Immaculate Conception doctrine development

[AmbroseSJ]

(quote edited for space)

It sounds like you are saying that in the first few centuries of Christianity there was no understanding of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but this was a later revelation that came centuries later. Who first received this revelation from God? Is it known? Did an angel make an appearance to Anne and communicate with her? Or is the report of an angel that interceded and prevented Original Sin from being attributed to Mary something that was received as part of the new revelation in future centuries?

You are misunderstanding.

The implicit understanding within the first few centuries gradually became explicit over time. Ultimately it was solemnly defined in these latter days.

It is like the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity of today. We don’t see it explicitly defined or even described at all in the NT. However, it was implicitly understood and gradually became explicitly defined.

 

[Good_Fella]

It sounds like you are saying that in the first few centuries of Christianity there was no understanding of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but this was a later revelation that came centuries later.

I’m not saying that at all. I cited the 4th century Eastern Father Ephraem to show how the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was developing by that time and how the material in the NT (i.e., Luke 1:28) becomes more explicit when looked at in light of the sacred Tradition of the Church. The NT proceeds from Tradition.

See the allegory of the mosaic floor in my reply above. All Catholic doctrines have developed over time by putting all the pieces of a puzzle together one by one. It was through the apostles that Christ gave us the boxes of puzzles to open and complete. When we do a 1,000 piece puzzle, we must connect all the pieces together to form the complete picture, while all these pieces depend on each other for the puzzle to be completed. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception could never have been promulgated unless the Church first defined the doctrine of original sin. Nor could this dogma ever have been, unless the Church first grasped the meaning of the narrative of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, as God intended it should be understood, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit; that same Spirit who inspired Moses to write the Pentateuch.

Who first received this revelation from God? Is it known?

Only one person has ever received a public revelation from God, that was Peter and on only one occasion (Matthew 16:17-19). To answer your question more fully, perhaps this citation will help:

“There are degrees of certitude. Our very language reveals this. We say: “I think this is true.” “This seems to be true. “This can’t be wrong.” I am sure this is true,” (etc.). Absolute certitude, on the other hand, expresses itself as “I know this is true” or “I am certain this is true.” It is with this final certitude (a “definitive” decision as the councils express it) that infallibility deals. The infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception may serve as an example. The doctrine was being preached by some in the 5th century and held by many in the 13th century; … actively supported by the popes, beginning with Sixtus lV in 1477; implicitly proclaimed by the Council of Trent in 1546 when it declared that the doctrine of original sin was not meant to include our Lady; forbidden to be spoken against by the theologians and the faithful in 1617 and 1622; and finally, it was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Blessed Pius lX in 1854. Now the fact of Mary’s immunity from all stain of original sin has been true since the time she was actually immaculately conceived in the womb of her mother. It is a truth, however, which the Church became only gradually aware. This awareness was at first tentative, then seen as probable, and, gradually, with ever-increasing certitude. The infallible proclamation of the fact of the Immaculate Conception thus added nothing to the truth of the dogma; it expressed rather the degree of certitude that the Church has of this fact.”

The Gift of Infallibility, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, Commentary by Rev. James T O’Connor (Ignatius Press)

No individual received a public revelation of the IC, not even Anne and Mary, or even the Twelve. The Church as a whole gradually grew in certitude that God had revealed this doctrine to her all along from the time of the apostles. It was there, but only a matter of seeing it. And it was a matter of time that the Church had reached a consensus which Pius lX infallibly approved and confirmed to ensure that this doctrine was indeed a “divinely revealed truth”. The Holy Spirit protected the pope from committing the Church to error. Some Protestants are under the wrong impression that Pope Pius was supposed to have been personally inspired by God to reveal this truth to the Church. But they don’t understand the meaning of papal infallibility. The only person who ever was inspired was Peter, when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This was no ordinary profession of faith, since he didn’t say “I believe you are,” but “You are.” The Prince of the Apostles received a direct revelation on which our entire Christian faith is grounded. Jesus was crucified for having revealed himself to the Sanhedrin.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[dreath]

Recalling our Lord’s dealing with the Baptism of John, using His own method, you could say “Show me where our Lord established the bible as the sole rule of faith, and I will answer your question.”

