Did Mary need a savior?

[mmmcounts]

When you begin using myth terminology, it sounds as if you don’t think God could have made Mary sinless – as if it is too ridiculous to have really occurred. Obviously, with God, anything is possible.

I don’t think it’s possible. And I actually do feel that it’s necessary for me to disagree with the “anything is possible” statement: There are certain rules that even God has to play by. For example, even God cannot create an object which, on its outermost edges, is both circular and pentagonal. Even God can’t do that. He has to play by certain rules.

Here’s why I don’t think it’s possible. God is willing that none should perish, right? And yet some do perish. Is this because God is incapable of keeping some from perishing? Well…kind of. God could have created the universe in such a way that no one had to perish, but this is the universe that He created. In this universe and according to the rules of this universe (some of which even God has to play by), some perish in spite of God’s desire to the contrary.

Now consider this. If God could have saved Mary from the moment of conception and free her from her sin nature, that means it’s possible for God to do this for anyone. Why then would God refuse to save everyone from the moment of conception, free them of their sin nature, and satisfy His explicit desire for none to perish? If God could have done this for Mary, He could have done this for everyone.

However…I don’t think God could have done this for Mary. I don’t think God could have done this for anyone. And that is why He didn’t do it for Mary, and He didn’t do it for anyone. In this universe, there are some rules that even God has to play by. This is one of those scenarios.

And all of the Marian dogmas are rooted in God and his grace, not Mary herself. In fact, I don’t think that it is ridiculous or irrational to believe that Mary was sinless. After all, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both believed that she was sinless

My question is this: When did the Church fathers first begin to realize the true nature of sources such as the Gospel of James? At what point did people understand that its contents were not historical in nature, but instead a collection of traditional stories commonly accepted as history in the 2nd and 3rd centuries? If they didn’t understand that mythical nature of these stories, they could have easily felt that they didn’t have a choice in the matter.

I’m trying not to nitpick; sorry if this comes across in that way. I respect that you believe that Mary was a sinner (presumably a common sinner just like anyone else – a belief held by no Church Father of which I am aware, by the way).

It’s very odd that you would say this, as it leads me to quote something you said earlier on this same thread.

[SIGN]1) Origen attributed the sin of doubt to Mary. Most of the Eastern fathers who denied Mary’s sinlessness are indebted to Origen, and often follow him uncritically in this opinion.

1. St. Basil followed Origen in this opinion.
2. Ditto for St. Gregory of Nyssa.
3. Ditto for St. Cyril of Alexandria.
4. St. John Chrysostom, perhaps independently of the aforementioned four CFs, interprets the scene at the wedding feast of Cana as an instance where Jesus rebukes his mother for the sin of vainglory.[/SIGN]

That was you, right?

And I’m not really trying to convince you otherwise (I’m just defending Catholic doctrine, which I believe to be true, in case others who are open to Catholicism or who are infirm in their Catholic faith happen to be reading this thread). The word “mythical” just turns me off because it sounds like a word that an atheist or agnostic would use, not a fellow Christian. That’s all.

When non-Christians use the term “myth,” it’s generally done with the goal of presenting the Bible as a collection of bedtime stories. This is not a particularly honest or legitimate use of the word, though. However, there is a time and a place for the word “myth,” provided that the people on both sides of the discussion understand exactly what it means when used appropriately. This is one of those times and places.

I realize you’d prefer to call the Marian stories a part of “Sacred Tradition;” however, this amounts to calling them “historical” by connecting them to Mary’s contemporaries. The Marian stories found in places like the Gospel of James cannot be rightly regarded as historical. The truth of the matter is this: We don’t know exactly who started telling these stories in the first place. Because of this, it’s not entirely honest to say “Ah! But these stories certainly came from Sacred Tradition.” You don’t know that. Realistically, it probably isn’t true. The nature of the sources we are dealing with is entirely consistent with the meaning of the word “myth,” though, and that’s what I’m going with. I understand that you probably won’t ever do this…that action, in and of itself, is no small concession. That’s the term I attach to these stories, though, and I figured I should explain why that was.

 

[mmmcounts]

If you had asked before, I wouldn’t presume your question to be snarky as you obviously just want to delve further as questions crop up (as opposed to others who ignore arguments and continue pushing their own).

This is also why I find this back and forth interesting because they help me delve deeper into my own faith to find the answers to things I normally wouldn’t have thought of (and strengthening my faith in the process). So thank you for that.

Thanks, that’s very nice of you. Prior to the point where you suggested that Mary didn’t know she was a sinner, my only reason for suggesting this would have been as an attempt to show how commonly accepted tradition was out of step with Mary’s own understanding of herself, and therefore most likely that of the New Testament’s authors as well. I couldn’t think of any other reasons to argue for that conclusion, but I guess I (you? we?) found them without really meaning to.

It seems I implied her going to confession if she were here with us today, which was not my intention but is an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

Well…being Catholic certainly implies that certain sacraments are not optional, just as being Jewish implies that a wide variety of traditions and practices are not optional.

First off, in English those words are what’s generally said but they’re not obligatory. Here in Mexico sometimes the priest just asks for our sins right away or starts off with: “Ave María purísima” to which we reply “sin pecado concebida”. Meaning: “Hail, Mary most pure”, “conceived without sin”.

Cool. Didn’t know that. Incidentally, I tried to find out what sort of traditional dialogue might have happened at various sacrifices…and I didn’t find much. A couple of sources say there’s very limited information as to the exact details of these sacrifices, and this is one of the larger obstacles facing the particular variety of present-day Jews who would like to start doing some of these sacrifices again. All I managed to find out was this: For individual offerings, you’d go with a priest (or “kohen”) to a room off the courtyard in the Temple. Some of these offerings would be sin offerings; some not. No one else would know either way. Once slaughtered, it depended on exactly which sacrifice it was, but sometimes it would all be burned and sometimes parts of it would be eaten by the priest or the person who brought the sacrifice. From what I can tell, information concerning traditional dialogue or any other things that may have been said…it’s unavailable.

