Posted on 08/15/2010 3:56:22 PM PDT by TaraP
The Assumption is not a metaphor...
We must be very clear on this point: The Assumption is not a metaphor. The Blessed Virgin Mary was really taken up, her physical body was transformed. Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declared that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Both BODY and SOUL!
This means that her physical body was transformed and glorified (in a manner identical to Christ’s after his Resurrection), her soul was perfected with the Beatific Vision, and she was taken up.
Is heaven a place? In the General Audience of 21 July 1999, Pope John Paul II stated that heaven “is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity.”
In this statement, as (almost) always, the great Holy Father was in perfect accord with St. Thomas Aquinas – “Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us”.
What John Paul II wished to stress, and what is especially important to consider today, is that heaven is not to be understood in terrestrial terms.
Heaven is primarily a state of being and is certainly not a ‘place’ in the worldly sense of the term. Nevertheless, we come to a difficulty when we ask:
Where did Mary’s (and Christ’s) body go?
The simplest answer is: Heaven! But then we wonder: If heaven isn’t a place in the ordinary sense of the word, how could there be real human bodies present there?
The words of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (who taught John Paul II and oversaw his doctoral work) are most helpful: “Heaven means this place, and especially this condition, of supreme beatitude. Had God created no bodies, but only pure spirits, heaven would not need to be a place; it would signify merely the state of the angels who rejoice in the possession of God.
But in fact heaven is also a place. There we find the humanity of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels, and the souls of the saints. Though we cannot say with certitude where this place is to be found, or what its relation is to the whole universe, revelation does not allow us to doubt of its existence.”
Now do not think that John Paul II had contradicted his teacher when he said that heaven is not a physical place in the clouds! Garrigou-Lagrange and the great Pontiff are both getting at the same point: Heaven is first and foremost union with God; secondarily, heaven is the place where the bodies of Jesus and Mary abide, but this ‘place’ is not like every other place we think of – its relation to our universe is not clear.
Glorified bodies are very different than non-glorified bodies (though they are essentially the same). A glorified body does not move and take up space in exactly the same way as a non-glorified body does. Still, the glorified bodies of Jesus and Mary are somewhere, but this ‘somewhere’ will necessarily be a ‘place’ which is ‘glorified’ – just as the glorified body is different from non-glorified body, it resides in a ‘glorified place’ which is different from a non-glorified physical place.
Where is heaven? The simple answer is: This has not yet been revealed to us. However, we can say that it is certainly not on earth. Neither is it within the earth. It is not in clouds either. Heaven may be somewhere in our universe, far off – though we must be careful not to fall back into our terrestrial categories of space, distance, and location.
Perhaps it is most likely that heaven is outside the universe in what some Thomists have called “uncontained place”. In ST III, q.57, a.4, ad 2 (which is not in the oldest and best manuscripts) we read: “A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore, bodies need themselves to be in a place, insofar as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ’s especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul.
So there is nothing to prevent Christ’s body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ.”
This argument from the Summa claims that, because the glorified body in no way relies upon the non-glorified world, neither does it need to be contained in the universe. Thus, the bodies of Jesus and Mary may in fact be outside of the universe, outside of space and time, no longer contained by place. There is no space or place outside of the universe, but this is where the bodies of Christ and Mary are; since they need not be contained by physical place.
Therefore, it seems most likely that heaven is outside of our universe. It is not a ‘place’ as we usually think of ‘place’, but is a ‘non-containing place’, a ‘glorified place’. The glorified physical bodies of Jesus and Mary reside there
Persevero and caww
Up front, my post is long, so I apologize.
The notion that Mary and her role in Salvation history was not reflected on in the early Church is not true. The Church Fathers starting in the 2nd century clearly reflected on her unique role. In addition, the Canon of the Bible was itself in the development stage and was not finalized until the 4th century at the various Councils [Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD]. For Catholics, the Church Fathers become the standard for understanding biblical theology and thus Doctrine and thus “sola scriptura”, as defined by Protestants since the 16th century is not Catholic Doctrine, nor was it the Doctrine of the Church before the 16th century.
