Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[patricius79]

]

Notice that both exegesis and eisogesis are Scriptural, because both are examinations of biblical passages. Moreover, from the Catholic standpoint, an eisogetical conclusion that conveys a teaching which is expressed in Sacred Tradition can be a valid one. Therefore, going back to my above example from Luke 1:27, even though seeing this passage as teaching the Immaculate Conception is not an example of exegesis, it is still a valid interpretation (as far as Catholics are concerned) due to the fact that it is eisogesis grounded in a defined doctrine. Eisogesis is subjective, but doctrine is not.

Now, going back to your above quote from St. Basil…
St. Basil can speak of Trinitarian theology being found in Scripture because it is. He appeals to what is clearly found in an exegetical examination of certain texts and an eisogetical examination of other texts (which is grounded in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as defined in ecumenical councils). So his statement does not convey that he was speaking in terms of only exegesis.

However, the question at hand is whether or not an adherent of Sola Scriptura is awarded the same luxury that St. Basil is in saying that a doctrine is scriptural. I say that an adherent is not, but I will elaborate on that further in a bit.

(Continued in my next post)

I got into a somewhat similar debate where various fathers were being claimed as “Sola Scriptura” adherents

yet nobody wanted to name a single one of them as being close to their own interpretations of Scripture

 

[mackbrislawn]

A book may be as good as my understanding of it, but my lack of understanding does not make the Scriptures insufficient.

I believe the Church has the authority to interpret Scriptures, but here’s the rub: I don’t think she’s infallible. Parker

Uh, what good then is the sufficiency of Scripture if you lack understanding?

And to what purpose is the Church’s authority to interpret Scripture if she is not infallible?

Shouldn’t 2 Peter 3:16 be taken very seriously? That verse seems to be understandable enough.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Is papal infallibility something Paul taught to the Corinthians and Thessalonians?
Is Mary’s bodily assumption something he taught them?

Actually, these are not valid questions, clever, but not valid.

First, Mary was most likely still alive when Paul was teaching the Corinthians and Thessalonians. So how could he teach them about her bodily assumption?

Second, infallibility, papal or otherwise, simpy was not an issue at that time. So Paul could not possibly have addressed it. Sure, for us, looking back, we believe that Paul himself was infallible when he taught, as was Peter, John, Matthew, and all the other apostles. The apostles in their office as apostles, we accept now to have been infallible.

But in the very beginning it was merely their verbal ability to convince that made them believable, and to have their doctrines accepted. (Plus any miracles they happened to do!) The early believers themselves didn’t necessarily view Paul as infallible, as indicated how the Galatians so soon fell prey to other teachers. And how Judaizers from James came from Jerusalem to teach another gospel. How were the people to know?

That is why the council of Jerusalem was convened, to settle the various issues brought up. Each individual bishop by himself was fallible, but collegially, as a body, the bishops were infallible, that is, the Holy Spirit prevented them from arriving at the wrong conclusion. There was discussion, but when Peter stood up, the discussion ceased. After that, James, as the local bishop, added his statements as a matter of pastoral implementation.

Note that James, even though bishop of Jerusalem, and a relative of Jesus (brother, step-brother, or cousin), was not infallible. He disagreed with Paul, but nevertheless accepted the decision of the council of bishops as led by Peter.

 

[Algo1]

(Continued…)

Any inability they have to give valid commentary on Christian history & doctrine is not the point. The point is that the fact that they have always taught that Mary is sinless shows that such a belief is historical and widespread.

Exactly where does Muhammad claim that Mary was “Born without the stain of original sin”?

It does not matter that the Old Catholics do not specifically identify the Immaculate Conception as a defined doctrine or dogma. The point is that they have historically believed it to be true, and the wiki quote you provided specifically points out that they do not believe that Pope Pius IX had the ability to make infallible statements of this nature. Hence, the Old Catholics would not have embraced belief in the Immaculate Conception if they thought it was a papal fabrication.

I think it is worth pointing out that Islam teaches that Mary was not a prophet, and yet she was still awarded this same special grace from God that Islam states is provided the prophets. Nevertheless, this does not refute the fact that Muslims have historically taught that Mary was sinless.

