Differences between Rome and Confessional Protestantism (handy reference chart)

[MrS]

Islam wouldn’t be a fair comparison because they deny original sin altogether.

I am not sure of an approximate time of when this belief appeared in church history. Many notable fathers taught it, however, notable fathers also taught that she sinned. Someone more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on a timeframe.

Taught? Or held a personal opinion? Or …

please provide references…

.

 

[ralphinal]

I found one by Origen, but though he did contribute to the understanding of the faith, he was also a heretic and we should look carefully at everything he said.

I found some stuff by Turtullian, same issue.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Origen based it on Romans 3:23 – taking from that the idea that if Mary wasn’t a sinner why would she need a Savior. He did, however, believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin (his view is somewhat akin to the Orthodox view today).

Tertullian simply thought Mary bore children (essentially the same argument that exists today pertaining to the references to the siblings of Jesus in scripture).

Both men were eventually declared heretics (but on different grounds). Tertullian became a Montanist; and Origen had various un-orthodox theories (I can’t remember which one was it that finally had him declared a heretic). I know Origen was a universalist (or at least believed in hypothetical universalism), he also believed in the preexistence of souls, and he may have toyed with the idea of reincarnation (although I think most commentators aren’t sure about this). However, it Origen was declared a heretic at the Fifth Ecumenical Council; the validity of which is disputed (it was convened by the Emperor Justinian over the objections of the then Pope). It was Justinian who actually chose the idea of eternal damnation over other ideas (like a competing theory of the need for purification of souls through multiple incarnations). I personally doubt Origen actually believed in reincarnation (from what I’ve read), but the point is still debated.

These guys lived around the same time of Irenaeus who was the author of Mariology (or at least he was the first one to develop a thorough Mariology).

 

[ralphinal]

Origen based it on Romans 3:23 – taking from that the idea that if Mary wasn’t a sinner why would she need a Savior. He did, however, believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin (his view is somewhat akin to the Orthodox view today).

Tertullian simply thought Mary bore children (essentially the same argument that exists today pertaining to the references to the siblings of Jesus in scripture).

Correct on both. However, it should be pointed out that using two heretics to make a claim about what the Early Church Fathers and apostolic Fathers taught is dangerous ground.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Correct on both. However, it should be pointed out that using two heretics to make a claim about what the Early Church Fathers and apostolic Fathers taught is dangerous ground.

Understood. However, as I said it’s less clear whether Origen was actually a heretic (it seems that he is still viewed as a church father by the church itself & I think the majority opinion is the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which declared him a heretic, was invalid because it was convened by the Emperor Justinian over the objections of the Pope).

Again – the view of Origen is essentially in line with the Eastern Orthodox view (that Mary was born with original sin – but never actually sinned). With regard to Tertullian – definitely a heretic

With regard to what the Apostolic Fathers taught – I’m not sure Irenaeus ever necessarily asserted he learned about Mary from Polycarp (who is the Apostolic Father he studied under for at least a short period).

 

[TriuneUnity]

I found one by Origen, but though he did contribute to the understanding of the faith, he was also a heretic and we should look carefully at everything he said.

I found some stuff by Turtullian, same issue.

St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom both identify instances in Scripture when she sinned.

 

[sola_scriptura]

On a separate note – Irenaeus, in his work “Against Heresies” (Chap. XIX) writes about the virgin Mary – drawing a typology between her and Eve.

This is the only where he discusses Mary in depth (as a stand alone topic) & he never asserts his theory was drawn from Polycarp.

The assumption is made that since Irenaeus was from Polycarps hometown (before moving to Europe) and studied under Polycarp at one time – that his views were shared by Polycarp. However, Irenaeus’ Mariology was IMO more likely his own innovation (perhaps based on different rumors within the early Christian community regarding Mary & some other writings that were floating around, like the Protoevangelium of James, which has been found to be unreliable since the veracity of its authorship has been debunked, as has the Nativity of Mary, which forms the basis for the Orthodox view of Mary).

Moreover, his comparison between Mary and Eve is based on the assumption that Eve was herself a virgin before the fall – whereas in Genesis God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” precedes the fall (making Eve’s pre-fall virginity a dubious assertion).

Not that this debunks Irenaeus’ parallel completely. Certainly Eve disobeyed at the behest of an angel while Mary obeyed at the behest of an angel. Moreover, they have womanhood in common. However, while the typology is itself fine – I think Irenaeus overreached & went beyond what any Apostolic Father actually taught (at least from what I can tell by reading the many epistles of the Apostolic Fathers – Ignatius, Polycarp, & Clement of Rome). Moreover, it was also Ignatius who coined the concept of Apostolic Succession (citing the need for a strong central governing body ruled through an episcopal succession).

 

[ralphinal]

St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom both identify instances in Scripture when she sinned.

What were they?