Based on the limited information I have, though, it seems likely that Mary had just as much one-on-one “sacrifice time” as anyone else. When she brought sin offerings, she probably had to inform the priest that “This is a sin offering.” I haven’t been able to come up with anything more specific.

I would assume she wouldn’t go to confession in the first place. What would one consider “wrong” that doesn’t imply a sin? Perhaps thinking like a child with something along the lines of “I was clumsy and caused a vase to fall and break so I went to replace it immediately”. You’re not sinning, it was a mere accident but one can feel wrong about having done it. Again, this is only assuming one is so humble to the fact of thinking that they actually did wrong because of this.

I don’t know about you, but the main reason I ever started calling myself a sinner was this: My parents told me I was. They taught me what the Bible says, and they demonstrated to me that I’m a sinner just like everyone else. This isn’t true of every family where the parents practice some form of Christianity (though it’s probably true in every family where the parents are actually Christians)- however, I would imagine that every Jewish child from the time of Abraham until the diaspora must have grown up with the parent-taught understanding that they are sinners, sin is something they do, and the sacrifices for sin are done for that reason. Therefore, the “null hypothesis” scenario is one in which Mary’s parents say to her, “Mary, let me explain sin to you. Then I’ll explain to you why you’re a sinner.” Assuming Mary was sinless, though, I’m not sure how (or if) that scenario would change.

I’ll await your complete response on the matter. I still maintain though that it’s “simpler” to have both the new Adam and Eve be sinless like the original were (because if the OT is a shadow of the new, why would the shadow be greater in this one case?)

Now that I’ve looked it over a little, it’s not really that long of an explanation. Here’s how it goes.

Eve’s role in the introduction of “sin nature” and the general redemptive story looks like this. Even though Eve was the first to eat of the fruit, Adam bears responsibility for bringing sin into the world. By one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin. You know what I’m talking about. Eve’s role was not one of causing sin to enter the world, but her act of disobedience set it up. Adam bears the responsibility for the Fall, but Eve’s disobedience (disobedience- yeah, that’s bad) both preceded what Adam did and can be seen as the cause of what he did.

Moving forward to the Second Eve, Mary experienced the pain of childbirth (a direct result of the Fall) in order to bring Jesus into the world. This contrasts with what Eve did because Mary’s was an act of obedience, whereas Eve’s was an act of disobedience.

Because Mary acted in obedience whereas Eve acted in disobedience, Mary stands out as the figure that is greater than the former.

Like Eve’s act of disobedience, Mary’s act of obedience preceded that of the “Second Adam” and can also be seen as the cause of His redemptive work, effectively “setting up” what was to come. Like Eve, though, Mary does not share responsibility for the events occurring in the redemptive story. It is Adam who bears responsibility for the Fall, though Eve gets credit for being the cause of it by giving him the fruit. Likewise, Mary in no way bears responsibility for the things Jesus alone deserves credit for, though she certainly gets credit for being the cause of it in the sense that she birthed Him.

Hope this answers some of your questions, particularly the one about why Mary would be greater than Eve in the Protestant telling of the tale. I don’t think I have much else to say about the “Second Eve” paradigm, and I really don’t have anything at all on the “Second Ark.” I think there’s value in the former- particularly in explaining how women can be saved “through the birth of a child”- but I don’t really buy into the latter. But hey, that’s just me.

 

[Liraco]

Now consider this. If God could have saved Mary from the moment of conception and free her from her sin nature, that means it’s possible for God to do this for anyone.

I understand your reasons about God following an order to things but don’t really agree with your definition that seems to be limiting God and almost making Him finite (as if rules were imposed on Him as opposed to BY Him). He gave everything order and purpose. It seems that you’re saying that despite God multiple times “bending the rules”, for whatever reason you choose to limit Him by saying He can’t bend the rules for Mary. I don’t want to say things you weren’t implying, it’s just what it sounds like to me. Perhaps I’m just tired and read it wrong.

I agree that using “myth” is not bad when used properly but it’s often misunderstood and taken with a negative connotation.

mmmcounts:

Well…being Catholic certainly implies that certain sacraments are not optional, just as being Jewish implies that a wide variety of traditions and practices are not optional.

True except that in the case of Catholics, we only really *require *the sacrament of confession when we’ve committed mortal sin (venial sins could wait but there’s no point in “gambling” with mortal sins on whether you’ll have the chance to confess later). In the case of Mary though, we have quite the exception and the clear guidelines on what to do. When it comes to the Mary and sacrifice, we’re only speculating as to what she might have done and the consequence of it.

On the speculation about Mary not possibly knowing if she was a sinner or being able to sin, I hope my previous post correcting and adding to my thoughts is clear.

mmmcounts:

Moving forward to the Second Eve, Mary experienced the pain of childbirth (a direct result of the Fall) in order to bring Jesus into the world.

Actually there’s quite a few that hold that precisely because Mary was immaculate she was spared from the pain of childbirth. This isn’t a defined teaching though, just something that many hold as true.

While we do agree on Mary being obedient to the Lord, it seems we can’t agree on the new Eve being born immaculate just like original Eve was created immaculate (both Adam AND Eve). This is where I would see her as being inferior because if she’s superior she should be at least equal in everything else and not lacking something the original had (because “the Old Testament is the New concealed” as Augustine said). Mary’s obedience was derived from her Son’s obedience. She was made a part of his saving plan because Christ made her “full of grace” (Luke 1:28).

Plenty of Church Fathers had good things to say about Mary, for example St. Ambrose:
“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118. 22–30 [A.D. 387]).

mmmcounts:

Mary in no way bears responsibility for the things Jesus alone deserves credit for, though she certainly gets credit for being the cause of it in the sense that she birthed Him.

Agreed, because even us who acknowledge Mary as immaculate know that it’s not by anything she did to merit it but as a special and unique Grace from God. Basically, God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

He didn’t **have **to but as Bishop Fulton Sheen wisely said, “If any one of us could have made our own mother, we would have made her the most beautiful woman in the world.” God certainly could have chosen to make her any way He wanted, no?

---

mmmcounts:

I really don’t have anything at all on the “Second Ark.”