With respect to the Church Fathers, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, Pope Benedict, in his book entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones For a Fundamental Theology” lays out the case for Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as expressed in the Creeds of the Church, the Liturgy and writings of the Church Fathers, and how they are all important in building a foundation for orthodox doctrine. With respect to the Church Fathers, Pope Benedict (pp. 148-151) states :First, The Canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or at least to the undivided Church of the first centuries, of which they were the representatives. It is through their [The Church Fathers] efforts that precisely those “books” that today we call “New Testament” were chosen from a multitude of other available literary texts and that the “Greek version of the OT” was joined to them, that it was interpreted in terms of them, and together became known as “Holy Scripture.” The Pope continues and notes that a book was recognized as “canonical” if it was read in the Liturgy of the Church [public worship]. By Church, the Pope notes that it means that the numerous Eastern Churches had their own lists and customs, but in the end, all came to accept the same set of books. The Pope notes of the Gnostic texts, which aspired to become scripture but states that it was the anti-Gnostic Church Fathers whose writings against the Gnostics drew the line in the Church. In summary, the canon, as canon, would be inconceivable without the intellectual movement to which patristic theology bears witness.
Second, in addition to the Bible, the Church Fathers were instrumental in formulating the important symbola of all Christendom [ie. the Creeds and Confessions of Faith] and finally, in the ancient undivided Church, the reading of Sacred Scripture and the confession of faith [Creeds] were primarily liturgical acts of the whole assembly gathered around the Risen Lord. Thus, the Pope notes, it was the ancient Church, and thus the Fathers, that created the fundamental forms of Christian Liturgy
The Pope concludes by stating that given these 3 points, theology will always be indebted to the Church Fathers and will have cause to return again and again to them. The Bible, as the Pope notes, comes to us by way of history. If we ignore history, we become entangled and thus remain bound to our own thinking and reflect only ourselves. Therefore, the Pope concludes that the Church Fathers are still essential and must not be seen as a matter of cataloguing in a museum dedicated to what has been. No, “The Fathers are the common past of all Christians!.” And in the rediscovery of the common possession lies the hope for the future of the Church, the task for her—and our-present.
So with respect to the Church Fathers, it is clear that Mary’s “unique Role in Salvation history” was a point of theological study starting in the 2nd century. It is also clear that with respect to Mary’s death or if she died, the Sacred Scriptures are silent. So on this point, all we can say is the Scriptures are “silent with respect to the Assumption” and thus silence does not been acceptance of the Dogma or on the other hand, rejection of the Dogma.
With respect to “The Assumption of Mary”, the OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes
“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.
(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)
(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)
St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:
“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)
Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:
“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)
In the 3rd century, we see Mary’s role in salvation history also reflected on in theological study. We see St. Clement of Alexandria [150 to 215 AD] reflecting on Mary as “Mother of God” and her perpetual virginity and how Mary was an archetypal model of the mystery of the Church, as well as the further reflection on Mary as the New-Eve.
It was in the 4th century we first see references to the “Assumption of Mary” or what the Eastern Church calls the “Dormition”. St. Ephrem the Syrian [306 to 373 AD], who reflects the Eastern Tradition at the Church of Antioch writes in a Christmas sermon “The Babe that I carry carries me, says Mary, and He has lowered His wings, and taken and placed me between His pinions, and mounted into the air; and a promise has been given me that height and depth shall be my Son’s.” St. Ephiphanius of Salamis [325 to 403 AD], also of the Eastern Church, who again wrote much on Mary as the New Eve and the meaning of her perpetual virginity, wrote in some detail about the end of Marys’ earthly life, and was the first to do so in detail. He writes, apparently to clarify some of the notions of what happened to Mary that “Sacred Scripture makes no mention of her death, whether she died, or did not die, whether she was buried, or not buried, and while it mentions St. John went on voyage to Asia, it is silent about Mary.
However, one interesting point is that St. Ephrem cites Revelation 12:13-14 as applying to Mary suggesting that she escaped the Dragon [Satan] and thus did not go thru death the way the rest of us did. Thus, he later formulated 3 hypotheses about Mary and her Dormition stating that 1) it was pure and happened with great honor, 2) If Luke 2:35 meant that she died, as opposed to the more common view that it relates to her seeing her Son suffer at the Cross, then she obtained Glory with the martyrs and her Holy Body, from which light shined forth for all the world, dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed or she continued to live for to God, nothing is impossible [i.e. she did not die and was assumed without falling asleep]
With respect to St. Ephrem’s 3 hypotheses stated above, none of his contemporaries rejected them [i.e. St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius]. Also, St. Athanasius of Alexandria [296 to 373 AD] more clearly develops the notion of Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant.”, which is associated with the Assumption of Mary. For example, St. John Damascene, the last of the Greek Church Fathers and considered among the best has in his writings a synthesis of the Greek Patristic Tradition and in some of his Homilies on the “Feast of the Dormition” (i.e. Assumption), he refers to Mary s the True Ark of the Lord since she carried in her womb, the Word of God [Christ] and he also cites Psalms 46:5, 65:4 and 68:16-17 as referring to Mary.
