Did the early church always teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
- Thread starter Guest1
- Start date
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The doctrine wasn’t officially defined as a doctrine until the 1900’s. However, it is important to understand the nature of Catholic Dogma. Generally speaking, the Church does not proclaim a dogma until a particular position is directly and consistently challenged.
Take, for example, the Council written about in Acts. There, Peter makes the binding proclamation that it is not necessary to observe OT law in order to be a Christian. The reason he made that proclamation was that that position was being actively challenged at the time. This is also what happened with the cannon of scripture. The Catholic Church’s cannon has been constant since 313 A.D. (or 331 A.D., can’t remember). However, it was not proclaimed Dogmatically until the 1500’s, when the protestant reformers challenged it. The same thing is true for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Marian beliefs had been under attack by Protestant groups for a few hundred years, and so the Church decided that it was time to make them official Dogma.
As to if the Early Church believed in it, some did and some didn’t, but I believe there is evidence that the majority did. From various paintings and writings we’ve found, it appears that it was a fairly wide-spread belief early into the life of the Church. I think Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best,” has a section related to what the Early Church Fathers said about Mary; and Tim Staples book “Behold your Mother” is probably your best bet for answering any of these sorts of questions regarding the Marian Dogmas.
Take, for example, the Council written about in Acts. There, Peter makes the binding proclamation that it is not necessary to observe OT law in order to be a Christian. The reason he made that proclamation was that that position was being actively challenged at the time. This is also what happened with the cannon of scripture. The Catholic Church’s cannon has been constant since 313 A.D. (or 331 A.D., can’t remember). However, it was not proclaimed Dogmatically until the 1500’s, when the protestant reformers challenged it. The same thing is true for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Marian beliefs had been under attack by Protestant groups for a few hundred years, and so the Church decided that it was time to make them official Dogma.
As to if the Early Church believed in it, some did and some didn’t, but I believe there is evidence that the majority did. From various paintings and writings we’ve found, it appears that it was a fairly wide-spread belief early into the life of the Church. I think Jimmy Akin’s book “The Fathers Know Best,” has a section related to what the Early Church Fathers said about Mary; and Tim Staples book “Behold your Mother” is probably your best bet for answering any of these sorts of questions regarding the Marian Dogmas.
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Guest!
As with many things in the Faith, it was defined with time; here’s a synopsis:
(https://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc3a.htm)
Maran atha!
Angel
As with many things in the Faith, it was defined with time; here’s a synopsis:
(https://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc3a.htm)
Maran atha!
Angel
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
As I said in the other thread. And is being explained by prodgarchitect this is Dogma. It is also doctrine, but it is Dogma
Dogma
The name given to divinely revealed truths proclaimed or taught by the Church’s magisterium and promulgated by the highest Church authority; the faithful are obliged to believe these truths. The Church believes that in Scripture and Tradition God’s intention for humankind has been revealed to the ecclesial community and that the community’s leadership can authoritatively interpret and promulgate this truth.
Doctrine
The name given to divinely revealed truths proclaimed or taught by the Church’s magisterium; the faithful are obliged to believe these truths. A doctrine becomes a dogma if it is promulgated by the highest Church authority, thus all dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas. The primary function of Church teaching, or doctrine, in all the forms it takes (preaching, liturgy, Church pronouncements, the work of theologians, the lives of holy men and women) is to enable each person to internalize the meaning that God has revealed in Christ.
All Dogma is doctrine but not all doctrine is dogma
Dogma
The name given to divinely revealed truths proclaimed or taught by the Church’s magisterium and promulgated by the highest Church authority; the faithful are obliged to believe these truths. The Church believes that in Scripture and Tradition God’s intention for humankind has been revealed to the ecclesial community and that the community’s leadership can authoritatively interpret and promulgate this truth.