We can agree the arc is a place where God himself would dwell (Ex. 25:8). God wanted his words—inscribed on stone—housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without.
Right? Then: How much more would he want his Word—Jesus—to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?

I’d recommend this quick read: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp
It sums up nicely the parallels which you may find interesting even if you don’t “buy it”. Never hurts to learn where the other is coming from, right?

God bless you, Mike.

 

[Ignatius33]

However…I don’t think God could have done this for Mary. I don’t think God could have done this for anyone. And that is why He didn’t do it for Mary, and He didn’t do it for anyone.

Wow, that is quite an admission.

 

[Ignatius33]

It’s very odd that you would say this, as it leads me to quote something you said earlier on this same thread.

That was you, right?

Correct, that was me. And I stand by my statement – none of those five Church Fathers explicitly wrote that Mary was a common sinner like you or me (as you have explicitly written yourself). Origen, Basil, Gregory and Cyril attributed the “sin” of doubt to her. Chrysostom attributed the sin of vainglory. That’s it. They said she sinned once.

And as I already mentioned, even the CFs who suggested that Mary sinned elsewhere held her in the highest esteem as the holy Christian par excellence (the consensus view of the CFs). Origen used the term Panagia (“all holy” one) to describe her. Gregory calls her the “immaculate” Virgin Mother of God (Against Apollinaris 6). Cyril has no hesitancy in heaping praises on Mary: “Hail Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel. Hail, O Virgin Mary, mother and handmaid . . . Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp” (Homily 11). Cyril also conceived of Mary’s role as Mediatrix, writing that “through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation” (id.). Here is a sermon Cyril preached against Nestorius at Ephesus:

“Hail, we say, O holy and mystic Trinity, who have called us together in this church dedicated to Mary, Mother of God. We hail you, O Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container of him who cannot be contained, Mother and Virgin, through whom it is said in the holy Gospels: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ [Mt. 21:9].

Hail, you who held the Uncontainable One in your holy and virginal womb! Through you, the Holy Trinity is glorified; the precious Cross is celebrated and adored throughout the world; heaven exults, the angels and archangels rejoice, the demons are to put to flight, the devil, the tempter, falls from heaven, the fallen creation is brought back to paradise, all creatures trapped in idolatry come to know the truth.

Through you, holy baptism and the oil of gladness are administered to believers; through you, churches are established throughout the world; the people are led to conversion. What more shall I say? Through you, the only begotten Son of God shone forth as a light upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death. Through you, the prophets made their predictions, and the apostles preached salvation to the nations; through you the dead rise, sovereigns reign, and through you the Holy Trinity reigns.

But who among men is capable of celebrating Mary most glorious?” (Homily 4).

Chrysostom, always more interested in morality than theology, still stands in awe of the mystery of Mary’s virginal motherhood and makes the same Eve-Mary parallel drawn by earlier CFs like Justin and Irenaeus: “A virgin drove us out of paradise; through a Virgin we have found eternal life” (Commentary on Psalm 44).

I don’t think you would use similar language in discussing Mary. And I already explained why these CFs thought that Mary sinned (once). Origen hadn’t contemplated anticipatory redemption (which, as you just admitted, you believe is “impossible” for God to accomplish). Gregory, Basil and Cyril followed Origen uncritically in his opinion. Chrysostom had a low opinion of the nature of women. Possibly, Cyril shared that view. As discussed, none of these opinions can be traced back to an Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Liraco]

mmmcounts:

If God could have saved Mary from the moment of conception and free her from her sin nature, that means it’s possible for God to do this for anyone.
…If God could have done this for Mary, He could have done this for everyone.

Silly me, I forgot to actually reply (told you I was tired).

With this question you stumble into the big one of why God allows evil instead of making us unable to sin from the beginning.
***324 **The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life. *CCC 324]

You’re right that if God could have done so for Mary, He could do so for all. The problem is that you say He can’t. We believe in the resurrection, and THAT is when we too will be made free from sin (refer to a few posts back on “non posse peccare”).

We’ve said Mary was saved before (rather than after which applies to us) through a singular and special Grace granted to her by the Lord. We will all one day be rendered immaculate (sinless) but she received this grace early and even though she did not earn them, she possessed them nonetheless. This Grace is granted because the Lord chose her as His mother, as the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ), as the new Eve, as the spiritual mother of all Christians.

 

[mmmcounts]

Silly me, I forgot to actually reply (told you I was tired).

With this question you stumble into the big one of why God allows evil instead of making us unable to sin from the beginning.
***324 ***The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life. CCC 324]

You’re right, that is a big one. If we went into it- which we won’t, since it’s well off topic- I wouldn’t have many definitive beliefs about that. In general, though, I think I’m ok with the “best of all possible worlds” theory in a certain sense, with some qualifiers…On the other hand, I also believe God works all things together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. I wouldn’t go as far as saying God works all things together for good.

You’re right that if God could have done so for Mary, He could do so for all.

Would I also be right in saying God is willing that none should perish? Seems like He could do that if He really could “do so for all.” If it’s true that this is a viable option (which you claim doesn’t interfere with free will, as you addressed earlier) and God is choosing not to exercise it, I don’t think that squares well with God’s nature. God’s nature is one of desiring that none should perish. I believe He did (and is doing) everything possible to make that a reality. I don’t think you can say the same thing and simultaneously believe God is leaving a viable option off the table that would lead to the actualization of God’s deepest desire.

The problem is that you say He can’t. We believe in the resurrection, and THAT is when we too will be made free from sin (refer to a few posts back on “non posse peccare”).

It’s not that God is somehow deficient. It’s not that there’s something wrong with God. It’s like this: You can’t hold God responsible for legitimizing any and all pieces of logical nonsense that you can come up with. Like I said before, you can’t hold God responsible for making possible a shape that is at the same time a circle and a pentagon on its outer edges by saying “God can do anything.”