In todays Feast of the Assumption Liturgy, the readings were 1st reading from Revelation 11:19, 12:1-6, 10, Responsorial Psalm was Psalm 45: 9-12, 16; 2n reading was 1 Corinthians 15:20-27, and Gospel was Luke 1:39-56. So why these readings? Well, the passage from Revelation, as stated earlier, was applied to Mary back in the 4th century, as Mary was seen as the “Ark of the new covenant” and “taken up to Heaven by God”. The “Ark” as a typological reference to Mary becomes important. So let’s look at the Ark, in Exodus 25-27, we see God commanded the Hebrews to construct the Ark and we know from Hebrews 9:4 that Manna and Aarons rod was in there, along with the Stone tablets of God’s Law. We also know that the Presence of God was in the Ark (cf. Ex 40:34; Num 8: 18-22). We also know that God was very specific about how the Ark was built, i.e. Gold [again, see Exodus 25-30] because God would preside there.
So what happened to the Ark, Jeremiah 3:16 states the Ark will no longer come to mind, or be made again or missed by the people, thus the ark was lost. However, in 2 Maccabees 2: 1-4, it states:
“You will find in the records, not only that Jeremiah the prophet ordered the deportees to take some of the aforementioned fire with them, but also that the prophet, in giving them the law, admonished them not to forget the commandments of the Lord or be led astray in their thoughts, when seeing the gold and silver idols and their ornaments. With other similar words he urged them not to let the law depart from their hearts. he same document also tells how the prophet, following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent and the ark should accompany him and how he went off to the mountain which Moses climbed to see God’s inheritance. When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it. When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: “The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy.
So, in Revelation 19: 11, St. John makes a startling statement as he states the Ark of his covenant is in heaven and then the next passages in Revelation 12: 1-14 speak of a woman with child and who the dragon is after. Psalm 45: 9 speaks of a Queen who sits at your right hand. This Psalm is pointing to Christ and thus the Queen is associated with Mary, understood in light of Christ as the Queen in ancient Israel was the Mother of the King [1 Kings 2: 12-20] , not the wife, thus Mary is seen as being the Queen which is also seen in Revelation 12.. Luke 1:39-56 used typology from the OT recounting David’s encounter with the Ark of the OT [see 1 Sam 6: 1-2; 2 Sam 6: 9-14] and described Elizabeth’s greeting to Mary in almost the exact terms as how David greeted the Ark when it came to him.
So in closing, the Catholic Church has strong theological basis in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition to see Mary as the New-Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, and thus by God’s Grace and Power, she was “Assumed into Heaven” as she contained in her womb, the True Word of God, and True Manna from Heaven and the Eternal High Priest, i.e. Christ.
Regards and hope this “Long explanation” provides why Catholics believe what we believe and that it it rooted in the Faith of the Early Church and is rooted in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as defined and understood by the Patristic/CHurch Fathers.
Yes, but it is explained by traducianism to have passed through the man during conception.
When I say “fully man” it includes Adam’s sinful nature.
Since Adam was not created with the sin nature, yet was fully man, having a sinful nature is not essential to being a human. Therefore, having the sin nature is an anamoly to what it means to be human. At the same time, being human without the sinful nature did not mean Adam could not be tempted and have to make a choice to obey or not ... as his disposition toward God was not "locked in" until he fell. His fall locked in our disposition toward God but it did not change what it means to be human.
Keep in mind that Jesus had to be fully man
Agree, and He was fully human ... but as I have said, possession of the sin nature is not germane to being human; it is an analomy.
Jesus really wasn’t a sinful man like we are and didn’t have the same temptations.
He wasnt a sinful man ... He was a man though and He was clearly tempted in all ways as we are yet did not sin; in contrast to Adam who did not have the sin nature but choose to sin thereby gaining it.