Doctrine
The name given to divinely revealed truths proclaimed or taught by the Church’s magisterium; the faithful are obliged to believe these truths. A doctrine becomes a dogma if it is promulgated by the highest Church authority, thus all dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas. The primary function of Church teaching, or doctrine, in all the forms it takes (preaching, liturgy, Church pronouncements, the work of theologians, the lives of holy men and women) is to enable each person to internalize the meaning that God has revealed in Christ.
All Dogma is doctrine but not all doctrine is dogma
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
one bit of evidence of early belief: There were a lot of fake relics going around, you could build a house with the wood claimed to be from the true cross. Many many bones claimed to be this or that famous Saint. Among the vast collection of false relics there is no false relics claiming to come from the body of Our Blessed Mother.
The most likely reason for that is that no one would buy them because of the belief in the Assumption. Belief in that presumes belief in the Immaculate Conception. The crooked dealers knew not to waste their time. So this indicates a wide spread if not universal belief in Our Blessed Mother.
The most likely reason for that is that no one would buy them because of the belief in the Assumption. Belief in that presumes belief in the Immaculate Conception. The crooked dealers knew not to waste their time. So this indicates a wide spread if not universal belief in Our Blessed Mother.
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Ben!
Excellent point!
Maran atha!
Angel
Excellent point!
Maran atha!
Angel
K
Kenny_Kamel
Guest
I’m glad someone brought up the Assumption, that belief has been around for just a little while longer than the Immaculate Conception. Until the 1700’s the common belief, even in the Roman Rite and Western Catholicism, was that the Theotokos feel asleep in the Lord (she DIED). Now later on the belief was developed because those in the West assumed that Mary was in heaven, body and soul! 
Personally I do not have any issue with the Immaculate Conception Dogma but I think some people seem to want to use it to somehow quasi-deify Mary into something more than a normal human being yet less than the triune God.
Personally I do not have any issue with the Immaculate Conception Dogma but I think some people seem to want to use it to somehow quasi-deify Mary into something more than a normal human being yet less than the triune God.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Kenny!
I think that you are reading too much into Catholic obsessions with the Virgin.
Not once has the Church Taught divinity of Mary.
Maran atha!
Angel
I think that you are reading too much into Catholic obsessions with the Virgin.
Not once has the Church Taught divinity of Mary.
Maran atha!
Angel
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
From at least the middle of the second century the early Church (I’m thinking of St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus) compared the Virgin Mary to Eve in much the same way that they and St Paul in the New Testament compared Jesus Christ to Adam. We know for sure that three of the four come into existence without the stain of Original Sin; Adam and Eve were created without the stain of Original Sin and Jesus was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. Symmetry suggests that the Virgin Mary also was conceived without the stain of Original Sin.
Last edited:
S
Sir2v4
Guest
I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas who did not believe in it, but that was before it was defined as a dogma. It was probably argued and I don’t think he bought into it. I think it was a monk by the name of Duns Scotus who insisted on it, as a necessity for the individual who would be the mother of the Messiah. but, that didn’t sink in for 500 years.
And, I’m not sure, but I don’t think his argument is the basis of the dogma anyway.
What Tim Staples says in “Behold Your Mother” is that the angel Gabriel addressed her as “Full of Grace” — not a title or adjective, but as if THAT was her name, or, better, her NEW name. And, THAT is why scripture says that Mary was puzzled by what he said – calling her that, by name. “Hail Full of Grace” morphed into the prayer “Hail Mary, full of grace” which is different – that’s repeating Mary’s name twice.
Another rendering is Hail Favored One.
And, I’m not sure, but I don’t think his argument is the basis of the dogma anyway.
What Tim Staples says in “Behold Your Mother” is that the angel Gabriel addressed her as “Full of Grace” — not a title or adjective, but as if THAT was her name, or, better, her NEW name. And, THAT is why scripture says that Mary was puzzled by what he said – calling her that, by name. “Hail Full of Grace” morphed into the prayer “Hail Mary, full of grace” which is different – that’s repeating Mary’s name twice.