 

[ralphinal]

Understood. However, as I said it’s less clear whether Origen was actually a heretic (it seems that he is still viewed as a church father by the church itself & I think the majority opinion is the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which declared him a heretic, was invalid because it was convened by the Emperor Justinian over the objections of the Pope).

Again – the view of Origen is essentially in line with the Eastern Orthodox view (that Mary was born with original sin – but never actually sinned). With regard to Tertullian – definitely a heretic

With regard to what the Apostolic Fathers taught – I’m not sure Irenaeus ever necessarily asserted he learned about Mary from Polycarp (who is the Apostolic Father he studied under for at least a short period).

Origen is classified as an early Chrstian writer. Things he wrote that are acceptable are of use to us. Those that were heretical did not alter his views on the other. His biggest single heresy was teaching that at some point, everyone is released from hell and allowed into heaven.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What were they?

St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the sin of doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of the sin of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).

 

[ralphinal]

St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the sin of doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of the sin of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).

Oh. I thought you meant that they actually saw her sin in scripture, not an interpretation.

The sword has always been seen as the loss of her perfect child. It makes human and spiritual sense.

I am not sure about ambition. I will need to re-read that. I have never taken it that way.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Merit
Rome: Condign (intrinsically worthy) merit is wrought within sinners by the Spirit and congruent merit is imputed graciously to sinners in view of their best efforts.

Faith
Rome: A measure of sanctity, one of three virtues (the others being hope and love) created within the righteous. With hope and love it is gradually infused into the soul and exists partially in this life as the sinner cooperates with grace.

Mary
Rome: Was redeemed at her sinless (immaculate) conception, was without sin and was assumed bodily, without death, into heaven where she reigns as queen of heaven, a recipient of prayer and adoration, interceding on behalf of believers.

Couple questions and a comment.

On merit, from where did you draw this congruent and condign language. I do not know what intrinsically worthy merit meant by reading that sentence.

On faith, I’m curious where you read about the part of faith being gradually infused into the soul.

On Mary, I want to clarify that Mary is not the recipient of “adoration” in the sense God is. That term and concept is reserved for the Divine alone. Perhaps you meant it that way.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Couple questions and a comment.

On merit, from where did you draw this congruent and condign language. I do not know what intrinsically worthy merit meant by reading that sentence.

The language comes from the middle ages and was confirmed by Rome in the Tridentine canons. Congruent Merit–a reward is fitting but not obligatory. Condign Merit–when by God’s grace we are able to do good works which please God and, only since He has promised to do so, must be rewarded. That is, God is obligated to reward it.

On faith, I’m curious where you read about the part of faith being gradually infused into the soul.

CCC 153

CCC 1972

On Mary, I want to clarify that Mary is not the recipient of “adoration” in the sense God is. That term and concept is reserved for the Divine alone. Perhaps you meant it that way.

I realize the Catholic distinctions. I didn’t expand on the distinctions that Rome makes.

 

[MarcoPolo]

CCC 153

CCC 1972

Thanks. Could you give me a citation or link to the pertinent Tridentine canon regarding “condign” and “congruent” merit?

And I didn’t see in either of those Catechism paragraphs the part about “faith being gradually infused into the soul” or being partially existent in this life.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

“On Mary, I want to clarify that Mary is not the recipient of “adoration” in the sense God is. That term and concept is reserved for the Divine alone. Perhaps you meant it that way.”

I realize the Catholic distinctions. I didn’t expand on the distinctions that Rome makes.

But the statement is misleading. The term honor would be more precise.

 

[Peter_J]

Again – the view of Origen is essentially in line with the Eastern Orthodox view (that Mary was born with original sin – but never actually sinned). With regard to Tertullian – definitely a heretic

I have to take issue with this for two reasons: first it seems that in Orthodoxy (like in early church) there is some diversity of opinion on this issue; second, I don’t think the statement “Mary was born with original sin” even fits with the Orthodox view of original sin.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I have to take issue with this for two reasons: first it seems that in Orthodoxy (like in early church) there is some diversity of opinion on this issue; second, I don’t think the statement “Mary was born with original sin” even fits with the Orthodox view of original sin.

Honestly Peter J. I’m not Orthodox – so obviously I cannot know what the popular opinions (or the diversity of views) are within the EOC. I just took my information from internet sources (albeit good sources). Such sources can only provide me a cursory statement regarding the official position of the EOC and the majority view. I do know the EOC tends to be more open on these questions – which I think is a good thing.

Officially, the EOC has not adopted the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (this is a fact). Their view is that Mary was not born perfect – however, they also do not think she ever sinned either. Beyond that I’ve never taken a survey of the thoughts of EOC Christians. Frankly, there is a diversity of views even among Roman Catholics regarding Mary – so it wouldn’t surprise me to think the same diversity exists within the EOC.

The fact is the majority of American Catholics these days disagree with Rome on a whole host of issues. The fraction of Catholics who do – will say they are misguided (at least I would imagine). Frankly, this isn’t really my lane as we would say in the Army – since I’m not Catholic?