Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

A biblical argument for immaculate conception *Immaculate Conception is a theological elaboration on the Early Fathers' teachings on Mary as the second Eve🔗 Both define Mary’s role in salvation history, but their primary purpose is to illuminate and protect christological dogmas: Christ’s nature, work, and redemptive mission. Mary’s unique grace prepared her for her role as the Theotokos, ensuring that the Incarnation occurs through a vessel untainted by sin, which is fitting for the divine nature of Christ. *Though it was fitting, it wasn't necessary. *The fullest description, as formulated by Duns Scotus in the 13th century, was careful to maintain that the Immaculate Conception did not rule out the need for redemption for Mary. God removed her original sin through a single act of grace. She was saved by God's grace even more the rest of us, and she called God her Savior in the Magnicat (as pointed out by St. Thomas Aquinas). 🔗source: Dave Armstrong, The Catholic Mary,ch5 more: 🔗Mary and Eve #mary

Biblical argument for the immaculate conception

The Catholic Mary (2011) Dave Armstrong #mary

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians in the Fourth Century" Part12: Four authentic documents from the period of the Arian controversy These four primary sources are: the Arian Letter to Bishop Alexander, a fragment of the theological poem Thalia, a Letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and fragments of a letter from Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, in which the bishop justifies the excommunication of Arius and his supporters. Each of these texts reveals a different dimension of the controversy: from the doctrine's self-definition and popularization, to its defense and ultimate condemnation. 1. "Letter of the Arians to Alexander" The first document, the Letter of the Arians to Alexander, is an attempt to present their own views in a gentle and seemingly orthodox manner. The authors, led by Arius, address their bishop in a tone of respect, assuring them that they profess the "faith of the fathers" and introduce nothing new. However, the very first sentences reveal the essence of the controversy: the Father is the only unbegotten and without beginning, and the Son, though begotten before all eternity, is nevertheless the work of His will, not His nature. The Son, according to Arius, was "begotten" in the sense of being established by God; thus, he is a perfect creature, but not consubstantial with the Father. The Trinity, in this view, consists of three distinct beings of unequal glory, among whom only the Father is truly God in the full sense. Arius and his followers sought to distance themselves from other heresies: Gnostic emanations, Sabellianism, which identified the Father with the Son, and Manichaeism, which understood origins as substantial participation. In this way, they attempted to present themselves as defenders of God's transcendence and the purity of monotheism. The letter, however, has a profoundly polemical dimension to the traditional understanding of Christ's divine sonship. Arius rejects a literal understanding of biblical words such as "begotten of the Father" or "from the womb," arguing that they cannot be understood in a substantial sense, as this would lead to the materialization of God. He therefore rejects the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, understanding it as a bodily absurdity. What in the Christian tradition was an expression of God's inner life, in the Arians' understanding, becomes merely a metaphor for will and action. Consequently, their Christology has serious implications for soteriology: since the Son is not true God, his work of salvation does not consist in participation in divine life but is merely the moral mediation of a creature exalted by God. 2. Thalia of Arius This is even more evident in the second document—a fragment of the poem Thalia. This verse work, intended for singing, allowed Arius's doctrine to be disseminated among the people. Its joyful, almost convivial form contains radical theses: God is one, without beginning and unbegotten; the Son was begotten by His will, as the "beginning of creation," and does not share in the Father's nature. Moreover, the Son is incapable of fully knowing the Father, or even himself. The Trinity, as Arius says, is not "of equal glory," and the Divine Persons are "impenetrable" and completely distinct. This is not only a degradation of the Son, but a disintegration of the very idea of ​​divine unity. The Thalia also demonstrates that Arianism was not only an intellectual but also a populist movement: heretical theology became a song, and thus a tool for spreading ideas among the faithful. The Thalia revealed the "heart" of Arianism in an easily memorable form. It's not just metaphysics, but also "mass catechesis." Heresy becomes song. 🔗continued

King Cnut meets the Pope in Rome, 1027. His letter to the English people, celebrating his visit at Easter 1027 🔗source

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Arians in the Fourth Century" Part11: The origins and essence of the Arian heresy, Arius's central doctrinal tenets as an attempt to rationally simplify the mystery of the Trinity. The Arian heresy emerged from a disordered desire to "understand" the mystery of the Trinity in purely rational terms. Its formal creator was Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria. Although later attempts were made to attribute his views to earlier authors, contemporary testimony is unequivocal: none of the pre-Nicene writers taught the doctrine of the creation of the Son from nothing. All those who might have been most familiar with the matter, namely Alexander and St. Athanasius, affirmed that Arius was its true author. However, it cannot be entirely ruled out that ideas of a similar nature existed earlier outside the Church. Various speculations about the nature of Christ were known, especially in circles influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, which spoke of "emanations" or "intermediate beings" between God and the world. However, Arius introduced this doctrine into the very heart of Christian thought, attempting (as he himself claimed) to rationally "protect" the faith from Sabellianism, or the identification of the Divine Persons. In reality, he reduced the Son to the level of creation. The fundamental tenet of Arianism was that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, but was created by Him out of nothing (ex nihilo). Although called into existence "before time" and "before the world," He nevertheless remains a created being: something akin to a "super-angelic" being, created by God's will, endowed with divine attributes but devoid of divine nature. Arius saw the Person of the Son as merely the highest creation, who in the economy of salvation serves as an intermediary between God and the world. This Being, though called Logos and Wisdom, is not the eternal Word that existed "in the bosom of the Father," but rather His created manifestation. Thus, Arianism departed from both the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers and the pre-Nicene theology. While early Christian writers spoke of an eternal Logos, who is an internal attribute of God and simultaneously His personal Word, Arius shifted the moment of His existence to the realm of creation. In his view, the person of the Son was no longer eternal but called into being through a specific act of God's will. Consequently, he was stripped of the attribute of divinity, and his "divinity" was merely a title of honor, not a real participation in the divine nature. Arius claimed to do nothing other than defend the oneness of God the Father. However, his interpretation led to the creation of a new hierarchy of beings, in which the Son remained subordinate and distinct by nature. This gave rise to a specific theological ambiguity: in theory, Christ was God, but in a metaphorical sense, not in a substantial one. Arius's doctrine contrasts with earlier errors and currents of thought. The Arian conception of the Son as creation resembled to some extent the speculations of some Platonizing Fathers, who distinguished between the internal Logos and the external Logos operating in the world. However, where these authors spoke of the eternal existence of the Word in the Father, Arius introduced an element of temporality: the Son "begins to exist" at the moment of the Father's will. The affinity with non-Christian doctrines is also striking. Arianism, together with philosophical eclecticism, shared the idea of ​​the Son's subordination to the Father, and with Gnosticism- the belief in His inferiority to God the Father. However, Arius rejected the materialistic elements of Gnostic cosmology. In turn, with Paul of Samosata, there was a visible similarity in the understanding of Christ as a created mediator, who was only "received" by God through obedience. 🔗continued

Pope Leo presiding over the Council of Chalcedon from Rome without attending in person "Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, representing Leo the most holy archbishop of the Apostolic See of Senior Rome said in Latin: 'It is well known to this God-beloved council that a divine letter was sent to the blessed and Apostolic Pope Leo summoning him to the holy council. But since neither the custom of antiquity nor the necessities of the general time seemed to allow this, he has charged our littleness to preside over this Holy Council in his stead. It is therefore necessary that whatever is brought forward should be examined by our sentence." (Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD)