Immaculate Conception copied from Muslims?

[ecstasyofavila]

Hi! This is probably going to be my last thread for awhile

So I was reading the Wikipedia article for the Immaculate Conception, and this paragraph stood out to me:

“Some Western writers claim that the immaculate conception of Mary is a teaching of Islam. Thus, commenting in 1734 on the passage in the Qur’an, “I have called her Mary; and I commend her to thy protection, and also her issue, against Satan driven away with stones”, George Sale stated: “It is not improbable that the pretended immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is intimated in this passage. For according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world, is touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out, Mary and her son only excepted; between whom, and the evil spirit God placed a veil, so that his touch did not reach them. And for this reason they say, neither of them were guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam.”[75]”"

“Further claims were made that the Roman Catholic Church derives its doctrine from the Islamic teaching. In volume 5 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The Latin Church has not disdained to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception of his virgin mother.” That he was speaking of her immaculate conception by her mother, not of her own virginal conception of Jesus, is shown by his footnote: “In the xiith century the immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty.”[81] In the aftermath of the definition of the dogma in 1854, this charge was repeated: “Strange as it may appear, that the doctrine which the church of Rome has promulgated, with so much pomp and ceremony, ‘for the destruction of all heresies, and the confirmation of the faith of her adherents’, should have its origin in the Mohametan Bible; yet the testimony of such authorities as Gibbon, and Sale, and Forster, and Gagnier, and Maracci, leave no doubt as to the marvellous fact.”[82]”

I really don’t know what to think of this. Any possibility its true? Any refutations/additional dialogue would be very helpful.

Pax Christi!

 

[Wesrock]

The belief that Mary never sinned was present in East and West prior to Mohammad. The idea that Mary was especially blessed and sanctified and pure was present in East and West prior to Mohammad. The view of Mary as the archetype for the sanctified and holy Church was prior to Mohammad. The view of Mary as the New Eve was prior to Islam. The view of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant was prior to Islam. The IC is a conclusion that followed from the Latin doctrine of original sin, which even Orthodox should admit (even if they have disagreements with it) was clearly developed prior to Mohammad.

All the pieces were in place before Mohammad was born. The idea that this is a doctrine from Islam is just slander.

That Islam also considers Mary to be a very blessed and holy woman doesn’t mean the Church’s position came from that. It was surely the reverse, considering the Church has been singing praises to the Mary as the New Eve, Ark, pure virgin, and theotokos long before. It just might be that the religion that developed right on the fringes of Christendom and claimed to be a correction to Christianity was influenced by Christianity.

To my knowledge, Islam doesn’t even believe in original sin in the way the RCC teaches it.

 

[po18guy]

The problem with placing a date on Catholic doctrines is that the Church acts very slowly and deliberately. She speaks to end dissension and heresy. Thus, many pronouncements are made hundreds of years after they were first believed. The reformation did not intend to, but lead to various attacks on the faith, including Mary. At some point, the Church was obligated to settle the matter. What matters more is that it is settled, not the date on which it was settled.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As someone who occasionally edits on Wikipedia, and sometimes takes a crack at a Catholic article, I can tell you that unless the Catholic article you are reading has the “featured article” status (signified by a bronze star in the upper right of the page), it’s probably incomplete at best and downright wrong at worst. So take whatever you read on there with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to religious theologies and theories as opposed to just reporting events (e.g. Pope So and So reigned from Year X to Year Y, during that time he did these things, blahblahblah).

 

[Faith1960]

The belief that Mary never sinned was present in East and West prior to Mohammad. The idea that Mary was especially blessed and sanctified and pure was present in East and West prior to Mohammad. The view of Mary as the archetype for the sanctified and holy Church was prior to Mohammad. The view of Mary as the New Eve was prior to Islam. The view of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant was prior to Islam. The IC is a conclusion that followed from the Latin doctrine of original sin, which even Orthodox should admit (even if they have disagreements with it) was clearly developed prior to Mohammad.

All the pieces were in place before Mohammad was born. The idea that this is a doctrine from Islam is just slander.