I believe he had to have had the same nature but resisted them.
This is where I believe you should explore very carefully. It would be a long and grinding task ... but what is your main line of reasoning to support this? Is it Biblical? Do you have a particular passage in mind or group of them? Or is this arrived at through theological considerations? If so, what is the main area of theology you are applying?
They are difficult questions but worth your time.
And you have EXACTLY the same Biblical evidence for Apollos being assumed into heaven as Mary.
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
No, what does Paul mean that he cannot tell...
What I see there is that Paul knew he was in the 'real' presence of Jesus...He was not certain however whether he was there physically or spiritually...
Why make stuff up???
He already has...But He didn't dump any Catholic junk into it...
No, Christ was the second Adam. He did not have a proclivity to sin. This doesn’t mean he wasn’t tempted, nor wasn’t susceptible to temptation. It means he wasn’t scarred in his thinking such that his natural inclination was to miss the mark of God’s Plan.
When God created man in His own image, there was no sin in man. The anthropology of man does not include sin from Creation, but after the fall, he consequences of sin impacted the body, soul, and spirit of man.
Christ, when tempted, in his humanity, remained in fellowship with God the Father, through obedience to the Will of God the Father and the power of God the Holy Spirit indwelling his humanity. It might also be argued He maintained that faith through the Word of God, although He never exalted himself as God as something to be grasped.
A popular Satanic argument is to claim sin is a part of Creation, thereby attributing its source to God, rather than to one who is disobedient to the Will of God. The argument that Christ would not be able to bear all sins unless he had a sin nature appeals to a fundamental misunderstanding as to the meaning of the old sin nature.
The converse is more accurate, in that if Jesus Christ had an old sin nature, then he, solely in his humanity, would not have had a clean account by which he could have redeemed all sins of humanity, past, present, and future, when they were imputed to his account.
Sin is simply missing the mark of God's Plan. Whereas in God's Plan, man was originally created with such an ability, the loss of that ability and the natural condemnation of all man following from Adam genetically, results what is called an Old sin nature, or the natural man, as discerned from the new man or being reborn in the spirit.
The old sin nature is very much a Catholic concept. What might be more associated with many somewhat sloppy, but popular 20th century Protestant denominations term the "old sin nature", are associations of temptation and evil thinking with the "old sin nature", misidentifying it with demonic influence or antiChristian thinking. Old Sin Nature (OSN) has more to do with mental attitude sins with the human thinking them being solely responsible for their origination, not another spiritual person placing those thoughts in our minds. We can be saved, in fellowship with God, advancing in sanctification by His work in us, when out of the blue, independent of any other person, in our thinking we are distracted or tempted by our OSN, our scarred way of thinking, our natural way of appealing to good and evil as a substitute for faith alone in Christ alone and what God has provided for us, and slip first in a mental attitude independent from God's Plan, ergo fall out of fellowship with Him, without performing any act or thought of evil.
Catholics routinely preach prayer to saints, and other mortals.
I wish you well in your current faith, but I don’t think you should work so hard to distort the teachings of the Church.
I’m probably not putting my thought process down well enough in words. Before Adam sinned he obviously had a free will to disobey God. Jesus would have had that same free will in His fully man. He was also fully God so that part of His being could not sin although there is no human way to understand how that relates. My reasoning stems in part from the following verse.
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15 NASB).
He was tempted “in all things as we are”. That would mean, at least to me, that He had the same temptations as we do.
I realize, and have studied, all the theological discussions on this matter and differ on this point. I don’t think anyone will really know what the answer is in this life but when the verse states “in all things as we are” it tells me that Jesus had to resist those temptations. He was surely “without sin” in that He did not sin but I don’t believe anyone in this lifetime will ever know for sure how that works.
I will concede that either understanding works as far as our feeble minds are concerned. We will not totally understand until we are with Him on that glorious day. I will say that I don’t think it matters that we do not fully understand as it regards our salvation.
I repeat: In the phrase “all have sinned,” what does the word “all” mean?
Exactly...The word ALL is all-encompassing...It leaves nothing out...There are no qualifiers for ALL...