Another example, if I may. You ever talk to a Muslim? If you get into religious topics, this is probably one of the first things that will come up: Let’s say I did something wrong against you. What would you do? You would…forgive me, right? Provided that I apologized, was truly sorry, and you chose to forgive me…you could. You wouldn’t ask me to hurt myself or someone else in order to make up for it. You could do that, but you could also just…forgive me. Just say “It’s ok, I forgive you.” Then your Muslim friend would ask you, “Why can’t God just do that? What is stopping God from just…forgiving us? Can’t we just ask Him to forgive us without Jesus being crucified? After all…God can do anything.”

That’s the same argument you’re making: God can do anything. So whatever you say must be acknowledged as something that God could have done. But when it’s turned around on you, what do you say to a Muslim who doesn’t believe in Jesus (as the Messiah, at any rate) but asks God to forgive his sins five times a day? God can do anything, right? Could God forgive a Muslim’s sins? Again, God can do anything, right? So that means God isn’t limited to the “Jesus route” if people want to be forgiven of their sins. That’s what happens if you really want to defend the “God can do anything” line.

So how exactly to you support the “God can do anything” claim (as you are currently presenting it) without making Jesus strictly optional? I’d really like to know.

Again, this is not to say God is finite or anything like that. But there are some things that are not viable options, even for God. It’s because of what those options entail, though- not because God is something other than omnipotent. I’m not saying God is faulty in any way. I’m saying the “saved from conception” idea is faulty, and it’s not a viable option. Furthermore, I’m making the argument that “God can do anything” does not grant you carte blanche to say anything you want.

Just one more point of clarification: God is able to cause people to be in a state of non posse peccare, but only after they die- and only if their free will is working in harmony with God’s divine foreknowledge. These are the rules God plays by. You’re right in saying God made the rules, but that in no way changes the fact that He abides by them. Another rule goes something like this: When God makes a promise- ie., when He puts a “curse” on humanity because of what they’ve chosen- He keeps His promise. There are some things even God can’t do, such as lie or break a promise.

 

[mmmcounts]

When it comes to the Mary and sacrifice, we’re only speculating as to what she might have done and the consequence of it.

Ok. So far I haven’t come up with any qualified scholars who’ve speculated on this, and I probably shouldn’t expect you to just pull something out of the air. I’d speculate that you aren’t any better at doing that than I am.

You know my opinion, of course. Mary was not sinless, and she couldn’t have fulfilled the sacrificial requirements of the law if she was. I’m convinced that Mary had to be aware of her sinlessness- too much of the story lacks internal consistency if she’s not. Working from that conclusion, Mary had a moral obligation to avoid deception. If Mary had avoided deception by granting the priests something like full disclosure, she would have had quite a bit of trouble on her hands. She wouldn’t have been crucified, but she would have had serious problems that would result (in one person’s speculation) in an inability to secure cooperation from the priests with regard to the sacrificial requirements.

On the speculation about Mary not possibly knowing if she was a sinner or being able to sin, I hope my previous post correcting and adding to my thoughts is clear.

It made sense. I’ll look it over again and run it by some other people. I tend to keep looking around even after I’ve gotten really good answers, though- if only to seek out different perspectives. I think yours will compare well.

Actually there’s quite a few that hold that precisely because Mary was immaculate she was spared from the pain of childbirth. This isn’t a defined teaching though, just something that many hold as true.

Honestly, I don’t take that view seriously at all, as you can well imagine. I’m about five steps removed from being able to give it any consideration. As long as parts of the curse are being dropped, though, shouldn’t Mary have lived forever?

While we do agree on Mary being obedient to the Lord, it seems we can’t agree on the new Eve being born immaculate just like original Eve was created immaculate (both Adam AND Eve).

We haven’t gotten into any of the details on Genesis 1-3 yet, but I’ve already mentioned that I view these chapters as “creation myth” rather than “history,” “science textbook,” or “vision from God.” Hence, I’m more open to some different (aka “liberal”) approaches to the creation than what you’re more familiar with. I don’t know these things for sure, but I’m open to an approach where Adam and Eve actually were born and the creation story is one in which God gives them the Imago Dei (and here we have at least two opportunities to go well off topic)… That’s one possibility among several. From this approach, God imparts the Imago Dei to Adam and Eve and then- they screw it up. That’s an imprecise way of talking about it, because that “screwing up” can be rendered more specifically in at least three different ways- at least as many ways as the Imago Dei is expressed, for sure. Anyway, that “screwing up” of the Imago Dei was permanent. That’s where the “curse” comes in. That’s also where the “rules that God plays by” makes its entrance.

Moving on, though: Eve sinned. So did Mary. But Eve’s disobedience puts her in the role of “assist to the Fall” while Mary’s obedience puts her in the role of “assist to the solution.” That makes Mary greater than Eve- which, quite frankly, is not that hard to do. Eve really screwed up bad.

Just as a side note, the placement of “non” among the words “posse peccare” is up for debate with regard to Adam and Eve. (I don’t know how that looks among Catholics, of course)…

I tend to think they didn’t have the ability to remain sinless. All other things being equal and these two humans remaining essentially the same, my opinion is that Adam and Eve would have failed 100 times out of 100. I don’t know what you think about that, and I’m not entirely sure how that changes the complexion of the discussion. But it’s something to work with.

This is where I would see her as being inferior because if she’s superior she should be at least equal in everything else and not lacking something the original had (because “the Old Testament is the New concealed” as Augustine said).

Through their actions, Adam and Eve ruined the “Imago Dei” situation permanently. That makes them screw-ups, not superior people. Mary gets the assist in restoring the possibility of perfect fellowship with God, though it’s still not possible in this life. (The “restoration” idea isn’t entirely accurate- heaven is better than Eden. Which is actually pretty relevant to the Eve-Mary comparison). At any rate, it’s not possible for Mary to have had something that Adam and Eve permanently broke. But hope is not lost- Mary’s obedience leads to something even better.

Mary’s obedience was derived from her Son’s obedience. She was made a part of his saving plan because Christ made her “full of grace” (Luke 1:28).

The only way to come up with “full of grace” is if you translate the Bible from Greek to Latin and then to English. If you go from Greek directly to English, “full of grace” is not an acceptable translation. You can check in any Catholic Bible that uses the most ancient manuscripts instead of a Latin translation.

Oh, sorry. “The” Latin translation.

