S
sandusky
Guest
Quibble, quibble, quibble.
- Status
M
Metaron
Guest
Quibble yourself. He just deflated your arguement.Quibble, quibble, quibble.
S
sandusky
Guest
Why? Because he doesn’t approve of the sources?
Those are fine sources, Ott has written the definitive book on Fundamental Catholic dogma, and Catholics lovingly quote Kelly.
Get a life; grow up.
M
Metaron
Guest
That wasn’t his whole rebuttal. You’re oversimplifying…
A proud faith is just as much a contradiction as a humble devil.Get a life; grow up.
M
mgrfin
Guest
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
hmmmm, no Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception? This little gem must have slipped past your “resources”
St Andrew of Crete
Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother
“Today, O Saviour you have given to pious Anne fruitful offspring of her womb, Your Immaculate mother
O Virgin undefiled, undefiled is your birth.”
The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 3 pg.326
Seems kind of explicit to me. Try again.
M
mgrfin
Guest
That is an over-step of Forum Rules. Mutual respect is expected.Get a life; grow up.
M
Metaron
Guest
Many of the Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr, saw Mary as the cause of salvation, at least in a sense that she gave birth to the Savior: the source of life because she is Mother of Life by cause of giving birth to Christ, her Saviour and ours.
Also, the adjective “holy” is prefixed to “Virgin.” Hippolytus, who was Greek in origin, mentality and language, states,
We also have St. Ephraem’s witness which is more striking. He insisted that the Cherubim are not her equal in holiness, the Seraphim must yield to her loveliness, and the legions of angels are inferior to her purity (Hymni de beata Maria, 13, nn. 5-6). He also praised Mary saying:
But, alas, individual Fathers have no authority of their own. A view only carries wieght in light of the opinions of all the Fathers of Patristics as a whole. Good luck with your studies, Sandusky!
Also, the adjective “holy” is prefixed to “Virgin.” Hippolytus, who was Greek in origin, mentality and language, states,
The words “holy” and “Virgin” were synonyms in Eastern thought. They thought of Mary as chaste, pure, and holy because of her virginity and mostly, her fiat (her “Yes” to God). As Eastern theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky said:
The dogma of I.C. developed more after the Council of Nicaea. We have St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century saying,
Athanasius also believed that Mary is a model of perfection. He states,
We also have the Greek Epiphanius and Ephraem in the Syriac speaking Church that lend us fresh insight into Mary’s sanctity. St. Epiphanius speaks of Mary’s womb as prepared for God as a temple and dwelling-place for the Lord’s Incarnation (Panarion, Haer). She was also “graced in every way”. He also calls her the holy vessel in which the Lord was carried:
However, Epiphanius had to be careful of his language. He did not want to put further emphasis on her holiness since there was the heresy of the Collyridians who actually worshipped Mary as a goddess, which the Church outright condemned. Anymore emphasis by Epiphanius might make it imply as if he was condoning the Collyridians. But he was clear that Mary still ought to be honored, but not adored.
We also have St. Ephraem’s witness which is more striking. He insisted that the Cherubim are not her equal in holiness, the Seraphim must yield to her loveliness, and the legions of angels are inferior to her purity (Hymni de beata Maria, 13, nn. 5-6). He also praised Mary saying:
The stain is sin, and stainlessness is sinlessness; and so the text excludes from the Mother of God and from her Son all taint of sin, whatever it may be – consequently, even original sin.
But, alas, individual Fathers have no authority of their own. A view only carries wieght in light of the opinions of all the Fathers of Patristics as a whole. Good luck with your studies, Sandusky!
S
sandusky
Guest
All Popes are infallible; isn’t that correct?
Walter Burghardt, a Catholic, in the book by Catholic Juniper B. Carol, ed., Mariology (Milwaukee, Wis.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1955), 1:146, says that Leo I, the bishop of Rome from 440 to 461, rejected the idea that anyone, with the exception of Christ, was sinless. Leo says, “Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.” Uh Oh! A conflict between two infallibles.
Historian Philip Schaff states that seven different Popes taught doctrine that was contrary to what was defined as “Christian dogma” in the nineteenth century: Leo I, Gregory I, Innocent III, Gelasius I, Innocent V, John XXII, Clement VI (d. 1352). Creeds of Christendom 1:123.
S
sandusky
Guest
He has no rebuttal; you can’t fight history which shows that many of the ECFs taught that Mary was a sinner!
You might not like that, but you are foolish to deny it.
As far as the quotes from Ott, take it up with his publishers.
S
sandusky
Guest
That’s Ott’s quote; kinda makes you wonder what other errors he may be teaching.