As I stated earlier, any inability Islam has to give accurate and valid representations of Christian teaching is not the point. The fact that the sinless nature of Mary has been taught by the Muslims demonstrates that the basic core of the belief expressed in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cannot be held as a papal fabrication.

To be more specific, public revelation was concluded at the end of the Apostolic age. According to Ineffabilis Deus, the belief that God completely preserved Mary from sin has been passed down since the Apostolic age, so there is no problem with saying that it is part of God’s revelation, even if it was not officially defined as doctrine until Ineffabilis Deus. So what exactly is your criticism here? Throughout your posts you seem to be fixating on whether or not a certain group of people thought that the sinless nature of Mary was “revelation” or “official teaching.” What does that matter? The point is that they believed it to be true, and that they believed it apart from Catholic teaching and long before the writing of Ineffabilis Deus.

Well then, lets see what some of the Early “Christian” writers wrote:

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. **For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. ** ANF: Vol. III, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41.
**Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One ** [Sciebat Dominus se solum sine delicto esse. De Oratione, Caput VII, PL 1:1162], and so He teaches that we beg “to have our debts remitted us.” A petition for pardon is a full confession; because he who begs for pardon fully admits his guilt. ANF: Vol. III, On Prayer, Chapter 7.

** Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): ** When thou hast blessed the Lord out of Scripture according to thy power, and hast sent up thy praise to Him, then begin to humble thyself and say, ‘I am not worthy, O Lord, to speak before Thee, because I am a sinner.’ Even though thou knowest nothing evil of thyself, thou must speak so; for none is without sin, but God only. For translation, see Richard Travers Smith, The Fathers for English Readers: St. Basil the Great (New York: Poit, Young and Company, 1879), pp. 145-146.
Greek Text: Ὅταν δὲ δοξολογήσῃς ἀπὸ τῶν Γραφῶν, ὡς δύνασαι, καὶ ἀναπέμψῃς αἶνον πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, τότε ἄρχου μετὰ ταπεινοφρόσύνης, καὶ λέγε. Ἐγὼ μὲν, Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἐπὶ σοῦ φθέγξασθαι, διότι σφόδρα ἁμαρτωλὸς τυγχάνω. Κὰν μὴ σύνοιδάς τι σεαυτῷ φαῦλον, οὕτω χρὴ σε λέγειν. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀναμάρτητος εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός. Constitutiones Monasticae, Caput I. §3. PG 31:1329.

Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Luke 1:35: For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59.
Latin Text: Sed immaculatum semen inviolabili utero Spiritus sanctus infudit: solus enim per omnia ex natis de femina sanctus Dominus Jesus, qui terrenae contagia corruptelae immaculati partus novitate non senserit, et coelesti majestate depulerit. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A.
** Ambrose (c. 339-97): ** No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen. For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258.
Latin Text: Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873.
**Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” ** And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §134.

Augustine (354-430): We have, my dearest Marcellinus, discussed at sufficient length, I think, in the former book the baptism of infants, — how that it is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Savior Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. I undertake in the present book to discuss and explain the question, Whether there lives in this world, or has yet lived, or ever will live, any one without any sin whatever, except “the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all;” — with as much care and ability as He may Himself vouchsafe to me. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 1.

Augustine (354-430): commenting on Psalm 87 (Actually the LXX rendering of Psalm 88:4-5): In these words the person of the Lord appears most plainly: for who else is free among the dead, if not he who, though living in the likeness of sinful flesh, ** was alone sinless among sinners? ** John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 18, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 73-98, Psalm 87.5 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 260.
Latin Text: In his verbis maxime persona Domini apparet. Quis enim alius inter mortuos liber, nisi in similitudine carnis peccati inter peccatores solus sine peccato? In Psalmum LXXXVII Enarratio, §5, PL 37:1111.

Augustine (354-430): This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.
Augustine (354-430): Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.”196 For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,”197 even ** He who alone is without sin,** and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,”198 in friendship with sins. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV].