Basically, God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

She was a sinner, but this did not prevent her from being a fitting mother.

God certainly could have chosen to make her any way He wanted, no?

It wasn’t a viable option.

It sums up nicely the parallels which you may find interesting even if you don’t “buy it”. Never hurts to learn where the other is coming from, right?

Thanks, I’ll take a look. As far as “holy things” go, though, I think Mary makes a better comparison with the burning bush than with the Ark. The Ark always was (and as far as I know, always will be) a holy object in and of itself. Mary compares well with the burning bush because the bush was an ordinary bush until God’s presence was in it. In the same way, there was a time in Mary’s life before the Holy Spirit caused her to conceive. Going back to the bush, it eventually stopped burning. While it was burning, the ground was holy enough. Once God took His presence from the bush, though, people could walk by with their sandals on. Again, with regard to Mary…she gave birth. God (in a bod) went out from her and was no longer inside her. So what does that mean? I’d argue that it means the same thing for Mary that it did for the burning bush. I don’t think the Ark compares nearly as well. When you touch it, it kills you- whether the tablets are in it or not.

(Apologies to any high priest who may be reading this while appropriately consecrated- the Ark would not kill you if you touched it).

 

[mmmcounts]

Correct, that was me. And I stand by my statement – none of those five Church Fathers explicitly wrote that Mary was a common sinner like you or me (as you have explicitly written yourself). Origen, Basil, Gregory and Cyril attributed the “sin” of doubt to her. Chrysostom attributed the sin of vainglory. That’s it. They said she sinned once.

Ok. Understood.

And as I already mentioned, even the CFs who suggested that Mary sinned elsewhere held her in the highest esteem as the holy Christian par excellence (the consensus view of the CFs).

I suppose I disagree with those CFs on some level, then.

Origen used the term Panagia (“all holy” one) to describe her. Gregory calls her the “immaculate” Virgin Mother of God (Against Apollinaris 6). Cyril has no hesitancy in heaping praises on Mary…

Were these ECFs aware of the true nature of the sources they relied on? Were they under the impression that the primary Marian myths were as trustworthy as (or possibly one and the same as) historical fact?

Through you, the only begotten Son of God shone forth as a light upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death.

I guess I’m ok with that, to a certain extent.

Through you, the prophets made their predictions, and the apostles preached salvation to the nations; through you the dead rise, sovereigns reign, and through you the Holy Trinity reigns.

And this, not so much. I don’t think that’s right.

What? He doesn’t get a free pass.

Chrysostom, always more interested in morality than theology, still stands in awe of the mystery of Mary’s virginal motherhood and makes the same Eve-Mary parallel drawn by earlier CFs like Justin and Irenaeus: “A virgin drove us out of paradise; through a Virgin we have found eternal life” (Commentary on Psalm 44).

There’s quite a bit of value to the Eve-Mary parallel, but I do think it can be misapplied.

I don’t think you would use similar language in discussing Mary.

You are correct, and I don’t think I should.

And I already explained why these CFs thought that Mary sinned (once).

You seriously think someone can sin just once? Even if that were the case, would it make any difference? I don’t think so. If you break the law in one part, you’ve become a lawbreaker. That’s not to say there’s no such thing as degrees of sin (though I firmly deny the venial-mortal dichotomy)…with that out of the way, though, you know what passage I’m talking about- James 2. If Mary sinned just once, she would need to be saved from that sin.

Origen hadn’t contemplated anticipatory redemption (which, as you just admitted, you believe is “impossible” for God to accomplish).

Not because God is deficient, but because it’s not a viable option.

Gregory, Basil and Cyril followed Origen uncritically in his opinion.

And who are you following uncritically with your opinion? Follow them if you must; just don’t do so uncritically.

Chrysostom had a low opinion of the nature of women. Possibly, Cyril shared that view. As discussed, none of these opinions can be traced back to an Apostolic Tradition.

Didn’t pretty much everyone have a low opinion of women during a particular part of the Middle Ages? You even see it in some of the art. You’ve seen that one where Eve is crawling around on the ground looking dirty and devious, right?

As for Apostolic Tradition, we have differing viewpoints. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Des]

I don’t think it’s possible. And I actually do feel that it’s necessary for me to disagree with the “anything is possible” statement: There are certain rules that even God has to play by. For example, even God cannot create an object which, on its outermost edges, is both circular and pentagonal. Even God can’t do that. He has to play by certain rules.

What God did do was use the Blood of Christ that transcends both forward and backward through time to save others. He did this with Mary as well, except She was saved at the moment of Her Conception. This does not break any of His rules regarding how the Salvation through the blood of the Cross is to be used.

Originally Posted by mmmcounts
If God could have saved Mary from the moment of conception and free her from her sin nature, that means it’s possible for God to do this for anyone.
…If God could have done this for Mary, He could have done this for everyone.

Then I can reason and say if God could create Adam and Eve impeccable and sinless, He could have done this with all of us without creating us through their seed. But He chose not to. God could have allowed them to already share Heaven with Him and never sin again. But He didn’t. God could perform miracles for all of us to see and believe but He doesn’t. God has His reasons for things that you and I cannot fully comprehend.

 

[Ignatius33]

And who are you following uncritically with your opinion? Follow them if you must; just don’t do so uncritically.

Simple, I follow the Catholic Church, which I view as having authority to determine what is true and what is heterodox, as the “pillar and foundation of truth” through God’s divine plan (a view shared by Augustine and Aquinas – see below). You are correct if you are suggesting that I wouldn’t have come to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on my own or through mere study of the CFs. I’m sure I wouldn’t believe in it but for the guidance and authority of the Church – authority which, I believe, is to be trusted based on all of the data. In other words, I don’t follow the Church “uncritically.” Based on all of the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the infallible Church founded by Christ, which allows me to comfortably believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Viewed through the lens of the CFs, for example, I think the evidence is overwhelming that Catholicism is correct vis-a-vis its views on the seven sacraments, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the authority to forgive sins, apostolic succession, a visible, hierarchical Church with true teaching authority, a ministerial priesthood, the primacy of Rome, etc. In my view, the Catholic faith explains like 90% of the historical data; the Protestant faith (take your pick which one) can maybe explain 10%, at best. In view of the positive evidence in favor of Rome’s claims, it is not difficult for me to accept the so-called defeaters of Catholicism, like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption (which are formally implicit, not explicit, in the deposit of faith). I believe in Mary’s sinlessness because the Church believes. And as I’ve tried to show in my posts, the Church’s belief is reasonable and amply supported by both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Ignatius33]

Augustine: “It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true” (Sermons, 117:6 [inter 391-430]).

