they still have all their sin. 1:9 "But if they confess their sin, God cleanses them from all sin." So once cleansed of all sin, should they still say they have sin? Does God leave us in a state where we will willfully sin again? NO! That is the reason for the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be born again - without a 'bent nature.' Romans 8:9 says we are not in that nature if we have the Spirit, and if we don't have the Spirit we don't belong to Christ. We now have the power of God to never sin willfully again!

This power of God is not something you can't feel, nor is the moment you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You feel it from the top of your head to the bottom of your feet. You are so clean of the heaviness of sin you feel light as a feather. I, myself, even looked down to see if my feet were still on the floor! And I can confirm that 1 John 3:5-9 is my own experience. It is real. All the desire to sin is gone instantly. Then starts the process of developing the fruit of the Spirit, and John 15 starts.

Many carnal 'Christians' without the baptism of the Holy Spirit can only relate to 1 John 1:8 as their experience and use it like their anthem. They are in effect, 1 John 1:6. But those with the baptism of the Holy Spirit know 1 John 1:7. You must be born again.

John 8:35-36 And a slave (to sin) does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free (from sin), you shall be free indeed.

In what state will we be when we meet our maker: Revelation 22:11 He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree we are given a blank slate, because Peter said, 2 Peter 2:9 "For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." The heresy that many Protestants believe that Christ forgave our past, present and future sins is not scriptural. They reason, because even our past sins were future to when Christ died, that it covered them all. So many of them live as they please. I believe it was based on Augustine who said something like, 'believe in God, and live as you like.' Then Luther took it a bit further and said, "make your sins strong, but love God more." No apostle taught any such thing.

The Augustine quote is as follows:

“The deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.” (Homily VII, paragraph 8)

It is from his sermon on 1 Jn 4: 4-12 found here: Augustine’s Love Sermon | Christian History Institute

As to Luther, the apostles would not talk like that.

I guess it is at that point where I stop agreeing with you. I am frustrated, that you too apply 1 John 1:8 to true Christians. Mankind since Adam, yes, but John distinguishes between before and after Christ. 1 John 1:7 is a Christian. 1 John 1:8-9 is how to become one. Maybe the Good News Translation will help you see clearer.

The 'Good News' translation is hardly definitive. As to your parsing what is before and after becoming a Christian, I find it not at all obvious from the text itself. The theory you have made of your reading, or the way you read it to fit your theory, doesn't fit nearly 2000 years of experience of the saints. Most of those saints knew that they also sinned, and they had recourse to confession to get back on track. That's the historical norm for living the Christian life. If you don't sin, that's great. For the rest of us we know we do, and with humility we come back and get on the bus again, and again.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The Augustine quote is as follows:

It is from his sermon on 1 Jn 4: 4-12 found here: Augustine’s Love Sermon | Christian History Institute

As to Luther, the apostles would not talk like that.

The 'Good News' translation is hardly definitive. As to your parsing what is before and after becoming a Christian, I find it not at all obvious from the text itself. The theory you have made of your reading, or the way you read it to fit your theory, doesn't fit nearly 2000 years of experience of the saints. Most of those saints knew that they also sinned, and they had recourse to confession to get back on track. That's the historical norm for living the Christian life. If you don't sin, that's great. For the rest of us we know we do, and with humility we come back and get on the bus again, and again.

Then let's just agree to disagree and you go your way, and I'll go mine.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Then let's just agree to disagree and you go your way, and I'll go mine.

OK. Lets do that. I can see we are not going to agree any time soon. I hope in the process you learned a bit about the Immaculate Conception, how Catholics understand it, even if you don't accept it (yet).

 

[1stcenturylady]

OK. Lets do that. I can see we are not going to agree any time soon. I hope in the process you learned a bit about the Immaculate Conception, how Catholics understand it, even if you don't accept it (yet).

And I hope you read 1 John with new eyes.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a significant clean, with many posts removed for flaming.​

From here on, I would like to see an immaculate posting style from all of you.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[chevyontheriver]

From here on, I would like to see an immaculate posting style from all of you.​

Can I complement you on your wordsmithing, fitting 'immaculate' in to your notice?

 

[Paidiske]

I have to do something to alleviate the drudgery of modding! (There's usually some sort of pun on the thread title in my mod hats. I make a game of it).