That Islam also considers Mary to be a very blessed and holy woman doesn’t mean the Church’s position came from that. It was surely the reverse, considering the Church has been singing praises to the Mary as the New Eve, Ark, pure virgin, and theotokos long before. It just might be that the religion that developed right on the fringes of Christendom and claimed to be a correction to Christianity was influenced by Christianity.

To my knowledge, Islam doesn’t even believe in original sin in the way the RCC teaches it.

Did Islam originate with Mohammad? I know nothing about Islam.

 

[friardchips]

Hi! This is probably going to be my last thread for awhile

So I was reading the Wikipedia article for the Immaculate Conception, and this paragraph stood out to me:

“Some Western writers claim that the immaculate conception of Mary is a teaching of Islam. Thus, commenting in 1734 on the passage in the Qur’an, “I have called her Mary; and I commend her to thy protection, and also her issue, against Satan driven away with stones”, George Sale stated: “It is not improbable that the pretended immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is intimated in this passage. For according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world, is touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out, Mary and her son only excepted; between whom, and the evil spirit God placed a veil, so that his touch did not reach them. And for this reason they say, neither of them were guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam.”[75]”"

“Further claims were made that the Roman Catholic Church derives its doctrine from the Islamic teaching. In volume 5 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The Latin Church has not disdained to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception of his virgin mother.” That he was speaking of her immaculate conception by her mother, not of her own virginal conception of Jesus, is shown by his footnote: “In the xiith century the immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty.”[81] In the aftermath of the definition of the dogma in 1854, this charge was repeated: “Strange as it may appear, that the doctrine which the church of Rome has promulgated, with so much pomp and ceremony, ‘for the destruction of all heresies, and the confirmation of the faith of her adherents’, should have its origin in the Mohametan Bible; yet the testimony of such authorities as Gibbon, and Sale, and Forster, and Gagnier, and Maracci, leave no doubt as to the marvellous fact.”[82]”

I really don’t know what to think of this. Any possibility its true? Any refutations/additional dialogue would be very helpful.

Pax Christi!

The other posters answered accurately, IMO, making the most essential points.

Islam came after Christianity and indeed Holy Scripture of course from which all this knowledge and good things come.

There are threads on here which list dates marking landmark times when the understanding of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception was expressed and this was always understood to be the faith of the Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Did Islam originate with Mohammad? I know nothing about Islam.

Yes, he founded it.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…So I was reading the Wikipedia article for the Immaculate Conception…

It is my understanding that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so it is probably not your best source of information for anything and especially information regarding teachings, history and Faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It is my understanding that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so it is probably not your best source of information for anything

Actually, well-sourced and long/ complete articles on there tend to be pretty good, and any “featured article” which has been through a review board proceeding (designated by a bronze star in the upper right corner) is usually good. When I was actively editing on Wikipedia, I put in a lot of hours improving the articles I worked on and making them good sources of information. So there are some very good sources of information on there.

However, a lot of articles, including many of the Catholic ones, could use some help, so if any of the knowledgeable CAF minds want to try their hand at editing a Catholic article or two in need of help, please do feel free to join in the effort. Wiki does require that the articles present a balanced perspective, as it’s meant to present an overview of what the sources say (like a newspaper article, back in the days when newspapers tried to avoid bias) rather than the author’s opinion of the truth, so if somebody has written a book claiming that Mary was invented by Muslims, then that may need to be noted and cited. But having a smart Catholic work on the articles ensures that the Catholic viewpoint will be fully and fairly represented in the articles as well.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Actually, well-sourced and long/ complete articles on there tend to be pretty good, and any “featured article” which has been through a review board proceeding (designated by a bronze star in the upper right corner) is usually good. When I was actively editing on Wikipedia, I put in a lot of hours improving the articles I worked on and making them good sources of information. So there are some very good sources of information on there. …

That is good to know, I did not know about a bronze star designation, though I guess one bad apple spoiling the whole bunch is in effect there as in any other published work. Newspapers publish incorrect info and opinions branded as news too, so I guess one must be wary of all sources of information.