Augustine: “God has placed this authority first of all in his Church” (Explanation of the Psalms, Tract 103:8 [inter 391-430]).

Augustine: “[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils [at Carthage and Milevis] have already been sent to the Apostolic See *; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end [due to the authority of Rome]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end!” (Sermons [inter 391 – 430 AD]). Or to paraphrase: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

Thomas Aquinas: “The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).*

 

[Ignatius33]

Were these ECFs aware of the true nature of the sources they relied on? Were they under the impression that the primary Marian myths were as trustworthy as (or possibly one and the same as) historical fact?

So a consenus of the CFs (1) stupidly relied on an apocryphal text (2) that was 100% garbage? I wonder if they did that with any other doctrine. What is more probable – that the CFs uncritically relied on an apocryphal text that falsely praised Mary, or that the apocryphal text contained an element of truth to it?

I suppose I have a little more confidence in the CFs than you. These are the same brilliant, Spirit-filled men that canonized the Bible and protected the orthodox faith from the likes of the Docetists, Montanists, Gnostics, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Pelagians, Nestorians, etc. I think it is safe to conclude that the views of the CFs on Mary (e.g., her holiness, perpetual virginity, Theotokos etc.) derive from Apostolic Tradition and an ever deepening understanding of the deposit of faith, not fairy tales.

 

[Liraco]

That’s the same argument you’re making: God can do anything. So whatever you say must be acknowledged as something that God could have done.

Well I’m quite curious then. What is YOUR response to the Muslim who asks why can’t God just forgive us all of everything?
I’d respond this: He DOES forgive everything so long as we repent, those who are unforgiven are so because they CHOOSE to be unrepentant. That is the unforgivable sin, ultimate impenitence.

You bring up the point of why Jesus needed to be crucified. If He didn’t die for us, would we really be able to grasp the incredible love that God has for us? For giving us His only Son, and dying for us? Only Jesus crucified can make sense of and give purpose to human suffering.

We did nothing to earn or deserve such a perfect sacrifice and yet He did it because He loves us that much. Just because God can “do anything” doesn’t make Jesus’ sacrifice optional. God didn’t HAVE to create us, didn’t HAVE to die for us to give us eternal life, didn’t HAVE to reveal Himself. God CHOSE to do all this just like He CHOSE to do that one special and unique grace for His mother! Again, it’s all about choice which is an incredible gift He gives us.

If you’re going to question why God can choose to do one thing and not do it for all at once then you have to begin with “why we weren’t made unable to sin in the first place”? You mention the promise which I’ll address further down.

I understand the problem with “God can do anything” (which is why I asked for clarification and I’m glad you provided it). I should then clarify my statement with:
*"God can do all things that are **possible *(Matt. 19:26) This does not mean that God is not omnipotent; it means only that his power does not negate itself."

God certainly has power over His creations, because otherwise you’d have to ask HOW is He going to give us glorified bodies and make us unable to sin… if He can’t do it at all? If you say that this is possible, then why is it impossible for Him to do it NOW? God is outside of the bounds of time so it’s not like there’s a “timer” limiting His abilities. So then what? Why will it be possible but not now? I’m not saying what I want, but what makes sense (because being limited now but not later doesn’t make sense for One outside of time).

Your point of contention is if it was done to Mary then why aren’t we all born like this. Simply because it’s God’s will and all a part of His salvific plan. God wanted to have the most worthy mother for Jesus, which is why He gave her that gift which she didn’t earn and I already explained why it makes sense for her to be immaculate.

Just one more point of clarification: God is able to cause people to be in a state of non posse peccare, but only after they die- and only if their free will is working in harmony with God’s divine foreknowledge. Another rule goes something like this: When God makes a promise- ie., when He puts a “curse” on humanity because of what they’ve chosen- He keeps His promise. There are some things even God can’t do, such as lie or break a promise.

This is where you answer the question on why we’re not born sinless.

I’ve already stated that He can do anything possible. The question is then: why bend/break the rules for Mary? But if you’re going to consider “breaking”, what do you make of Jesus? Is He the exception because He’s also divine in nature despite being fully human? That shows us that God CAN make exceptions without really breaking His promise (or is there some loophole for Jesus I’m unaware of?) How does He not break the promise? We’re all born with the stain, and only Mary was given the gift of being born stainless just like Jesus BECAUSE of Jesus. So then perhaps “all” is hyperbole and doesn’t mean every single person is given this curse but “all” in general with only two exceptions made.
OR… this doesn’t apply (thus there’s no “loophole” or bending of rules) because they are the new parents of the human race (thus exempt from the curse). They begin a new humanity which is free of this stain, and this is what we strive for in our lives and what we will become if we persevere (sinless children of God).

Let’s suppose though that it’s still not enough for you to accept that Mary could have been given a sinless state without her saying yes (entering a hypothetic situation as Catholics believe she was granted the gift from conception). What happens to babies killed who are yet unable to really will anything? We don’t know for sure but we can speculate that perhaps God grants the child the ability to make his choice. We’ve said Mary was saved before the fall instead of after so then perhaps God asked Mary right at the very beginning of her existence if she’d say yes. Here though, we introduce again the possibility for her saying “no” again (an incomplete gift) and that’s a problem because God has no “plan B”, He makes no mistakes, and yet it all works in conjunction with His respect of our free wills.

 

[Ignatius33]

You seriously think someone can sin just once?