Augustine (354-430): Did you not read there that, when the bishop I just mentioned * was teaching the birth of Christ from his virgin mother, he said, “And so he was tempted in every way like a human being and endured all things like human beings, but as born of the Spirit he held back from sin. After all, every human being is a liar (Ps 116:11), and no one is without sin but the one God. The principle, then, was preserved that no one born of a man and woman, that is, through the union of bodies, is seen to be immune from transgression. But the one who is immune from transgression is also immune from that manner of conception.”* John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

**Augustine (354-430 AD): Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin apart from the flesh of the one who came without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh. He says that the one who cried out, I was conceived in iniquities (Ps 51:7), “was born from a sinful origin and under the law of sin.
** Saint Ambrose says that “the little ones who have been baptized are changed from their wickedness back to the original state of their nature.” ** He says that “by reason of his immaculate birth the Holy Lord Jesus alone of those born of a woman experienced no infection from earthly corruption. ** He says that we all die in Adam, because through one man sin entered the world (Rom 5:12) and his sin is the death of all. He says that in his wound “the whole human race would have died, if that Samaritan had not come down and healed his grave wounds.” He says that Adam existed and all existed in him, that Adam perished and all perished in him. He says that we are stained with infection before we were born and that a human being is not conceived free of iniquity, because, as he says, we are “conceived in the sin of our parents and we are born in their transgressions. Birth itself has its own infections, and nature itself does not have only one infection.” He says that the devil is a money lender to whom sinful Eve “put the whole human race in debt with succeeding generations subject to usury.” He says that Eve was deceived by the devil “in order to trip up her husband and place their descendants in debt.” He says that Adam was so wounded by the bite of the serpent “that we all limp because of that wound.” **He says that through the union of the bodies of the man and the woman no one is immune from transgression, but that “the one who is immune from transgression,” that is, Christ the Lord, “is also immune from that manner of conception.” ** See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 290-291.

Augustine (354-430 AD): ** Say to this man , if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. ** He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception. See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306.

*Augustine (354-430 AD): ** Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he * says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Ssaint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 272 and 290.

Augustine (354-430 AD): See, here is Ambrose; see what he says about what you are attacking. He says, “He could not alone be righteous, since the whole human race went astray, if it were not that, because he was born of a virgin, he was not held by the law of the guilty race.” Listen further; listen and stop the impudent tongue of your effrontery by shedding tears: “For intercourse with a man did not open the gates of the Virgin’s womb; rather, the Holy Spirit poured spotless seed into that inviolable womb. For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91. See also this approval of Ambrose cited again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272 and 290.
continued:

 

[Algo1]

continued:

**Augustine (354-430 AD) in answer to the charge of Julian that he had handed over Mary herself by the condition of her being born, said: ** We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her birth, **but we do not do this precisely because that condition is removed by the grace of rebirth. ** John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book 4:122, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 487.

Augustine (354-430): In a similar way we can speak of our Lord’s “sin,” meaning what sin brought about, because he assumed his flesh from that very stock that by sin had deserved death. ** To put it briefly: Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of sin, and the Lord’s flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins.** Works of Saint Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Expositions of the Psalms 33-50, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), Exposition 2 of Psalm 34 (35), p. 62.
Latin Text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335.
Latin Text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria [Note: **[Col. 0335]

Ita Lov. et maxima pars Mss. At Er., Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, etc. Duo Mss. Vatic. et Colb., Maria ex Adam, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, etc. Flor., denique, Maria ex Adam primo, Adam secundus ortus ex Maria propter delenda peccata.] ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335.

Augustine (354-430): Therefore it is true that in the sight of God “shall no man living be justified,” and yet that “the just shall live by his faith.” On the one hand, “the saints are clothed with righteousness,” one more, another less; **on the other hand, no one lives here wholly without sin—one sins more, another less, and the best is the man who sins least. ** NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustin, Letter 167 - To Jerome, Chapter 3, §13.

Augustine (354-430): For, if no soul is propagated from another, while all souls are enclosed in flesh descended from sinful flesh, how much less credible is it that His soul could have come by propagation from a sinful woman, whereas his flesh came from a virgin and was not conceived in lust, that He might be ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ not in sinful flesh! See FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 190, to Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 287.