…However, a lot of articles, including many of the Catholic ones, could use some help, so if any of the knowledgeable CAF minds want to try their hand at editing a Catholic article or two in need of help, please do feel free to join in the effort. Wiki does require that the articles present a balanced perspective, as it’s meant to present an overview of what the sources say (like a newspaper article, back in the days when newspapers tried to avoid bias) rather than the author’s opinion of the truth, so if somebody has written a book claiming that Mary was invented by Muslims, then that may need to be noted and cited. But having a smart Catholic work on the articles ensures that the Catholic viewpoint will be fully and fairly represented in the articles as well.

I guess that is why I am wary of Wikipedia. I thought anyone can edit, so knowing what is correct and factual and what is incorrect and opinion might be difficult. But, I am glad to learn of the bronze star indicator.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi! This is probably going to be my last thread for awhile

So I was reading the Wikipedia article for the Immaculate Conception, and this paragraph stood out to me:

“Some Western writers claim that the immaculate conception of Mary is a teaching of Islam. Thus, commenting in 1734 on the passage in the Qur’an, “I have called her Mary; and I commend her to thy protection, and also her issue, against Satan driven away with stones”, George Sale stated: “It is not improbable that the pretended immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is intimated in this passage. For according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world, is touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out, Mary and her son only excepted; between whom, and the evil spirit God placed a veil, so that his touch did not reach them. And for this reason they say, neither of them were guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam.”[75]”"

“Further claims were made that the Roman Catholic Church derives its doctrine from the Islamic teaching. In volume 5 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The Latin Church has not disdained to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception of his virgin mother.” That he was speaking of her immaculate conception by her mother, not of her own virginal conception of Jesus, is shown by his footnote: “In the xiith century the immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty.”[81] In the aftermath of the definition of the dogma in 1854, this charge was repeated: “Strange as it may appear, that the doctrine which the church of Rome has promulgated, with so much pomp and ceremony, ‘for the destruction of all heresies, and the confirmation of the faith of her adherents’, should have its origin in the Mohametan Bible; yet the testimony of such authorities as Gibbon, and Sale, and Forster, and Gagnier, and Maracci, leave no doubt as to the marvellous fact.”[82]”

I really don’t know what to think of this. Any possibility its true? Any refutations/additional dialogue would be very helpful.

Pax Christi!

All of these Church Fathers wrote about the Immaculate Conception, **BEFORE **The birth of Muhammad.

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither 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]).

Ambrose of Milan

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]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[Contarini]

Hi! This is probably going to be my last thread for awhile

So I was reading the Wikipedia article for the Immaculate Conception, and this paragraph stood out to me:

“Some Western writers claim that the immaculate conception of Mary is a teaching of Islam. Thus, commenting in 1734 on the passage in the Qur’an, “I have called her Mary; and I commend her to thy protection, and also her issue, against Satan driven away with stones”, George Sale stated: “It is not improbable that the pretended immaculate conception of the virgin Mary is intimated in this passage. For according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world, is touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out, Mary and her son only excepted; between whom, and the evil spirit God placed a veil, so that his touch did not reach them. And for this reason they say, neither of them were guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam.”[75]”"

“Further claims were made that the Roman Catholic Church derives its doctrine from the Islamic teaching. In volume 5 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The Latin Church has not disdained to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception of his virgin mother.” That he was speaking of her immaculate conception by her mother, not of her own virginal conception of Jesus, is shown by his footnote: “In the xiith century the immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty.”[81] In the aftermath of the definition of the dogma in 1854, this charge was repeated: “Strange as it may appear, that the doctrine which the church of Rome has promulgated, with so much pomp and ceremony, ‘for the destruction of all heresies, and the confirmation of the faith of her adherents’, should have its origin in the Mohametan Bible; yet the testimony of such authorities as Gibbon, and Sale, and Forster, and Gagnier, and Maracci, leave no doubt as to the marvellous fact.”[82]”

I really don’t know what to think of this. Any possibility its true? Any refutations/additional dialogue would be very helpful.