Alternatively, does your friend believe in original sin? If so, then he alleges that Christ is a sinner, as our Lord’s human nature would have inherited Mary’s original sin - if she had any. Have him explain how Christ somehow emerged sinless from the sinful womb (which he believes in), using only the scriptures. “He’s the Lord” or “Just because” cannot be acceptable, as he is then engaging in the exact behavior of which he accuses the Catholic Church.

With God all things are possible!

 

[Della]

With God all things are possible!

Indeed, there’s the Immaculate Conception, the Incarnation, Jesus’ Miracles, the Institution of the Eucharist, Jesus’ Redemptive Death and Resurrection, the Ascension of the Lord, Pentecost, the Assumption of Mary…

 

[susanlo]

I’m not saying that at all. I cited the 4th century Eastern Father Ephraem to show how the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was developing by that time and how the material in the NT (i.e., Luke 1:28) becomes more explicit when looked at in light of the sacred Tradition of the Church. The NT proceeds from Tradition.

I am unable to find the full context for the previously cited quote from Ephraem’s Nisibene Hymn #27. It does sound like he is saying that Jesus and His mother do not have stain. Is this the stain of birth? Or actual sin? Either way, I do think around this time some believed it was possible to live without sin. This is what Pelagius taught. He thought that many people lived their life without committing sin. Augustine refutes this with his Doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine taught that everyone except for Jesus is born with original sin, but that Mary may be without actual sin, due to graces given from God and not from an immaculate birth.

Augustine - On Nature and Grace
“Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]— The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin
He then enumerates those who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John. And he adds the names of some women—Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her, he says, we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it. We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

So Augustine says Mary might have lived without actual sin, but from the quote I shared in post #17 we see that he taught she was not exempt from original sin.

Augustine’s ideas weren’t rejected, but were accepted as official doctrine. The exception of Mary to the original sin developed later. I am not aware of anyone teaching around this time that original sin existed AND that Mary was exempt from this along with Jesus.

See the allegory of the mosaic floor in my reply above. All Catholic doctrines have developed over time by putting all the pieces of a puzzle together one by one. It was through the apostles that Christ gave us the boxes of puzzles to open and complete. When we do a 1,000 piece puzzle, we must connect all the pieces together to form the complete picture, while all these pieces depend on each other for the puzzle to be completed. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception could never have been promulgated unless the Church first defined the doctrine of original sin. Nor could this dogma ever have been, unless the Church first grasped the meaning of the narrative of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, as God intended it should be understood, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit; that same Spirit who inspired Moses to write the Pentateuch.

So there was no new information available to the later theologians, but they were able to understand things that the Apostles and Augustine weren’t?

I have heard dramatic stories about angels coming down to Anne and Joachim and communicating with them. Are these fictionalizations or based on actual accounts?

How is it known that sin was removed at her conception? Couldn’t God have purified her of Original Sin after birth as well? It seems very specific to her conception and seems like it should have some source.

 

[Good_Fella]

I am unable to find the full context for the previously cited quote from Ephraem’s Nisibene Hymn #27. It does sound like he is saying that Jesus and His mother do not have stain. Is this the stain of birth? Or actual sin?

*Ephraem, Hymns on the Epiphany (A.D. 350)

Vlll

9.The baptized when they come up are sanctified;—the sealed when they go down are pardoned.—They who come up have put on glory;—they who go down have cast off sin.—Adam put off his glory in a moment;—ye have been clothed with glory in a moment.

lX

1. Infants think when they see its glory,—that by its pomp its might is enhanced.—But it is the same, and within itself—is not divided.—But the might which never waxes less or greater—in us is little or again great;—and he in whom is great understanding,—great in him is Baptism.

X

1. Adam sinned and earned all sorrows;–likewise the world after His example, all guilt.–And instead of considering how it should be restored,–considered how its fall should be pleasant for it.–Glory to Him Who came and restored it!

4 The judgment that came of the fruit, was Adam’s condemnation:—but for you victory, has arisen this day.

XlV

1. “The children of Adam look unto Me,—that I should work for them the new birth.—A way in the waters I will search out for them,—and if I be not baptized this cannot be.”*

Nisibene Hymn 27:8 is a single extant fragment among fragments from 22-34. Stain must be referring to sin. We are flawed because of original sin. He says there was no “flaw” in Jesus. I’m sure he means no moral flaw.

"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."
On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II)

"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 36:45

"no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin…

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."

