East: Bishop St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle of Byzantium [Lambruschini 66-67] says in 62 [Acts of Andrew]: “And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an Immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.” Latin: “Et propterea, quod ex immaculatâ terrâ ereatus fuerat primus homo, necesse erat ut ex immaculatâ Virgine nasceretur perfectus homo, quo Filius Dei, qui antè condiderat hominem, vitam æternam quam perdiderant hominess, repararet.”
WRH: The earth from which Adam was created had always been immaculate, and so the Blessed Virgin was always immaculate, or else we would make the glorious and all-praised St. Andrew guilty of a false analogy. Though the book The Acts of Andrew is not part of the Biblical Canon, it is historically accurate; one can see from the myriad lives of the saints published in the Eastern Orthodox Church (e.g., Nov. 30 entry in Bishop Nikolai Velimirovch’s The Prologue from Ohrid) that that Church takes its historicity for granted.
Immaculate is no stain or spot. None state Mary become Immaculate at Christs Birth. whats stated is “Of an Immaculate Virgin “should” be born a perfect man.” Indicating “prior” let alone the analogy given. Which if your read what I wrote I stated from the start. This could have occured but Three-Ways. And as I stated the 3rd is least likely, as we see.
And as you see this goes on and on through “every” century. Sorry its not worded to your liking, however, the Magesterium has that authority.
St Thomas Aquinas states, “Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, “namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin”, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” From the Commentary on the Book of Sentences
As I said the theology varies during the life of many Saints. Sinners turn to Saints and Saints to Sinners. Some change their mind, whatever. Not a mystery.
Pretty much the same situation with St Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus further defined the IC after both. However the need for a 100% agreement isn’t needed. Not sure where you get this impression. Never in “history” has this been the case.
What supports the IC is the fact Mary was free of Stain or Spot thus Immaculate, above we see prior to the Conception of the Lord, not by the conception of the Lord. Which by Faith through Grace is the will of the Lord no matter how this is viewed.
And its “most fitting” in the Doctrine of the IC. Bl Duns Scotus was correct, and much later Pius IX confirmed. Sorry you don’t agree with the the IC.
And yes this was contemplated this for centuries. It was approved then rejected at Basil. Prior it was approved as a Feast Day in England.
Obviously it was discussed a very long time before 1854. As history indictates.
I’m not here to sell you on anything, believe as you wish. Mary has been a Mystery of the Church since day One. And rightfully still is and will always be. All the Apostolic Churchs.
So yes the patristics support this and from the very begining of the Church.
