How would you

[PJM]

Dear friends in Christ,

I was recently asked to PROVE {biblically or early Church Fathers writings} our Marian Dogma’s of the

[1] Immaculate Conception

[2] The Assumption of Mary

I’m just beginning my research; HOW would you prove these two Dogma’s?

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[TimothyH]

Immaculate Conception

And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

The Ark is a foreshadowing of Mary. No man was to touch the Ark. God instantly killed the one who did. In the same way, no man was to touch Mary.

Not proof, but a beginning. Build off that. Others will chime in.

-Tim-

 

[CB_Catholic]

Immaculate Conception

And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

The Ark is a foreshadowing of Mary. No man was to touch the Ark. God instantly killed the one who did. In the same way, no man was to touch Mary.

Not proof, but a beginning. Build off that. Others will chime in.

-Tim-

Merely touching the ark caused the anger of the Lord, but merely touching Mary (in a non-sexual way) did not. I don’t understand your statement here, it does not correlate. Can you give a reference for it? There is no sexual implication in the passage from Samuel.

 

[Wesrock]

The proof is in the decision of the Magisterium to teach these as doctrines and declare these as dogmas. The sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary and the dormition/assumption are also doctrines not just of Catholics, but of the Orthodox as well. [The Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic doctrine of original sin, and therefore most Protestant definitions of it as well. However, they do teach that she was without sin her entire life.]

I don’t know that I can “prove” either of these doctrines, nor am I sure that I can put as much effort into this as the doctrine deserves. But perhaps I can say a few things.

The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary was born full of grace. What we receive at Baptism, Mary was born with. Thus, she did not come into being lacking holiness and justice, as all the other children of Adam and Eve (save Jesus) did. We see this implied in the greeting of the angel to her at the Annuniation. He does not address her by her given name, but greets her as kecharitomene, as if that in itself is her name. The implication is that she is, and has been, made full of grace and favor, and remains so. It is the perfect passive participle of the term, quite different than what is said of the first martyr, Saint Stephen, for which charitoo is used.

The idea that Mary is not just a normal person, but more than that, a new Eve, is found attested to quite early.

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian*

“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

**Pseudo-Melito
**
“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).

**Ephraim the Syrian
**
“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

To be continued . . .

 

[Wesrock]

**Ambrose of Milan
**
“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?” (ibid., 2:2:7).

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine

“Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both” (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).

“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).

…

“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Furthermore, Mary was not just seen as the New Eve, but as the new Ark of the Covenant. What for the Israelites had born the manna of the desert, the staff of Aaron representing his priesthood, and the stone tablets upon which were written in the ten commandments, Mary now bore the fullness of these promises in carrying Jesus Christ, who was the new manna and bread of life, who was to be our eternal High Priest, and who was to bring the fulfillment of the law.

We see this born out in the Book of Revelation.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

Mary is the new ark of the covenant. The old ark had been lost for centuries. Was John simply going to name drop it and move on without describing it? No. For the woman in Heaven, bearing the child, is the Ark.

**Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373)
**“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

**Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270)
**“Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Is the Ark of the Covenant going to bear the stain of sin?

To be continued . . .

 

[Wesrock]

As we turn to the Dormition/Assumption, let’s go back again to Revelation.

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

People are quite willing to engage in wild interpretations of Revelation. But if you happen to suggest one of the most obvious indications here of this crowned woman in Heaven as being the mother of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ as one of many ways to truthfully understand it, they balk as if it so *obviously *wrong. That just seems pretty silly.

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

**John the Theologian
**
“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).

“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).

**Gregory of Tours
**
“The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).

“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8).

And assumption is not unprecedented. Consider Enoch and Elijah.

Those are not the only attestations, but I’m running out of time! Thank you to www.catholic.com for the handy-dandy quotations they have available!

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace
catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Wesrock, I think,is right. Scripture backs up our belief in the authority of the papacy.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock, I think,is right. Scripture backs up our belief in the authority of the papacy.

While I have full belief in the authority of the papacy, and it certainly proves the point, I think it’s safe for the sake of apologetics to just put this in terms of the authority of the Church and apostolic tradition. The Orthodox have very similar views on the matter, with some nuance, going back millennia with us. This is not just something the Pope declared recently. The pope just infallibly affirmed the millennia old teachings in the face of those who questioned it, which also had authority.

 

[TimothyH]

Merely touching the ark caused the anger of the Lord, but merely touching Mary (in a non-sexual way) did not. I don’t understand your statement here, it does not correlate. Can you give a reference for it? There is no sexual implication in the passage from Samuel.

