 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16th, 2006 10:15 pm |
|
For those who claim that the idea of Mary's Immaculate Conception was "invented" by the Church in the 1800's, or that the Eastern Churches do not accept that Mary was born and lived her life without sin, I would like to share the following from Father Jacob of Serug, who died in 833. Fr. Jacob was a bishop born in Curtem on the Euphrates. He was a scholar of the Eastern Churches prior to the schism which split the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
This homily is taken from the Magnificat of Saturday, October 14, 2006.
Blessed Is Her Womb
Our Lord descending to earth beheld all women;/He chose one for himself who among them all was pleasing
He searched her and found humility and holiness in her,/and limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.
And a pure heart and every reckoning of perfection,/because of this he chose her, the pure and most fair one.
He descended from his place and dwelt within the glorious one among women,/because for her there was not a companion comparable to her in the world.
She alone is humble, pure, limpid, and without blemish,/so that she was deemed worthy to be his mother and not another.
He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil, nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.
And she allows no thought for luxury,/nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.
Desire for worldly vanity does not burn in her,/nor is she occupied with childish things.
He saw that there was not like her nor equal to her in the world,/then He took her as mother that he might suck pure milk from her.
She was a person of discernment, full of the love of God,/because our Lord does not dwell where there is no love.
When the Great King desired to come to our place,/He dwelt in the purest shrine of all the earth because it pleased him.
He dwelt in a spotless womb which was adorned with virginity,/and with thoughts which were worthy of holiness.
She was most fair both in her nature and in her will,/because she was not sullied with displeasing desires.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 01:42 am |
|
i enjoyed this, though i see nothing here that completely defends the immaculate concpetion. It defends her perfection but does not say anything about how she was conceived or that she wasgiven a special cleansinfd prior to her birth. The east seem to view original sin different as you know. but i do think it demonstrates how similar our views are.
do you think that God chose Mary becasue he foresaw her virtues from all of eternity? since she was immaculately conceived years before her personality or virtue ever existed on earth?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 10:53 am |
|
brian wrote: i enjoyed this, though i see nothing here that completely defends the immaculate concpetion. It defends her perfection but does not say anything about how she was conceived or that she wasgiven a special cleansinfd prior to her birth. The east seem to view original sin different as you know. but i do think it demonstrates how similar our views are.
do you think that God chose Mary becasue he foresaw her virtues from all of eternity? since she was immaculately conceived years before her personality or virtue ever existed on earth?
Read what I posted carefully and you'll see that I did not claim it proved the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as stated by the Church, only that it proves the Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary a thousand years before the doctrine was promulgated and declared infallibly.
The East and West have different concepts of Original Sin, but both declare and confess that Mary was sinless from the first moment of her conception until the end of her earhly life.
And yes, I believe God chose Mary because he foresaw her virtue, not because she was immaculately conceived years before she existed on earth, but because God, who exists beyond time, was able to see the love and faithfulness she would offer to her Son for the entire span of her life before she was conceived.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2109 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
The doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness dates from the very beginning of Christianity. There is documentary evidence for it from as far back as the second century. Some of the early writers who mention it are St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine.
Personally, I’m leery of the idea of God “foreseeing” a person’s virtues and so “rewarding” that person in some way. I think we need to keep in mind that God is the source and cause of all virtue, including Mary’s. Otherwise we are edging towards Pelagianism, which promotes the idea that human beings do not need divine grace to be virtuous or to be saved.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 01:58 pm |
|
| David, what are your thoughts on this particular homile where it says that God chose her because of these specific reasons? It does not say that she did not need divine grace to be this kind of person. I guess i am saying that we humans are in some way responsible at least for responding to this grace as i am sure you would agree. The grace does not do everything so much as enable us to do the right thing while we still have the freedom to resist it. Maybe i should have asked if God chose Mary because He both knew of the divine grace he would offer to her but that she was capable of responding fsaithfully to it. I am wondering how much God ever takes any risks or if He only goes with sure things. People honor Mary for her obedience because through it our redemption came. was it really ever a thing at risk if God definitely knew ahead of time what would happen and specifically chose to do things this way?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2109 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 02:47 pm |
|
brian wrote:
David, what are your thoughts on this particular homily where it says that God chose her because of these specific reasons? It does not say that she did not need divine grace to be this kind of person.
I had hoped that my choice of wording would answer your question. I deliberately avoided total rejection of the term “foresee” and likewise did not intend to reject the word “choose.” My point was that I saw a danger of misinterpretation in such a choice of words and gave a historical example of such misinterpretation.
I am wondering how much God ever takes any risks or if He only goes with sure things.
This is precisely the kind of misinterpretation I was referring to. God knows everything; therefore it is impossible for him to “take risks.” You concede this a couple of sentences later, so I see that you do understand my point, even if you do not recognize it.