One can infer that Augustine excepted Mary among all men and women born of sin by means of the bodily union of their parents. The treating of sins means all sins with no exceptions or any sin at all, thereby perhaps including original sin. His treatise on grace was written to contend against the teachings of Pelagius, so he was referring to all men and women in a collective sense, perhaps excluding Mary

"…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?

A total overcoming of sin could very well include original sin by the singular abundance of grace Mary received because of her election to the Divine Maternity. Because there was no sin at all in Jesus, it would be fitting that there was no sin at all in Mary. Perhaps Augustine means this.

How is it known that sin was removed at her conception? Couldn’t God have purified her of Original Sin after birth as well? It seems very specific to her conception and seems like it should have some source.

The answer is Mary became the mother of Jesus at the moment she was conceived. It was for this reason God granted her this singular grace. God’s absolute perfection necessitates it.

:heaven:

 

[cominghome1966]

My Protestant friends are asking me to explain or provide them resources that the Catholic Church uses to justify this doctrine. My response is typically the implicit teachings of the Fathers and not the explicit proof from Scripture. Any helpful resources on this topic would be appreciated. My response typically has also included demonstrating other doctrines that developed over centuries that aren’t explicit within Scripture (homoousios Nicaea 325). If one accepts these other developments (Church’s interpretation of Scripture) then what criteria is used to justify the rejection of others. At any rate, any help would be welcome.

In the peace of Christ

Your Protestant friends might be interested in the answer I gave here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14354879&postcount=46

 

[susanlo]

“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.”
On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin (Book II)

"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 36:45

"no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin…

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."

One can infer that Augustine excepted Mary among all men and women born of sin by means of the bodily union of their parents. The treating of sins means all sins with no exceptions or any sin at all, thereby perhaps including original sin. His treatise on grace was written to contend against the teachings of Pelagius, so he was referring to all men and women in a collective sense, perhaps excluding Mary

"…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?

A total overcoming of sin could very well include original sin by the singular abundance of grace Mary received because of her election to the Divine Maternity. Because there was no sin at all in Jesus, it would be fitting that there was no sin at all in Mary. Perhaps Augustine means this.

If Augustine meant that Mary was free of Original Sin then he would have wrote that. We can’t cut and paste from 2 separate writings to make it say what we think he should have wrote. In the first writing he is talking about Original Sin as a condition that everyone is born with. Jesus is exempt because He does not have a human father. The 2nd writing is against Pelagius’ statements that a number of people had lived their whole life without actual sin. Pelagius did not believe in Original Sin. Augustine is responding that these people did have some actual sin, except Mary may have been prevented from actual sin because of an unknown abundance of grace God may have given her. He could have clarified in either writing that Mary had been immaculately conceived without Original Sin, but he didn’t.

The answer is Mary became the mother of Jesus at the moment she was conceived. It was for this reason God granted her this singular grace. God’s absolute perfection necessitates it.

Why didn’t the Apostles and Augustine teach this then?

 

[cominghome1966]

Why didn’t the Apostles and Augustine teach this then?

Maybe because they didn’t need to. See my post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14354879&postcount=46

But back to Augustine. Here is a post by Taylor Marshall with quotes from church fathers, including Augustine, about Mary’s immaculate conception: taylormarshall.com/2011/12/church-fathers-on-immaculate-conception.html

It is interesting how well those quotes dovetail with fetal science.

 

[Good_Fella]

If Augustine meant that Mary was free of Original Sin then he would have wrote that.

If Mary weren’t exempted from original sin, I guess he would have wrote that.

We can’t cut and paste from 2 separate writings to make it say what we think he should have wrote.

Isn’t that what you’re doing? Augustine isn’t explicit on the subject, so all we can do is surmise.

In the first writing he is talking about Original Sin as a condition that everyone is born with. Jesus is exempt because He does not have a human father. The 2nd writing is against Pelagius’ statements that a number of people had lived their whole life without actual sin. Pelagius did not believe in Original Sin. Augustine is responding that these people did have some actual sin, except Mary may have been prevented from actual sin because of an unknown abundance of grace God may have given her. He could have clarified in either writing that Mary had been immaculately conceived without Original Sin, but he didn’t.

Now you’re making the text say what you want it to say. Anyway, it makes no difference what Augustine might have thought in the fallible capacity of a theologian. He once thought unbaptized infants went to hell, but later retracted.