Augustine (354-430): ** In the advice and admonition he gives that I rather apply my effort to stamping out this deadly heresy from the Churches, he refers to that same Pelagian heresy which I urge you, my brother, with all my strength, to avoid with the utmost care, whenever you either think or argue about the origin of souls, ** so that the belief may not steal upon you that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth. FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 420.
Latin Text: Quod vero admonet et hortatur, ut magis demus operam, ut perniciosissima haeresis de Ecclesiis auferatur; illam ipsam Pelagianam haeresim dicit, quam cautissime ut devites, quantum possum, frater, admoneo, cum de animarum origine sive cogitas, sive jam disputas; ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum. Epistola CCII, Caput VIII, §20, PL 33:937-38.
one more:

 

[Algo1]

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532): For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, was the flesh of sin which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin… For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181.
Latin Text: Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. Epistola XVII, Cap. VI, §13, PL 65:458.

John of Damascus (652-750): But God made him by nature sinless, and endowed him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone) but that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of his nature165 ; that is to say, he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, and likewise to turn from good and take to wickedness, for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him. NPNF2: Vol. IX, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12.

Now I ask again was Pope Pius IX appealing to “Anglicans, Muslims or African Myth-Writers” when he declared the following?

"And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner –this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus – that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning."

Ineffabilis Deus

 

[SyCarl]

Exactly where does Muhammad claim that Mary was “Born without the stain of original sin”?

Well then, lets see what some of the Early “Christian” writers wrote:

A quote from a later doctor of the church on the Immaculate Conception may also be given. St. Bernard of Clairvaux believed Mary was born without sin but that she was not free from sin from conception. He also makes a comment about the church fathers on the matter.

Wherefore I cannot but wonder that there should have been among you at this time some who wished to sully this splendid fame of your Church by introducing a new Festival, a rite which the Church knows nothing of, and which reason does not prove, nor ancient tradition hand down to us. Have we the pretension to be more learned or more devoted than the Fathers? It is a dangerous presumption to establish in such a matter what their prudence left unestablished. And the matter in question is of such a nature that it could not possibly have escaped the diligence of the Fathers if they had not thought that they ought not to occupy themselves with it….For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it….If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception….Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity.

LETTER LXV (circa A.D. 1140),To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary.
ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html?highlight=mary#highlight

 

[paul_c]

Algo,
This proves nothing. None of these quotes are directly concerning the immaculate conception. They are on other topics that you are improperly extending to address your view of the immaculate conception. If you actually find a quote that says that Mary was not immaculately conceived, it will only serve to prove that the author of that quote was in error. The belief that Mary was immaculately conceived has survived in the collective memory of the church. You are disconnected from that. so be it. But you will not be able to disprove the dogma…

 

[EricFilmer]

Exactly where does Muhammad claim that Mary was “Born without the stain of original sin”?

You are committing a straw man fallacy. I never said that Muhammad claimed that Mary was “born without the stain of original sin.” As a matter-of-fact, I clearly stated that people of other churches and religions do not accept the Catholic notion of Original Sin. But that’s not what is being examined in this discussion.

In terms of where the basic concept of the Immaculate Conception is taught in Islam, I will remind you of some material that you, yourself, posted:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7844543&postcount=217

At this point I feel compelled to make sure our discussion stays on focus. So I will present one more time a statement I made in Post #252:

"…in the interest of clarity and focus, I will present a reiteration of the elements specific to our discussion:

Your premise seems to be that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in Ineffabilis Deus, is a papal fabrication. If this statement does not accurately represent your position then naturally I invite you to make a correction. As for me…

My stance is that the teachings of Ineffabilis Deus cannot be a papal fabrication because it stemmed from widespread beliefs which existed prior to it being written in 1854. To demonstrate this, I have pointed out that there are non-Catholic Churches, denominations and even a religion (Islam) that have historically taught the core belief that Mary, through a special action of God, was sinless. Even if these groups do not express this belief with all the nuances of Catholicism (as we see outlined in Ineffabilis Deus) the core belief is embraced. This proves that belief in the sinless nature of Mary was (a) historical, (b) widespread, and (c) not confined to Catholics. Simply put, based on this the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not a papal fabrication."

I have more than sufficiently proven my case in this thread through credible documentation.