S
sandusky
Guest
That’s all tradition.Many of the Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr, saw Mary as the cause of salvation, at least in a sense that she gave birth to the Savior: the source of life because she is Mother of Life by cause of giving birth to Christ, her Saviour and ours.
Also, the adjective “holy” is prefixed to “Virgin.” Hippolytus, who was Greek in origin, mentality and language, states,
The words “holy” and “Virgin” were synonyms in Eastern thought. They thought of Mary as chaste, pure, and holy because of her virginity and mostly, her fiat (her “Yes” to God). As Eastern theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky said:
The dogma of I.C. developed more after the Council of Nicaea. We have St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century saying,
Athanasius also believed that Mary is a model of perfection. He states,
We also have the Greek Epiphanius and Ephraem in the Syriac speaking Church that lend us fresh insight into Mary’s sanctity. St. Epiphanius speaks of Mary’s womb as prepared for God as a temple and dwelling-place for the Lord’s Incarnation (Panarion, Haer). She was also “graced in every way”. He also calls her the holy vessel in which the Lord was carried:
However, Epiphanius had to be careful of his language. He did not want to put further emphasis on her holiness since there was the heresy of the Collyridians who actually worshipped Mary as a goddess, which the Church outright condemned. Anymore emphasis by Epiphanius might make it imply as if he was condoning the Collyridians. But he was clear that Mary still ought to be honored, but not adored.
We also have St. Ephraem’s witness which is more striking. He insisted that the Cherubim are not her equal in holiness, the Seraphim must yield to her loveliness, and the legions of angels are inferior to her purity (Hymni de beata Maria, 13, nn. 5-6). He also praised Mary saying:
The stain is sin, and stainlessness is sinlessness; and so the text excludes from the Mother of God and from her Son all taint of sin, whatever it may be – consequently, even original sin.
But, alas, individual Fathers have no authority of their own. A view only carries wieght in light of the opinions of all the Fathers of Patristics as a whole. Good luck with your studies, Sandusky!
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Tradition that is part of the Word of God.That’s all tradition.
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, not all popes are infallible. As a matter of fact, no pope is infallible. Popes speak infallibly extremely rarely.
Unless, he is speaking ‘ex cathedra’, that he intends to define a dogma as a matter of faith, and that it is a matter of faith and morals.
Don’t get overly excited. There are only a handful of infallible statements on the part of popes in a 2000 years.
Noone seems to mention this about Leo I. That is St. Leo. He is more important that Origen, and established the power of the Papacy. Maybe you have found something on us? I doubt it. This is 2007. For what it is worth, Schaff is a Protestant historian.
I don’t have that Mariology book. If it says what you say, without limit, it wouldn’t have received an ‘imprimatur’.
Would have heard something before this. I will look into it
Someone may have a response.
M
Metaron
Guest
Way to retreat, Sandusky. You were saying that the Church Fathers didn’t support the I.C. I gave you even more quotes.That’s all tradition.
You dismissed them by saying, “That’s all tradition.”
Well, that sounds like you’ve given up to me.
“A proud faith is as much a contradition as a humble devil.”
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
Out of ideas?That’s all tradition.
M
Metaron
Guest
Nope. Actually, Popes are only infallible when speaking* Ex Cathedra*, intending to define a dogma for the practice of the entire faithful. Expressing his own personal opinion is completely fallible. So there y’have it, buddy. :coffeeread:
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, the whole dogma combines Scripture and Tradition, a pretty heavy arsenal of truth.That’s all tradition.
What have you got? Fallible men interpreting scripture to fit their agenda?
peace
S
sandusky
Guest
You’re amusing, and you’re misrepresenting, and twisting what I’ve said (that’s seems to be typical Catholic behavior on this forum).
I’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was a sinner, and you’ve provided names and quotes from Fathers who taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and sinless; I’ve denied neither side—it’s history, and points out the evolution of the doctrine of the IC, as the Catholic Juniper Carol states:”Theologically, we must face up to an evolution,…From the extant philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the patristic West.”
Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 147.IMHO, you who arguing against this are deliberately trying to deceive.
The Father’s that I’ve offered, taught that Mary did sin, and they taught that on the basis of the testimony of God in scripture concerning the fallen state of all people—except for Christ.
Those that you’ve offered are “teaching” (I wouldn’t call that), from their own pious imaginings.
My case is what it is; the earliest of the Fathers adhered to the testimony, and did not except Mary from the sinfulness of all humanity; your case relies on what I consider to be, flights of fancy from later Fathers.Well, that sounds like you’ve given up to me.
The farther one gets from the church in the time of the apostles, the “flightier” the fancies become, IMHO.
- Status