So far as I know, Apollos was not a virgin who gave birth to the God-man Jesus. It seems tome that you think of the Virgin Birth as just a step up from the unlikely conception of Issac/Samuel/John. Rather it was an event that is as impossible for us to grasp as the Resurrection. I can’t imagine a more intimate relationship between the One God and man than that between Jesus and Mary. Unlike you, I don’t see the first two chapters of Luke as mere prologue to the Gospel. The doctrine of the Incarnation lies at the very heart of Christianity, which is why the Muslims reject it. They think of Mary pretty much as you seem to, as the mother of a Prophet of God.
“Born of the virgin Mary says nothing of her being sinless. And once she had the baby Jesus she was no longer a virgin either”
Depends on how define virginity or loss there-of. Virginity loss generally occurs upon first penetration of a sexual nature. The birth of Christ can’t be said to be of a sexual nature but simply one of birth, and that of Holy Spirit origin. “Joseph knew not Mary until she had brought forth her first born son” Matthew 1;25. Sometime after Jesus was born did Joseph have sex with his wife and thus lost her virginity.
We’re not even sure God used an egg from Mary, we just know that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and Christ Incarnate entered her womb and into our temporal matter universe. He was truly God’s thumprint pressed into matter.
“The notion that Mary and her role in Salvation history was not reflected on in the early Church is not true. The Church Fathers starting in the 2nd century clearly reflected on her unique role.”
To take one point at a time, I’d like to say, I know Mary started getting a prominent place in the 2nd century or so. But my point is, it is not biblical to do so. There is no indication in the canon of Scripture that Mary got any sort of status that granted her assumption.
“Nor did they bear witness to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Yet these occured.”
Yes, like you, I believe they did. However, I don’t base my theology on the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul. If they died of old age it would not alter my doctrine one bit.
That is the difference. Catholic doctrine is based very largely on extrabiblical notions of what Mary did, didn’t do, what happened to her, etc.
I don’t think we should base any of of doctrines on extra-Biblical teachings.
“And I ask you to note that the New Testament was never intended to be a comprendium of all doctrine,”
Here is where we must disagree. I believe that the entire Bible, taken in its entirety, using it to interpret itself, is indeed the comprendium of all doctrine.
Persevero:
Well, I am glad to see that you recognize that the orthodox Church Fathers gave serious theological reflection with respect to Mary and her “unique role” in God’s plan of salvation and that this theological study started early in the 2nd century as attested to in the writings of St. Justin Martyr who died circa 155 AD and also St. Ireneaus’s writings circa 175 AD.
No offense, but Not biblical based on your 21st century Protestant Assumptions. The Church Fathers did not operate from the “Sola Scriptura” Protestant Doctrine that was not part of the Church’s Tradition prior to the 16th century. Also, it need to be pointed out that the 2nd century Church did not have a formally and finally defined NT canon, as that was a process that would not culminate until the late 4th century, as I noted in my earlier post.
Mary’s role was in salvation history is always tied to Christological Doctrines, so the new Eve parraellel is drawn from Genesis 3:15 which speaks of a woman whom the Devil will strike at. This Woman was seen by the Early Church as a prefigurement of Mary and the Church, as both can be true as the Fathers so Mary as an archetype of the Church.
In addition to Mary as the New-Eve, which was how the Fathers interpreted Mary as the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 and later in Revelation 11:9 to 12:16. The Fathers also saw her as the Ark of the Covenant as I pointed out in my previous post.
Another important passage in the OT canon of the Early Church that both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have is from Wisdom 1:4 which reads “Because into a Soul that plots evil, Wisdom enters not, nor does she dwell in a body under the debt of sin”. The passage is also seen as pointing to the Incarnation of Christ as in the Church, “Wisdom” was understood to mean the PreIncarnate Christ so it thus follows that Christ would not take residence in an “Ark” that was stained with Sin just as the OT Ark was made of Pure Gold as it held the Manna from heaven, the rod of the Priesthood and the Ten Commandements which also prefigure Christ who is the True Word of God made flesh, the true manna from heaven and the eternal high priest.
And the fact that the Church saw in Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant, the book of Revelation 11:9 points to the Ark being in Heaven [which is seen to be Mary] and the following passages in Revelation 12 once again speak of a Woman and a Son which most fully represent Christ and his Mother Mary.
But God does generally follow His own created natural order of things....though of course He can and does bend this at will to accamodate His miracles. But he did not need a sinless Mary to do so....and she wasn’t. Just her presenting the doves as sacrifices for sin would certainly indicate she saw herself as a sinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.