Well then, lets see what some of the Early “Christian” writers wrote…

First of all, the ECFs are speaking in general terms. Obviously there are exceptions to the statements that “all have sinned.” Babies don’t commit sin, and neither do people with mental handicaps that prevent them from knowing right from wrong.

Secondly, what exactly is this string of ECF quotes supposed to accomplish? How do they refute what I said in the above blue text? These quotes you presented do not refute the FACT that the Immaculate Conception was believed and expressed in the liturgies of many different people CENTURIES BEFORE Ineffabilis Deus. Therefore, it was a complete waste of your time to dig up these quotes and post them, and it was a waste of my time to read through them initially expecting them to be a rebuttal to my stance (which, once again, is outlined in the above blue text).

Thirdly, for a detailed examination of the concept of the Immaculate Conception within the writings of the ECFs (as well as others, including the Protestant Reformers), consult the following: philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

Now I ask again was Pope Pius IX appealing to “Anglicans, Muslims or African Myth-Writers” when he declared the following?

Ineffabilis Deus

In the document of Ineffabilis Deus itself, Pope Pius IX explicitly details exactly what he was appealing to.

I, on the other hand, was the one appealing to Anglicans, Muslims, Africans, and Orthodox (you keep forgetting about them) in order to make my case. My case is what appears above in the blue text, and you haven’t even come close to launching a reasoned refutation of it, let alone even a remotely successful one.

I wish you would stay focused in this undertaking and try to refute the argument that I am actually making.

It would save us both a whole lot of time!

 

[Philthy]

Your premise seems to be that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in Ineffabilis Deus, is a papal fabrication. If this statement does not accurately represent your position then naturally I invite you to make a correction. As for me…

My stance is that the teachings of Ineffabilis Deus cannot be a papal fabrication because it stemmed from widespread beliefs which existed prior to it being written in 1854. To demonstrate this, I have pointed out that there are non-Catholic Churches, denominations and even a religion (Islam) that have historically taught the core belief that Mary, through a special action of God, was sinless. Even if these groups do not express this belief with all the nuances of Catholicism (as we see outlined in Ineffabilis Deus) the core belief is embraced. This proves that belief in the sinless nature of Mary was (a) historical, (b) widespread, and (c) not confined to Catholics. Simply put, based on this the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not a papal fabrication."

I have more than sufficiently proven my case in this thread through credible documentation.
…
I, on the other hand, was the one appealing to Anglicans, Muslims, Africans, and Orthodox (you keep forgetting about them) in order to make my case. My case is what appears above in the blue text, and you haven’t even come close to launching a reasoned refutation of it, let alone even a remotely successful one. I wish you would stay focused in this undertaking and try to refute the argument that I am actually making. It would save us both a whole lot of time.

Well done Eric!

 

[EricFilmer]

Well done Eric!

Thanks Philthy. I must admit that I am starting to find this discussion with Algo very frustrating. I have repeatedly tried to get Algo to focus on attempting to refute my actual stance rather than turn this thread into what could be the longest and most elaborate Straw Man fallacy ever conceived in CAF.

 

[SyCarl]

Algo,
This proves nothing. None of these quotes are directly concerning the immaculate conception. They are on other topics that you are improperly extending to address your view of the immaculate conception. If you actually find a quote that says that Mary was not immaculately conceived, it will only serve to prove that the author of that quote was in error. The belief that Mary was immaculately conceived has survived in the collective memory of the church. You are disconnected from that. so be it. But you will not be able to disprove the dogma…

To me at least, it is not a matter of proving the dogma wrong. It could be true, but the question is whether it was always believed and whether it is necessary to believe it. Sola Scriptura does not say that all truth is found in the Bible. It says that all necessary truth is there.

 

[paul_c]

To me at least, it is not a matter of proving the dogma wrong. It could be true, but the question is whether it was always believed and whether it is necessary to believe it. Sola Scriptura does not say that all truth is found in the Bible. It says that all necessary truth is there.

All necessary truth can be discerned perhaps from scripture, but scripture clearly doesn’t stand on its own. You still need infallible interpretation or else people can come to the wrong conclusions. The immaculate conception is alluded to when Mary is addressed by Gabriel as “Full of Grace”. However, if this wasn’t explained to you by someone who already knew this truth, you might simply gloss over it.