It is a foreshadowing. That’s all.

To this day an Orthodox Jewish man does not touch a woman to whom he is not closely related. It’s called negaih. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negiah

Uzzah’s death was a foreshadow of what would have happened should a man not related to Mary dared touch her.

-Tim-

 

[Abu]

PJM #1
I was recently asked to PROVE {biblically or early Church Fathers writings} our Marian Dogma’s of the
[1] Immaculate Conception
[2] The Assumption of Mary

I’m just beginning my research; HOW would you prove these two Dogma’s?

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424
There are four specific dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation .

1. Divine Motherhood
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. The Assumption
   There is no question that they are dogmas, to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith. (Canon #750.1).

The Immaculate Conception:
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out that “the sinlessness of Christ’s Mother had been recognised from the beginning”, but he shows that the views of St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and Bonaventure all missed the point, and that it was not until Duns Scotus (A.D. 1264-1308) wrote his commentaries on the four books of Peter Lombard that the Franciscan protests against those views were taken seriously.

Eventually Sixtus IV approved the feast and Mass of the Immaculate Conception in 1476.
The Dominican Pope St Pius V condemned Baius (1567) for holding that “no one but Christ was without original sin, and therefore the Blessed Virgin died in consequence of the sin contracted by Adam”, and the dogma was defined by Pius IX in 1854.
The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 152-4].

The dogma of the Assumption – that Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven, after the completion of her earthly life (termed her dormition – or falling asleep in the Lord) – was proclaimed on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII in Munificentessimus Deus; There was extensive acceptance and support for the doctrines among theologians and saints for centuries prior to their formal proclamation by a pope. The doctrines were subject to intense study over a period of centuries, requiring a long process before formal acceptance was granted.

We know very little about the exact date of the dormition and Assumption. It is possible, based on various writings, that the dormition occurred not too many years after Jesus’ death and Resurrection and took place either in Jerusalem or Ephesus. The earliest surviving reliable references to the Assumption are the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, meanwhile, St. Gregory of Tours is generally credited with mentioning it first. St. John Damascene added that St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), informed Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria (who wished to possess the mortal remains of the Mother of God) that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened was found empty; the Apostles thus concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The doctrine was subsequently supported by a host of theologians, including Sts. Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure. The doctrine was also promoted by such eminent later theologians as St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Robert Bellarmine. Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) declared it a probable opinion.

The Feast of the Assumption was observed in Palestine during at least the 5th century, according to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529). When it was celebrated in the Eastern Empire is a matter of some question, as it was divided between August 15 and January 18. Byzantine Emperor Maurice (d. 602) attempted to settle the date and chose August 15, according to the Liber Pontificalis, at least as far as the Eastern Empire was concerned

 

[TheDoctor]

Wesrock touched on the primary point: What does “prove” look like? If we don’t know what the endpoint is how do we know when we get there.

We can’t “prove” any of the Marian dogmas the way I can prove 1+1=2 or that we landed on the moon. The best we can do is to explain why we believe what we believe and see if that suffices for “proof”.

 

[Genesis315]

The primary Church documents on these two topics contain some of the Biblical, Patristic, and other arguments. They are a good start, but are no means exhaustive of all the evidence.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM

 

[PJM]

Immaculate Conception

And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

The Ark is a foreshadowing of Mary. No man was to touch the Ark. God instantly killed the one who did. In the same way, no man was to touch Mary.

Not proof, but a beginning. Build off that. Others will chime in.

-Tim-

Tim. I sure its me, but how does that relate to the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception?

Sorry, I don’t see it:shrug:

Blessings,

Particl

 

[PJM]

The proof is in the decision of the Magisterium to teach these as doctrines and declare these as dogmas. The sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary and the dormition/assumption are also doctrines not just of Catholics, but of the Orthodox as well. [The Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic doctrine of original sin, and therefore most Protestant definitions of it as well. However, they do teach that she was without sin her entire life.]

I don’t know that I can “prove” either of these doctrines, nor am I sure that I can put as much effort into this as the doctrine deserves. But perhaps I can say a few things.

The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary was born full of grace. What we receive at Baptism, Mary was born with. Thus, she did not come into being lacking holiness and justice, as all the other children of Adam and Eve (save Jesus) did. We see this implied in the greeting of the angel to her at the Annuniation. He does not address her by her given name, but greets her as kecharitomene, as if that in itself is her name. The implication is that she is, and has been, made full of grace and favor, and remains so. It is the perfect passive participle of the term, quite different than what is said of the first martyr, Saint Stephen, for which charitoo is used.