Another rendering is Hail Favored One.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
St. Thomas may not have believed that she was sinless from the moment of conception, but he did believe she was sinless before birth, and that she never committed personal sin.
You have to realize two things here:
A. In the time of St. Thomas, the facts of conception and human embryonic and fetal development were not known. The major prenatal event was 'quickening" (usually around the 5th month) where the child ‘moved’ in the womb (much as St. John the Baptist was noted to do in the gospel of Luke). How a child was even conceived (the idea of semen, ovum, implantation etc.) was not known.
B. As another poster notes, there was no definitive pronouncement in the 13th century. When with scientific advancements and the revealing of Truth by the Holy Spirit made it clear that the soul did not come into play at quickening, but at conception, it was clear that Mary’s redemption must have begun at conception as well. And if St. Thomas had been aware of that, he would have most happily submitted to the greater knowledge and revealed truth of the Holy Spirit. He never in fact claimed that he knew all the truth anyway, or that whatever he said was the be-all and end-all on any given theological point.
Just as a side note, did you know that we get the word “Dunce” from Duns Scotus? His opinions were not as highly favored as other theologians, thus his adherents came to bear the name of “Dun’s groups” and thus, “dunces”.
You have to realize two things here:
A. In the time of St. Thomas, the facts of conception and human embryonic and fetal development were not known. The major prenatal event was 'quickening" (usually around the 5th month) where the child ‘moved’ in the womb (much as St. John the Baptist was noted to do in the gospel of Luke). How a child was even conceived (the idea of semen, ovum, implantation etc.) was not known.
B. As another poster notes, there was no definitive pronouncement in the 13th century. When with scientific advancements and the revealing of Truth by the Holy Spirit made it clear that the soul did not come into play at quickening, but at conception, it was clear that Mary’s redemption must have begun at conception as well. And if St. Thomas had been aware of that, he would have most happily submitted to the greater knowledge and revealed truth of the Holy Spirit. He never in fact claimed that he knew all the truth anyway, or that whatever he said was the be-all and end-all on any given theological point.
Just as a side note, did you know that we get the word “Dunce” from Duns Scotus? His opinions were not as highly favored as other theologians, thus his adherents came to bear the name of “Dun’s groups” and thus, “dunces”.
G
greenrangerx
Guest
This isn’t quite right in regards to the Assumption. The official teaching is that she was assumed body and soul into heaven, but doesn’t define whether or not she died. It is perfectly within the bounds of the faith to believe that she first died and was then taken up into heaven afterwards. Also, the assumption is one of the glorious mysteries of the Rosary, which existed well before the dogma was defined and before the 1700s that you mention.
K
Kenny_Kamel
Guest
I believe the thread is discussing belief in the Assumption in the early Church, prior to the Rosary. Lets talk about time frames here. The official teaching/dogma of the Assumption, was defined in the 1700’s. The Rosary existed prior to that but is there evidence to suggest that the Assumption was always a part of the Rosary prior to the dogma being defined? I submit to you that there is plenty of evidence to support the Dormition of the Theotokos and the belief in it throughout the Universal Church prior to the Rosary, let alone before dogma of the Assumption had been established.
K
Kenny_Kamel
Guest
Never did I suggest that the Church taught anything about “the divinity of Mary” but rather spoke to people’s obsessions that might lead one to develop a notion that would quasi-deify her in the minds of some.
G
greenrangerx
Guest
I’m not sure where you got a date of the 1700s. The Assumption was dogmatically definitely in 1950 (and the Immaculate Conception in 1854).
A
ANewBeginning
Guest
The short answer? NO.
We do not teach the Immaculate Conception in Orthodoxy, because that would require belief in a certain view of Sin itself which we don’t hold.
We do not teach the Immaculate Conception in Orthodoxy, because that would require belief in a certain view of Sin itself which we don’t hold.
- Status