Pax Christi!

The fallacy here appears to be the claim that because Muhammad taught a kind of “immaculate conception,” while the idea wasn’t dogmatized until 1854, therefore Catholics got it from Muslims. This is silly for two reasons:

1. The IC was around long before 1854, in an explicit form, and
2. The argument involves a double standard. If the Islamic view being described is an “immaculate conception” of Mary, then the IC is a much older and more universal belief than critics of Catholicism generally want to admit.

In short, the sort of attitude to Mary described in Islam can easily be found in early Christianity–the idea that Mary is the New Eve, preserved from sin by God. There’s lots of language calling Mary “spotless.” I think it’s far, far more probable that Muhammad got this from Christian sources than the other way round.

Edwin

 

[susanlo]

All of these Church Fathers wrote about the Immaculate Conception, **BEFORE **The birth of Muhammad.

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Which set of homilies is this from?

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

What are the Latin abbreviations? Is this another translation of this writing:

"On Psalm 22 or 23
From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on The Lord is My Shepherd.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness. But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."
newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither 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]).

What source did you get this from? I am unable to find the Nisibene Hyms 22-34. The sources I find say that these were lost.

Ambrose of Milan

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

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Ambrose and Augustine both wrote that Mary may not have had personal sins. They did not believe that she was free of Original Sin. Pelagius argued that Mary and others had no sin, and that was when Augustine developed the Doctrine of Original Sin.

"Chapter 47 [XLI.]— Sentences from Ambrose in Favour of Original Sin.

…For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. 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."
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

 

[Wesrock]

Which set of homilies is this from?

What are the Latin abbreviations? Is this another translation of this writing:

"On Psalm 22 or 23
From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on The Lord is My Shepherd.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness. But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."
newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

What source did you get this from? I am unable to find the Nisibene Hyms 22-34. The sources I find say that these were lost.

Ambrose and Augustine both wrote that Mary may not have had personal sins. They did not believe that she was free of Original Sin. Pelagius argued that Mary and others had no sin, and that was when Augustine developed the Doctrine of Original Sin.

"Chapter 47 [XLI.]— Sentences from Ambrose in Favour of Original Sin.

…For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. 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."
newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

Unfortunately, not everything written by the Church Fathers have been translated into English. In some cases, the writings have been gone over in other languages in researching whether the doctrine is attested for, the relevant quotations cited in documents supporting the doctrine, and then these highlights are translated, rather than the entirety of the original language. And this isn’t just something you should say “oh how convenient for you,” unless you think the original discussions and debate and majority of research on this was actually done in English (it wasn’t).

Jesus has also been likened to the ark. But it’d be foolish to think that finding such a quotation means the Church Fathers haven’t also likened Mary to the Ark and Tabernacle which God overshadows. The Orthodox even today use the terms “all-holy”, “pure”, “spotless”, and “immaculate” in speaking of her, pulling these terms from the Fathers (though immaculate does not necessarily mean the Immaculate Conception to them, but that doesn’t really help your case, as that boils down to a difference of opinion on what original sin is, and you’d be more likely to agree with Rome than the Orthodox on that one). And I’d never accuse the Orthodox of not being steeped in the Church Fathers or of taking these terms from the Latin doctrine.

 

[Duane1966]

Ambrose and Augustine both wrote that Mary may not have had personal sins. They did not …Original Sin.

Susan, you are right about Origen, as does not believe she was free from sin. You are wrong on both Ambrose and Augustine. Taken from biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

Ambrose of Milan (c. 339 - 397 AD)

But the attitude of Ambrose toward Mary is something novel in Latin literature. Mary was virgin not in body alone, but in mind as well. She is the unattainable model of all virtues; she has lived them to perfection. Not the slightest shadow mars his portrait of her, no smallest imperfection (Ambrose, De virginbus, lib 2, cap 2, n. 6-18).