No. Chrysostom et al. were wrong when they attributed sin to Mary. As Thomas Aquinas said, Chrysostom “goes to far” in making such an assertion (Summa Theologica III, Q. 27., Art. 4). My point was only that even these CFs (1) didn’t say that Mary was a common sinner that sinned a lot like you and me and (2) elsewhere viewed Mary in a light much more favorable than you are willing to grant.

 

[Liraco]

Ok. So far I haven’t come up with any qualified scholars who’ve speculated on this

Perhaps not a scholar but I just heard Karl Keating (this site’s founder) give an answer on this same subject (concerning only the initial sacrifice but still the same question). If you want to listen to it yourself download “Q&A open forum” for the 28th of July with Karl Keating and fast forward to 48:00 to hear the question and answer.

Did she know it? Yes (at least that she knew she never sinned).

-Here’s the answer to deception (specifically on the sacrifice of the two doves, one which was a sin offering).
-She lived in a community so people knew her obviously. Fulfilling the law is not a sin and even if you considered it “deception” it’s nowhere near the sin that would have been caused by SCANDAL (which you see condemned quite heavily in scripture). Scandal is why Jesus also paid taxes despite being beyond the law and fulfilled everything proper.
-Mary similarly would have done what any other mother of a new born would have done at the time, not because she was under pain of sin but it made sense to fulfill the strictures of the law even though some of them would not have been applicable. Just like the sin offering doesn’t imply Jesus was a sinner (or that He needed original sin efaced from His soul), it doesn’t imply Mary was one either. If she didn’t have sin, she was not deceiving because she was following the law of Moses. No one expects one to be sinless (including yourself) so what was one to do? The only alternative is scandal.
-Everyone would have expected her to go to the temple to perform the ceremony. Had she not, what’s she gonna tell them? “I was immaculately conceived, I don’t need to do this”? Nobody would have understood (and who knows just what horrible things they would have done, calling her a liar, blasphemer, etc.) I don’t think Jesus would have wanted His mother to go through such things because of Him and His gift, do you? You make it sound like the Jews would have gone easy on Mary, but scripture shows us just how bad most of them were in those times (like the woman they were going to stone to death).
-If you want to think of it this way (I’d rather not as I hold she didn’t sin), then deception is far less worse than scandal in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, I hope Karl’s perspective helps. I’m not expecting you to believe but I do hope you can understand my views on this so far as I try to see yours (it seems like it so far, even if we disagree).

mmmcounts:

As long as parts of the curse are being dropped, though, shouldn’t Mary have lived forever?

Interesting, because the Church does not definitely teach if Mary did in fact die first or if she was alive when she was assumed into heaven.
Epiphanus wrote: nowhere do we read that he [John] took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary’s earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

On Mary being free of the stain, John Henry Newman holds: “Because she was under the laws of fallen nature, and inherited its evils, except so far as sin [is concerned]. Thus our Blessed Lord [suffered fatigue, pain, and death]. …Hence, since all men die, she died. Our Lord died. Her son wished to share our lot. She was like Him also in this respect. She did not enjoy the preternatural gifts of knowledge and freedom from death enjoyed by Eve before her transgression”.

mmmcounts:

Moving on, though: Eve sinned. So did Mary.

I would think that if the new Adam was perfectly obedient, and Mary is also obedient as you state, then wasn’t she sinless? If one is fully obedient to God they cannot sin quite simply because that’s the opposite of sin.

-----continued-----

 

[Liraco]

-----continued-----

mmmcounts:

That makes Mary greater than Eve- which, quite frankly, is not that hard to do. Eve really screwed up bad.

I don’t fault you for having such a low view of Mary, but you’re saying that for the new Eve to surpass the old, practically no real effort was required because of how badly the Eve screwed up. Hardly “superior”, more like “not bad” by your own admission.

The fact that Mary was a virgin and conceived Christ isn’t so much a statement about Mary as it is about the dignity of the child she carried in her womb.
Likewise (and ultimately) the Immaculate Conception isn’t so much a statement about the dignity of Mary as it is a statement about the dignity of her son. It points out who he is–God incarnate.

mmmcounts:

I tend to think they didn’t have the ability to remain sinless. All other things being equal and these two humans remaining essentially the same, my opinion is that Adam and Eve would have failed 100 times out of 100.

I think that God gave them every chance to succeed but knew that they would fail. Again, this goes with my “no plan B” idea that God doesn’t make mistakes and that it’s all ultimately for something greater than what we can ever conceive. Indeed we see God give them the warning and give them so much and yet they choose against Him (same goes for the devil and who knows why he rebelled).

mmmcounts:

That makes them screw-ups, not superior people.

True, but you almost seem to be saying that they were “rock bottom” so Mary could have been a horrible sinner and still be “superior” because it doesn’t beat what they did (of course assuming she converted and repented of those sinful ways like Paul, for example).

mmmcounts:

At any rate, it’s not possible for Mary to have had something that Adam and Eve permanently broke.

Sinlessness is something that despite being broken WILL be restored though. I agree that human nature was still broken which is why Mary could still die but was preserved from sin.

mmmcounts:

If you go from Greek directly to English, “full of grace” is not an acceptable translation.

I’m certainly no expert in ancient greek, and just focusing on this could forma separate thread but I found the following:
The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”).
Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.

mmmcounts:

She was a sinner, but this did not prevent her from being a fitting mother.

I grant you that she didn’t HAVE to be immaculate, but again, if she was immaculate it was because of the dignity of her son.

mmmcounts:

I think Mary makes a better comparison with the burning bush than with the Ark.

The Burning Bush is also seen as a symbol of Mary who carried God within her womb. Like the bush not burned by the flame, Mary who had God present within her was not consumed. The consuming fire would have destroyed anything impure and yet Mary was intact.

You say the ark is a holy object itself, but was it holy because of the material it was made out of? Was that gold holy before being used? Or is it because of what it came to contain and its purpose? So too Mary is not holy on her own or just because of herself but because of God (who made her immaculate to be more worthy of carrying the Son of God).

 

[Liraco]

Des bring up a good point which I think is interesting in regards to God “breaking His promise”. It’s true that the Church holds that it was by Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross applied to Mary before her conception that she was saved (God is outside of time so this certainly falls into the realm of possible.)