And lets face it, if you never heard of the immaculate conception of Mary, you would not be condemned for that lack of knowledge. But if the church points out the truth of it and you know this but you obstinately continue to insist that Mary was born in sin, then this is a sin of arrogance.in thinking you know better than the Church on things of the faith.

 

[Algo1]

You are committing a straw man fallacy. I never said that Muhammad claimed that Mary was “born without the stain of original sin.” As a matter-of-fact, I clearly stated that people of other churches and religions do not accept the Catholic notion of Original Sin. But that’s not what is being examined in this discussion.

In terms of where the basic concept of the Immaculate Conception is taught in Islam, I will remind you of some material that you, yourself, posted:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7844543&postcount=217

At this point I feel compelled to make sure our discussion stays on focus. So I will present one more time a statement I made in Post #252:

"…in the interest of clarity and focus, I will present a reiteration of the elements specific to our discussion:

Your premise seems to be that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in Ineffabilis Deus, is a papal fabrication. If this statement does not accurately represent your position then naturally I invite you to make a correction. As for me…

My stance is that the teachings of Ineffabilis Deus cannot be a papal fabrication because it stemmed from widespread beliefs which existed prior to it being written in 1854. To demonstrate this, I have pointed out that there are non-Catholic Churches, denominations and even a religion (Islam) that have historically taught the core belief that Mary, through a special action of God, was sinless. Even if these groups do not express this belief with all the nuances of Catholicism (as we see outlined in Ineffabilis Deus) the core belief is embraced. This proves that belief in the sinless nature of Mary was (a) historical, (b) widespread, and (c) not confined to Catholics. Simply put, based on this the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not a papal fabrication."

I have more than sufficiently proven my case in this thread through credible documentation.

First of all, the ECFs are speaking in general terms. Obviously there are exceptions to the statements that “all have sinned.” Babies don’t commit sin, and neither do people with mental handicaps that prevent them from knowing right from wrong.

Secondly, what exactly is this string of ECF quotes supposed to accomplish? How do they refute what I said in the above blue text? These quotes you presented do not refute the FACT that the Immaculate Conception was believed and expressed in the liturgies of many different people CENTURIES BEFORE Ineffabilis Deus. Therefore, it was a complete waste of your time to dig up these quotes and post them, and it was a waste of my time to read through them initially expecting them to be a rebuttal to my stance (which, once again, is outlined in the above blue text).

Thirdly, for a detailed examination of the concept of the Immaculate Conception within the writings of the ECFs (as well as others, including the Protestant Reformers), consult the following: philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

In the document of Ineffabilis Deus itself, Pope Pius IX explicitly details exactly what he was appealing to.

I, on the other hand, was the one appealing to Anglicans, Muslims, Africans, and Orthodox (you keep forgetting about them) in order to make my case. My case is what appears above in the blue text, and you haven’t even come close to launching a reasoned refutation of it, let alone even a remotely successful one.

I wish you would stay focused in this undertaking and try to refute the argument that I am actually making.

It would save us both a whole lot of time!

Eric, when I began interacting with you on this (post 186)
I stated:

I have already interacted on that topic here.
However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.

It is you that has not focused on my initial challenge:
"Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form."
As SyCarl has perceptively noted:

To me at least, it is not a matter of proving the dogma wrong. It could be true, but the question is whether it was always believed and whether it is necessary to believe it. Sola Scriptura does not say that all truth is found in the Bible. It says that all necessary truth is there.

Ineffabilis Deus states many less “modest” claims than you are arguing for.

 

[Algo1]

You are committing a straw man fallacy. I never said that Muhammad claimed that Mary was “born without the stain of original sin.” As a matter-of-fact, I clearly stated that people of other churches and religions do not accept the Catholic notion of Original Sin. But that’s not what is being examined in this discussion.