"The first impulse to learn is inspired by the nobility of the teacher. Now, who could be nobler than the Mother of God? Who more splendid than she, whom Splendor chose? Who more chaste than she, who gave birth to a body without bodily contact? What should I say, then, about all her other virtues? She was a virgin, not only in body but in her mind as well, and never mixed the sincerity of her affections with duplicity." (Ambrose, De virginibus 2,7; PL 16:220; Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, page 191)

It is a vision of Mary which will inspire Ambrose all his days and lead him to still further insights. A decade later he can attribute to Mary a fullness of grace whose foundation is the divine Maternity: “For Mary alone was this greeting [Luke 1:28] reserved; for she is well said to be alone full of grace, who alone obtained the grace which no one else had gained, to be filled with the Author of grace.” (Expos evang secundum Lucam, lib 3, n. 9). It may be that Ambrose is simply equating “full of grace” and “Mother of God”; the construction bears that exegesis. But about the same time, in a sermon on Psalm 118, he speaks of Mary as “a virgin free by grace from all stain of sin.” (Expos in Psalm 118; Serm 22, n. 30; PL 15:1599).

"Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Life me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, **a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin** [Latin: ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati]." (Ambrose, Commentary on Psalm 118, Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 2, page 166)

It is a text frequently invoked by defenders of the Immaculate Conception, who feel that to understand the phrase of actual or personal sins alone is to restrict arbitrarily the indefinite, unlimited assertion. [9] Gambero: "He calls the Mother of the Lord sancta Maria and sancta Virgo with notable frequency; it appears indisputable that he excluded from Mary any stain of sin whatsoever." (Mary and the Fathers of the Church, page 198)

On the other hand, Ambrose does not seem aware of the implications in his phrase. In any event, the germ of future development is indisputably there, especially since, to his way of thinking, if you are to appreciate what Mary is, you must reckon with what is fitting in such a mother (Epist 63, n. 110; PL 16:1270-1).

Augustine (c. 354 - 430) and Pelagianism
… In the first (415) Augustine confronts Pelagius on the issue of Mary’s personal holiness, her freedom from actual sin; in the second (c. 428) **he confronts Julian of Eclanum on the score of her conception, her freedom from original sin. **

Pelagius was not content to deny original sin; … To bolster his belief, he cited a number of individuals …, Old Law and New – who actually realized this program of sinlessness. The names range from Abel through Abraham to Joseph and John, from Deborah to Elizabeth, “and in fact the Mother of our Lord and Savior too, whom piety must needs confess free from sin.” Ambrose had found no imperfection in Mary; Pelagius asserted on principle that none could be found.

Augustine’s response to Pelagius is a two-edged denial. Only Mary is free from sin, and her sinlessness is a triumph not of nature but of grace; its foundation is the divine Maternity.

**"With the exception, therefore, of the holy Virgin Mary, in whose case, out of respect for the Lord, I would have no question raised when there is talk of sin-- for how do we know what further grace was conferred on her for absolute victory over sin, she who deserved to conceive and bear Him who obviously had no sin?**  -- with the exception, then, of this Virgin, could we but gather together in their lifetime all those saints, men and women, and ask them whether they were free from sin, what in our opinion would have been their answer? ...No matter how remarkable their holiness in this body...they would have cried out with one voice: 'If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' [1 John 1:8]." (Augustine, De natura et gratia, cap 36, n. 42)

It might be argued that Augustine simply prefers not to discuss the case of Mary. It is far more probable that his question is not really a question at all, that it conveys his own conviction of the incompatibility of actual sin with divine motherhood, that consequently it constitutes a landmark in the development of the Western Church’s consciousness of Mary’s sinlessness. Some theologians argue that the text indirectly or implicitly excludes original sin as well. In the context, they admit, Augustine is speaking of actual sin; but he asserts without reservation that she is free from all sin. The honor of Christ, on which his conclusion is based, is no less incompatible with the hypothesis of original sin than with the affirmation of actual sin. [10]

Susan, as regards the OP, you will admit that the concept of the IC was in some writings of the fathers before Muhammad, correct?