Again to be clear, you state “it’s not a viable option” and yet I submit to you the idea that while I agree with you about “limits” (see previous posts), God CAN do anything that’s possible.

In heaven we will immaculate and unable to sin, therefore it’s possible for God, therefore God can do this, therefore God could have done this for Mary.

You seem to imply the limitation until “after death”, yet Jesus had not yet died and was born sinless (remember, though divine He is also fully human which we cannot separate from Him).

 

[mmmcounts]

Wow, I have some catching up to do. Thank you to all who are participating in this with me. If I skip over an issue that’s important to any of you, I apologize in advance. Feel free to bring it up again.

What God did do was use the Blood of Christ that transcends both forward and backward through time to save others.

I disagree with this statement. In Hebrews 11, it talks about all the “giants of faith” in the Old Testament (who, by the way, were declared righteous because of their faith before they performed righteous activities, not after). In any case, the last verse of this chapter talks about how they were “commended,” but they did not receive what was promised. They had to wait. Since their lives were over, there was nothing more for them to do. They had something promised to them, but they had to wait for it (“had to,” in this case, implies the individuals such as Noah, Rahab, Moses, Isaac and Jacob had no choice in the matter). I suspect that God also “had to” have them wait for what was promised. At the very least, this is an example of a situation where you (and by “you” I actually mean you) would expect Jesus’ blood to move forward and backward through time. But it didn’t. And from what I can tell, this covers pretty much every “declared righteous” person prior to the time of Jesus. It only names the most faithful of the bunch, but I’m pretty sure they’re representing the whole crew.

Here’s the thing: The New Covenant was established at a particular point in time. It is an eternal covenant. Its effects apply from that point forward. That’s how a covenant works. Hebrews 11 tells us what happened to the people who lived well before that covenant was established: They waited.

So tell me something. Can you give me a situation where the Blood of Christ does move backward through time to save people? Because I can name close to 20 people in Hebrews 11 for whom the “ex post facto” theory does not apply.

He did this with Mary as well

 

[mmmcounts]

Based on all of the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the infallible Church founded by Christ, which allows me to comfortably believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Seems like church authority is a popular thread topic around here, and if a conversation goes on long enough it’s bound to come up eventually. Is there some kind of law for that? You know, kind of like Godwin’s Law: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Just replace “Usenet” with “CAF” and “Nazis/Hitler” with “Church Authority.”

Ohhhh, this is too good to pass up. The Hitler comparison is commonly referred to as the fallacy of “reductio ad Hitlerum.” Would you mind too much if I referred to this as “reductio ad Magisterium?” Just this once. Wait, no, I can’t promise that. I’ll try to use it with discretion.

I’m sure you can see why I would regard this sort of thing as a well-thought-out decision to very consistently follow your Church leaders uncritically. It does all hang on the question of whether or not they have special access to communication with God that no one else in the world possesses, but I suppose you’ve come to your decision on that. It does make a serious Catholic particularly difficult to reason with, though- you can always fall back on it in order to avoid using logic and reason to come up with something different from what the authorities tell you is right. Did you ever think about how that may have been the desired effect, though? The “visible structure” of the Roman Catholic Church is derived directly from the “visible structure” of the secular rulers of Rome (post-Triumvirate, anyway). But what else could they do? That’s where the Catholic Church wound up being centered…after Rome emerged as the most powerful Church group among perhaps five viable candidates. Rome became the center of Christianity (after it was legalized there…well after the death of Peter, of course…) because Rome was the most powerful empire in the world. Because Rome was the empire that had the greatest influence on the Church during the formative years of its hierarchy, the Roman hierarchy of power had a great deal of influence on the Roman Catholic hierarchy of power. However, just because it happened that way doesn’t mean that was the best way it could have happened- or that it should have happened that way. Or that it should stay exactly that way.

I believe in Mary’s sinlessness because the Church believes. And as I’ve tried to show in my posts, the Church’s belief is reasonable and amply supported by both Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture says barely anything about Mary. It doesn’t say anything “amply” about her at all. You’re right enough about the other things, assuming by “Church” you mean to exclude all Christians except those in the Roman style of leadership. I know it doesn’t include me, and I’m guessing it doesn’t include you either. You’re telling me where you got this, and you’re saying you got it from “the Church.” I don’t think you gave it to yourself, so I’m guessing “the Church” refers exclusively to your leaders.

So a consenus of the CFs (1) stupidly relied on an apocryphal text

It’s not stupid if you’re doing nothing more than acting on insufficient or unreliable information. That would be “ignorance.”

(2) that was 100% garbage?

There’s probably some stuff in the apocryphal books that isn’t garbage. A lot of it is, though, and it’s all 100% un-inspired.

I wonder if they did that with any other doctrine.

Quite possibly. I can’t think of any great candidates right now, though. I’ll give it some thought. There’s also a chance they didn’t, though. After all, has the “ex cathedra” thing been used to define any other doctrine? Hmmm, I wonder is they did that with any other doctrine…It’s entirely possible that these Marian doctrines are pretty unique in more ways than just this one.

What is more probable – that the CFs uncritically relied on an apocryphal text that falsely praised Mary, or that the apocryphal text contained an element of truth to it?

Are you arguing that the apocryphal text contained an element of truth to it, or are you arguing that the myth contained something that must be believed with the full measure of your faith?

I suppose I have a little more confidence in the CFs than you.

That may be true, to a certain extent.

the views of the CFs on Mary (e.g., her holiness, perpetual virginity, Theotokos etc.) derive from Apostolic Tradition and an ever deepening understanding of the deposit of faith, not fairy tales.

They aren’t fairy tales. They’re myths. Very different things, my friend. They have the same starting point- they’re both stories that aren’t based on divine revelation or the testimony of history. After that, though, they’re entirely opposite. The thing is, though, we’re quite able to recognize them as myths. Perhaps the ECF’s were not able to do so. Maybe they thought James really wrote the Gospel of James. I know the falsified date of its writing was believed for some time. I don’t know about the author. I’m throwing it out there as a possibility. Right now, I don’t know how much any of the ECF’s really did know about these things.