Why didn’t the Apostles and Augustine teach this then?

Augustine didn’t leave us everything he preached in writing. The Apostles were Jews, so I doubt they had any idea of original sin as it has developed over time.

:heaven:

 

[susanlo]

If Mary weren’t exempted from original sin, I guess he would have wrote that.

Isn’t that what you’re doing? Augustine isn’t explicit on the subject, so all we can do is surmise.

“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.”
Augustine Exposition on Psalm 35 Chapter 14
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

Now you’re making the text say what you want it to say. Anyway, it makes no difference what Augustine might have thought in the fallible capacity of a theologian. He once thought unbaptized infants went to hell, but later retracted.

Augustine didn’t leave us everything he preached in writing. The Apostles were Jews, so I doubt they had any idea of original sin as it has developed over time.

:heaven:

And as far as I know the Apostles weren’t aware of Mary’s birth being notable. Certainly she had a magnificent role because God found favor in her, but at the beginning there was no concept of Mary being born free from Original Sin which wasn’t a concept that had yet entered Christianity.

 

[Good_Fella]

" 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."
Augustine Exposition on Psalm 35 Chapter 14

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.”
Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D.415)

The expositions of the Psalms were written between 392-418 A.D. Augustine’s exposition on Psalm 35 could have been written at least a decade before his Treatise on Nature and Grace in 415. If he is in fact implying that Mary contracted original sin, he still could have changed his mind. In Nature and Grace he advises that we mustn’t mention Mary when raising the question of sins. But he does just that in his exposition of Psalm 35. So perhaps he did retract. Note, he writes “we (not I) know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred on her.” By “we”, he means the Church as a whole. Augustine’s mentor was Ambrose. This is what he had to say:

*“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
**Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388) ***

Ambrose is speaking in the present tense, not in the past. So he is referring to Mary’s perpetual state of being rather than her past experiences in instances of time. Grace “has made” her “undefiled” and “inviolate”. She has been “made free of every stain of sin”. If Ambrose were referring only to actual personal sins which might have been committed in the course of Mary’s life, he would have written "a Virgin not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate and free of every stain of sin "on occasions which might have resulted in committing sins. The dogma of original sin did not originate from Augustine, though he did contribute much insight into this mystery. Eastern theologians contributed much thought themselves which the West assimilated. There were three prevalent theories in the Church in the centuries leading up to Augustine. Despite some differences in perspective concerning our sanctification, the Eastern view was basically the same as the Western view. We’ve already examined Ephraem’s perception with regard to what he had to say about baptism. So let us look at what these two 5th century Greek Fathers had to say about Mary’s freedom from sin. Not surprisingly, they are more explicit in their words.

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446)

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 6, 11{ante A.D. 446)

God forms us in our mothers’ wombs (Ps.139:13). We are formed with the stain of original sin on our souls, and so we are born implicated in Adam’s guilt. But God formed Mary without any stain of her own. In other words, God created Mary to be stainless or sinless (“she has been made inviolate, free of every [all] stain of sin.”) when He fashioned her soul at the first instance of her conception (Lk.1:28). Mary was “made inviolate” before she was even born. She did not become inviolate at some point of her earthly existence, viz., the Annunciation. Likewise, Jesus “proceeded from” his mother “contracting no stain” of sin. Both the Mother and the Son were sinless in their being (Lk.1:42). Archbishop Proclus would certainly concur with Archbishop Theodotus that Mary was formed or made "free of all (moral) defect, holy in *soul * and body, untouched (by the serpent - Gen. 3:15?) and, unlike the rest of fallen humanity, “like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Here we have it from the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church centuries before the Great Schism! What these two bishops have to say about Mary contrasts with how we describe original sin.

Their Latin contemporary, a bishop and Doctor of the Church, has this to add in a sermon to his flock - not a speculative theological treatise:

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”
Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 {A.D. 449)

Mary was “pledged in the womb” to be the mother of Christ. She wasn’t pledged to her divine Son when she conceived him. The Father pledged the Mother at that first instant He fashioned her soul (“made her”) and sanctified it.

And as far as I know the Apostles weren’t aware of Mary’s birth being notable… there was no concept of Mary being born free from Original Sin which wasn’t a concept that had yet entered Christianity.