 

[susanlo]

Susan, you are right about Origen, as does not believe she was free from sin. You are wrong on both Ambrose and Augustine. Taken from biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

I can’t find Ambrose’s Commentary on Psalm 118. The quote provided does say that Mary is “free of every stain of sin.” According to the current Catholic definition of Original Sin this would seem to mean that she was free of Original Sin. However the Doctrine of Original Sin was not completed during Ambrose’s life. Augustine developed the idea that babies are born stained with the guilt of Adam after Ambrose’s death. Was Ambrose thinking of a stain of Original Sin? Or personal sins?

Augustine wrote that everyone inherits Original Sin from Adam through their father. Jesus was exempt because he did not have an earthly father. He did not exempt Mary as shown in the quote I gave earlier. He also wrote in his Exposition on Psalm 35: “So then the sin of the Lord is that which was caused by sin; because He assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

Susan, as regards the OP, you will admit that the concept of the IC was in some writings of the fathers before Muhammad, correct?

I don’t know how long after the concept of Original Sin was established that writings begin to reflect that Mary was born free of this Original Sin. I have not researched that far into history.

 

[Duane1966]

What source did you get this from? I am unable to find the Nisibene Hyms 22-34. The sources I find say that these were lost.

May I ask who your source is? Because you can buy all seventy seven Nisibene Hymns from Gorgis Press.

 

[Duane1966]

I can’t find Ambrose’s Commentary on Psalm 118. The quote provided does say that Mary is “free of every stain of sin.” According to the current Catholic definition of Original Sin this would seem to mean that she was free of Original Sin. However the Doctrine of Original Sin was not completed during Ambrose’s life. Augustine developed the idea that babies are born stained with the guilt of Adam after Ambrose’s death. Was Ambrose thinking of a stain of Original Sin? Or personal sins?

Lol. Just because the doctrine was not complete does not mean St. Ambrose was not aware of the concept in rudimentary form. Nor does it mean he would believe in Original Sin the way that Augustine did. He clearly says every stain of sin. Why do you think all of a sudden, just because of this doctrine he would believe she had Original Sin, when there are many other bishops who didn’t?

Augustine wrote that everyone inherits Original Sin from Adam through their father. Jesus was exempt because he did not have an earthly father. He did not exempt Mary as shown in the quote I gave earlier. He also wrote in his Exposition on Psalm 35: “So then the sin of the Lord is that which was caused by sin; because He assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

I don’t know how long after the concept of Original Sin was established that writings begin to reflect that Mary was born free of this Original Sin. I have not researched that far into history.

Sorry Susan, St. Augustine clearly says that with the exception of the Virgin Mary. He says she is free from all sin, after he had developed the doctrine of Original Sin.

Susan, think it through. How can St. Augustine say that she has no personal sin, when the very thing that leads to personal sin would be in her? Do you think he was that dumb not to see that contradiction?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The fact that Islam also believes in IC is a positive.

Not that we need other sources to confirm what the Church has already declared, but here is just another example, next to the EO’s sharing our beliefs, that the Church didn’t just dream this stuff up in the past few hundred years. It’s a organic belief that wasn’t dogmatized or discussed much at all early on because it didn’t need to be.

It wasn’t until the radical ‘reformers’ started in with their disrespect of our lady that these things became official. Just like Nicea probably happens much later if heresy wasn’t threatening to rip the Church apart at that time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Church declared Theotokus = Mary Mother of God centuries before it was rumored that the Angel Gabriel beat Muhammad to Quran.

Islam still in its infant stage compared to the Catholic Faith, had an excommunicated and Roman Emperor banned heretical Christian Arian sect into the Arab territories.

Muhammad’s brother in law was an Arian heretical priest. Which some historians believe introduced or influenced heretical teachings on the Trinity, Son of God, and Jesus into Islam or the Quran.

During this time, the Catholic Church learned of this new infant religion calling itself Islam. And at first considered it another heretical Christian teaching and condemned it.

For a Catholic Church council to declare Mary, Theotokus = Mother of God reveals how much faith reverence the Catholic Church possessed in the Virgin birth and Mary most blessed among Women (which are other Mary subject undertaking’s) the Quran took on. Long after it was already a matter of declared divine revelation.

Peace be with you