In terms of where the basic concept of the Immaculate Conception is taught in Islam, I will remind you of some material that you, yourself, posted:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7844543&postcount=217

At this point I feel compelled to make sure our discussion stays on focus. So I will present one more time a statement I made in Post #252:

"…in the interest of clarity and focus, I will present a reiteration of the elements specific to our discussion:

Your premise seems to be that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in Ineffabilis Deus, is a papal fabrication. If this statement does not accurately represent your position then naturally I invite you to make a correction. As for me…

My stance is that the teachings of Ineffabilis Deus cannot be a papal fabrication because it stemmed from widespread beliefs which existed prior to it being written in 1854. To demonstrate this, I have pointed out that there are non-Catholic Churches, denominations and even a religion (Islam) that have historically taught the core belief that Mary, through a special action of God, was sinless. Even if these groups do not express this belief with all the nuances of Catholicism (as we see outlined in Ineffabilis Deus) the core belief is embraced. This proves that belief in the sinless nature of Mary was (a) historical, (b) widespread, and (c) not confined to Catholics. Simply put, based on this the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not a papal fabrication."

I have more than sufficiently proven my case in this thread through credible documentation.

First of all, the ECFs are speaking in general terms. Obviously there are exceptions to the statements that “all have sinned.” Babies don’t commit sin, and neither do people with mental handicaps that prevent them from knowing right from wrong.

Secondly, what exactly is this string of ECF quotes supposed to accomplish? How do they refute what I said in the above blue text? These quotes you presented do not refute the FACT that the Immaculate Conception was believed and expressed in the liturgies of many different people CENTURIES BEFORE Ineffabilis Deus. Therefore, it was a complete waste of your time to dig up these quotes and post them, and it was a waste of my time to read through them initially expecting them to be a rebuttal to my stance (which, once again, is outlined in the above blue text).

Thirdly, for a detailed examination of the concept of the Immaculate Conception within the writings of the ECFs (as well as others, including the Protestant Reformers), consult the following: philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

In the document of Ineffabilis Deus itself, Pope Pius IX explicitly details exactly what he was appealing to.

I, on the other hand, was the one appealing to Anglicans, Muslims, Africans, and Orthodox (you keep forgetting about them) in order to make my case. My case is what appears above in the blue text, and you haven’t even come close to launching a reasoned refutation of it, let alone even a remotely successful one.

I wish you would stay focused in this undertaking and try to refute the argument that I am actually making.

It would save us both a whole lot of time!

Eric, when I began interacting with you on this (post 186)
I stated:

I have already interacted on that topic here.
However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.

It is you that has not focused on my initial challenge:
"Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form."
As SyCarl has perceptively noted:

To me at least, it is not a matter of proving the dogma wrong. It could be true, but the question is whether it was always believed and whether it is necessary to believe it. Sola Scriptura does not say that all truth is found in the Bible. It says that all necessary truth is there.

Ineffabilis Deus pronounces many “less modest” claims than you are arguing for.

 

[paul_c]

Eric, when I began interacting with you on this (post 186)
I stated:

It is you that has not focused on my initial challenge:
"Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form."
As SyCarl has perceptively noted:

Ineffabilis Deus states many less “modest” claims than you are arguing for.

Look, Algo,
you are consistently arguing on the margins, trying to find those exceptions, the odd quotes, etc, where church fathers seem to be out of step with the church. But what does this prove? Most of these quotes are taken out of context to begin with. Don’t you see the big picture? You have hundreds of church fathers with thousands of quotes each. Some filled libraries, and yet out of all that potential, you can find at most scraps of inconsistency. Isn’t that a strong message? A much stronger message than the bits of inconsistency you are able to pull out?

Compare that to advocates of sola scriptura. You can’t even get them to agree to what the term means, let alone speak consistently to doctrine over hundreds of years. There is simply no comparison between the man made concept of sola scriptura and the church Jesus founded. Hopefully some day you will understand this.

 

[EricFilmer]

Eric, when I began interacting with you on this (post 186)
I stated:
Algo1;7835696:

I have already interacted on that topic here.

However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.
It is you that has not focused on my initial challenge:
"Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form."

Not so fast, Algo!

I not only focused on your initial challenge, but I also refuted it a long time ago, and so far you have not attempted any defense against that particular rebuttal. More specifically, I refuted your interpretation of Ineffabilis Deus’ use of the term “constantly believed”, and I will elaborate more on that in a moment.