The idea that Mary is not just a normal person, but more than that, a new Eve, is found attested to quite early.

To be continued . . .

GREAT!:thumbsup:

Thanks so very much!

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

As we turn to the Dormition/Assumption, let’s go back again to Revelation.

People are quite willing to engage in wild interpretations of Revelation. But if you happen to suggest one of the most obvious indications here of this crowned woman in Heaven as being the mother of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ as one of many ways to truthfully understand it, they balk as if it so *obviously *wrong. That just seems pretty silly.

And assumption is not unprecedented. Consider Enoch and Elijah.

Those are not the only attestations, but I’m running out of time! Thank you to www.catholic.com for the handy-dandy quotations they have available!

catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace
catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

Terrific!

Thanks again

 

[PJM]

Wesrock, I think,is right. Scripture backs up our belief in the authority of the papacy.

This my friend, I know; BUT what if THEY don’t accept papal authority

Thanks, God Bless

 

[PJM]

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424
There are four specific dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation .

1. Divine Motherhood
2. Perpetual Virginity
3. Immaculate Conception
4. The Assumption
   There is no question that they are dogmas, to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith. (Canon #750.1).

The Immaculate Conception:
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out that “the sinlessness of Christ’s Mother had been recognised from the beginning”, but he shows that the views of St Bernard of Clairvaux, St Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and Bonaventure all missed the point, and that it was not until Duns Scotus (A.D. 1264-1308) wrote his commentaries on the four books of Peter Lombard that the Franciscan protests against those views were taken seriously.

Eventually Sixtus IV approved the feast and Mass of the Immaculate Conception in 1476.
The Dominican Pope St Pius V condemned Baius (1567) for holding that “no one but Christ was without original sin, and therefore the Blessed Virgin died in consequence of the sin contracted by Adam”, and the dogma was defined by Pius IX in 1854.
The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 152-4].

The dogma of the Assumption – that Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven, after the completion of her earthly life (termed her dormition – or falling asleep in the Lord) – was proclaimed on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII in Munificentessimus Deus; There was extensive acceptance and support for the doctrines among theologians and saints for centuries prior to their formal proclamation by a pope. The doctrines were subject to intense study over a period of centuries, requiring a long process before formal acceptance was granted.

We know very little about the exact date of the dormition and Assumption. It is possible, based on various writings, that the dormition occurred not too many years after Jesus’ death and Resurrection and took place either in Jerusalem or Ephesus. The earliest surviving reliable references to the Assumption are the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, meanwhile, St. Gregory of Tours is generally credited with mentioning it first. St. John Damascene added that St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), informed Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria (who wished to possess the mortal remains of the Mother of God) that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened was found empty; the Apostles thus concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The doctrine was subsequently supported by a host of theologians, including Sts. Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure. The doctrine was also promoted by such eminent later theologians as St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Robert Bellarmine. Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) declared it a probable opinion.

The Feast of the Assumption was observed in Palestine during at least the 5th century, according to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529). When it was celebrated in the Eastern Empire is a matter of some question, as it was divided between August 15 and January 18. Byzantine Emperor Maurice (d. 602) attempted to settle the date and chose August 15, according to the Liber Pontificalis, at least as far as the Eastern Empire was concerned

Very good information,

Thank you

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Wesrock touched on the primary point: What does “prove” look like? If we don’t know what the endpoint is how do we know when we get there.

We can’t “prove” any of the Marian dogmas the way I can prove 1+1=2 or that we landed on the moon. The best we can do is to explain why we believe what we believe and see if that suffices for “proof”.

That my friend is a GREAT point

Thanks & God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

The primary Church documents on these two topics contain some of the Biblical, Patristic, and other arguments. They are a good start, but are no means exhaustive of all the evidence.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM

Thank you, but in this case Church Authority" in not being recogonized

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Wesrock]

I feel like you don’t see proper articulation of the Trinity, the incarnation, Jesus having two natures, and a host of commonly accepted positions until you start encountering these Marian traditions, either. As the Church grew and became less persecuted and more accepted and legal, there were more Christians with more resources to write, and a much easier time of preserving the documentation and traditions they had as there was better organizatiin, and the great thinkers got to sit down and consider what they knew and truly contemplate on those things.