Mary’s obedience is meritorious because it was her will to obey. Divine foreknowledge does not preclude the secondary causality of human free will. If God gives you the faculty of accepting or rejecting something, your choice is your own, even if he knows beforehand what you will choose. It is only in this context that one can say that someone is “chosen” or “predestined” for a certain historical task, as Mary was.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 07:36 pm |
|
Fr. Jacob is not a Father or Doctor of the Church, nor even a canonized saint. It was not my intention to promote this homily as an example of Church doctrine or even an explanation of the teachings involving Mary's sinlessness, God's knowledge of all things, etc. When I read it as a prayer, it struck me that it was written a millennium before the official proclaimation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and so it serves as proof that the Church accepted Mary's sinlessness a millennium before some Protestants say we "invented" it.
I'm sorry if my intention with this posting was misunderstood.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2109 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 08:42 pm |
|
Actually, Rick, I've heard of Fr. Jacob of Serug. And I'm not saying anything against what he wrote. You can compare his writings favorably with those of St. Ephrem of Syria (3rd century deacon and Doctor of the Church). This literature was written long before the theology was fleshed out, so they use a rather loose vocabulary. The problem is that there are certain modern tendencies which tend to misinterpret what the ancient writers said, just as they twist the scriptures, precisely on the basis of this vocabulary. I was simply calling attention to this. But as you can see, at times even my own vocabulary seems to be a barrier to proper understanding.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 09:02 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Actually, Rick, I've heard of Fr. Jacob of Serug. And I'm not saying anything against what he wrote. You can compare his writings favorably with those of St. Ephrem of Syria (3rd century deacon and Doctor of the Church). This literature was written long before the theology was fleshed out, so they use a rather loose vocabulary. The problem is that there are certain modern tendencies which tend to misinterpret what the ancient writers said, just as they twist the scriptures, precisely on the basis of this vocabulary. I was simply calling attention to this. But as you can see, at times even my own vocabulary seems to be a barrier to proper understanding.
David]
I understand, David, I just wanted to clarify my reason for posting it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Katy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Katy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Non-denom/Bible churches, Catholic since Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17th, 2006 11:28 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: This homily is taken from the Magnificat of Saturday, October 14, 2006.
Blessed Is Her Womb
Rick,
Thank you for posting this- what beautiful words! This is one I'll save.
Katy
____________________
Lord, by Your cross and resurrection, You have set us free. You are the Savior of the World.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18th, 2006 02:15 am |
|
David, I guess where it gets confusing is the idea of God being responsible for our virtue and us being responsible for our sins. If all goodness is simply the result of what God gave us, then why can we not blame Him when we fail since He did not make us more virtuous than we are? I mean, i think i understand that it is mystery that God makes us and gives us virtues and graces, but that we are still responsible to obey and surrender to Him, but it is just confusing from our perspective to me.
I think all i want to know is that every person alive has been given enough graces necessary to come to a saving relationship with Chrsit. That nobody has been made completely incapable of finding peace with God through the work of Chrsit. That those who reject him do so becasue they fail to cooperate with the graces given them.
Is is impossible for God to risk? I mean, in a sense he foreknows all and his will is perfect. Yet in a nother sense He wants all men to be saved yet gives us the freedom to reject this salvation. Even thoguh he may know who will do this, is it not in a sense a risk becasue he wants all to be saved but not all will be saved, therfore by leaving some of it up to us He is risking his end goal for an individual? or is it that it is His will that men be saved inly as they seek salvation therfore any lost person is not lost becasue God failed but becasue it was God's will that their salvation depend on a desire for it. Or is it not a rsik becasue God knows the results therfore He is not acting in a way where he could lose something since He already can maintain everything He desires to. Sorry, this conversation is a little dep for me and i am probably not making much sense.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2109 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19th, 2006 01:28 am |
|
I think you are being a little too exclusive in your concepts here, Brian. You say, “I guess where it gets confusing is the idea of God being responsible for our virtue and us being responsible for our sins.” As it stands, this statement is precisely what the Church upholds. However, you go on: “If all goodness is simply the result of what God gave us, then why can we not blame Him when we fail since He did not make us more virtuous than we are?” This shows you do not understand the original statement in the way the Church does.
Evidently you are conceiving these things in an exclusive manner: If God does something, man has no hand in it; while if man does something, God has no hand in it. But this is manifestly not true, because man does cooperate with God and God does cooperate with man.
I think all I want to know is that every person alive has been given enough graces necessary to come to a saving relationship with Christ. That nobody has been made completely incapable of finding peace with God through the work of Christ. That those who reject him do so because they fail to cooperate with the graces given them.
God hinders no one, for it is his will that all come to him to be saved. Scripture states all these things outright. The Catholic Church specifically accepts them all.
Even though he may know who will [reject salvation], is it not in a sense a risk because he wants all to be saved but not all will be saved. Therefore, by leaving some of it up to us, is He risking his end goal for an individual?… Sorry, this conversation is a little deep for me.
For me, too. In order to answer this question adequately I would have be privy to the inner workings of God’s intentions and will. It is a mystery, beyond human comprehension, why God would do this or how it could be accomplished. But we do know that he is absolutely all-knowing and unchangeable, so there can be no risk.
Is it that it is His will that men be saved only as they seek salvation; therefore any lost person is not lost because God failed but because it was God's will that their salvation depend on a desire for it.
This is the way some theologians attempt to explain it. All we know for sure is that our salvation requires cooperation on both sides, and God is faithful for his part.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 10:34 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