In terms of this thread, you brought up the Immaculate Conception in a response to paul c:

Then you should have no trouble finding an early writer that describes Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” in the way described by Ineffabilis Deus. In fact, since this was “constantly believed” by the Church:

…you should be able to find at least one early “christian” writer who describes it in this same way.

My comment was as follows, and I will continue with the exchange between us:

This likewise may be getting off-topic. But Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, certain groups within Anglicanism and even Muslims have historically taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in some form or fashion. For example, note what is listed within Wikipedia under “Other Churches.”

I have already interacted on that topic here.
However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.

In light of what has been shown so far, here is basically the challenge that you are setting forth:

1. Ineffabilis Deus appeals to Sacred Tradition.
2. This document also declares what it states as “constantly believed.”
3. If what Ineffabilis Deus says is true then we should see the various nuances of Ineffabilis Deus outlined in the writings of the Early Church (where evidence for Sacred Tradition can sometimes be found).
4. If evidence for all the nuances of Ineffabilis Deus is not found among the ECFs, it can be argued that it is a papal fabrication. After all, how did Pope Pius IX know that all these nuances of the doctrine were “constantly believed” if there is no historical documentation of them?

Is that a fair assessment of your end of this discussion?
If not, I have now twice invited you to correct the record if I am wrong in saying that your claim is that Ineffabilis Deus is a papal fabrication. So far you have not responded, so that tells me that this is, indeed, your stance.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Looking at your challenge (which I have just reiterated), I have critiqued your interpretation of the term “constantly believed” and the notion that every aspect of Ineffabilis Deus has to be shown as pre-existing Ineffabilis Deus in order to defend the integrity of this document:

Ok, here is the official form (i.e., the summary near the end of the document):
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

First of all, let me point out an error in your interpretation of this document. Contrary to what you seem to be saying in your critique, Ineffabilis Deus does not say that all the nuances of this definition have been “constantly believed” throughout the history of Christianity. The term is used in the future tense: “…to be believed and constantly”. In other words, this definition is to be held as doctrine forever more. But what the document does say is that the core belief of the sinless nature of Mary is something that has been historically believed.

And this, then, represents the next stage of our discussion. You were judging the validity of Ineffabilis Deus based upon an erroneous interpretation of what it says (concerning the “constantly believed” term). I, on the other hand, am defending Ineffabilis Deus on what it actually says.

Therefore:

1. Ineffabilis Deus does not actually say that all the nuances within the document have been constantly believed throughout Christian history. Therefore, there is no contradiction between what Ineffabilis Deus says and the lack of finding all the various nuances of the documentation in Early Church writings. Going back to your original comment made to paul c, one does not actually have to find “at least one early Christian writer who describes it in this same way” in order to defend the integrity of Ineffabilis Deus.
2. All doctrine comes from the apostolic age, but our understanding of doctrine can develop over time. It was true for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as I have also demonstrated in this thread) and it is true for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
3. In light of all that I have said, in order to demonstrate that Ineffabilis Deus is not a papal fabrication, all I have to do is give historical documentation that the core belief of Mary being sinless (through a special action of God’s grace) pre-existed the formulation of Ineffabilis Deus. Moreover, I have not only shown that such a belief pre-existed Ineffabilis Deus but that this belief is (a) historic (meaning that documentation shows that it pre-existed Ineffabilis Deus by centuries), (b) was widespread, and (c) was not limited to Catholics.

Now, if it is your position that all the nuances of Ineffabilis Deus have to be found in the writings of the Early Church in order for the Immaculate Conception to be a valid doctrine then clearly explain why. In other words, make an actual case for it instead of firing off a bunch of ECF quotes that really don’t apply to the debate at hand. Tell me exactly why the integrity of Ineffabilis Deus has to depend on this.

And just so you’ll know, whatever method you set forth that argues against the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I will apply to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In other words, if your method can be used to state that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is an invalid doctrine then your method will obviously have to discarded as being faulty.

As SyCarl has perceptively noted…

Ineffabilis Deus states many less “modest” claims than you are arguing for.

You’ll have to clarify this for me. Exactly what are you saying here and how does it pertain to the topic at hand?