The concept existed, but was expressed in different terms according to a level of understanding the fullness of the mystery. God Himself tells us that Mary was immaculately conceived in Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 (sensus plenior).

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/13/hail-full-of-grace/

:heaven:

 

[AmbroseSJ]

“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.”
Augustine Exposition on Psalm 35 Chapter 14
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

Even though you take this out of context in order to somehow disprove the Immaculate Conception, you fail to understand the meaning.

Mary died for sin (according to St. Augustine) and so she did. But it was not HER sin, but the sin of Adam, and all humanity. IOW, she cooperated with the grace of Redemption by joining her sacrifice (her own death) to her sons. Look at it another way. St. Augustine (even you will agree) is not saying that Jesus died for HIS OWN sin, but rather the sin of Adam and all of mankind. St. Augustine is drawing a parallel between Mary and her Son, who both died for the sin of Adam and mankind, but NOT their own personal sin, nor any original sin, that the rest of mankind is heir to. This is actually the basis for Mary as co-redemptrix.

 

[wmscott]

“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.”
Augustine Exposition on Psalm 35 Chapter 14
newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

And as far as I know the Apostles weren’t aware of Mary’s birth being notable. Certainly she had a magnificent role because God found favor in her, but at the beginning there was no concept of Mary being born free from Original Sin which wasn’t a concept that had yet entered Christianity.

So, in understanding you position, the Bible (OT and NT) compiled as it is today, wasn’t a concept that had yet entered Christianity and yet you accept it without question. It was the Catholic Church some 300+ years later that set the cannon as it is today. The point being is that some things develop over time, remember that Christ said that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church as seen in John 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything, and in John 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth. So why is so hard to accept that God created the Blessed Mother sinless? Because for the foreseen merits of Christ, a pure vessel free from the stain of original sin was needed to bear Christ. I think sometimes we tend to forget that this was not the first time God created sinless beings, remember Adam and Eve?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Augustine taught that everyone except for Jesus is born with original sin, but that Mary may be without actual sin, due to graces given from God and not from an immaculate birth.

Augustine - On Nature and Grace
“Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]— The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin
He then enumerates those who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John. And he adds the names of some women—Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her, he says, we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it. We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

So Augustine says Mary might have lived without actual sin, but from the quote I shared in post #17 we see that he taught she was not exempt from original sin.

Augustine’s ideas weren’t rejected, but were accepted as official doctrine.

susanlo-

This is a sidebar, but I think it is important for you, a non-Catholic, to consider.

In your posts, you are relying on Augustine’s opinions in order to undermine the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; it’s almost like he was a proto-Protestant of some sort, isn’t it?

So, it appears you accept Augustine as an authority on what is true doctrine. Will you accept any of his views on any of these topics?

On Infant Baptism

“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents' or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam” (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

On Baptismal Regeneration

It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too. (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412])

The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration. (Ibid., 2:27:43)

On Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire

“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ–it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,' made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’” [Matt. 10:32] (City of God 13:7 [A.D. 420]).

One the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411])

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction. (Ibid., 272)

On Praying for the Dead

“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place.” (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421])

+++

Did you catch that last one, susanlo?

“Even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point [regarding prayer for the dead] is of no small weight.”

Now, if Augustine sees the authority of the Catholic Church as sufficient to bind the conscience of the believer where the scriptures are silent regarding purgatory, why is it ay different regarding the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Randy_Carson]

susanlo-

Here are a few more quotes from ECF’s BEFORE Augustine regarding the Immaculate Conception and, as an added bonus, notice how many of them speak of Mary as “virgin” - not merely because she was a virgin at the time that Jesus was conceived but because she remained a virgin all of her life…a point that even the earliest Protestant Reformers such as Luther and Calvin defended.

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus (180 AD)

“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… 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 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 the Heresies, Book III [A.D. 180]).

St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

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]).

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]).

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

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 Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30, 387 A.D.)

St. Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 350)

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]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

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]).

Finally, have you observed how careful Augustine is to tread lightly around the subject of Mary’s sinlessness? Has it occurred to you that this is evidence of the fact that it was widely believed that Mary was without sin PRIOR to the time that Augustine wrote and that this suggests that the belief was held much earlier than you seem to allow?

 

[susanlo]

susanlo-

This is a sidebar, but I think it is important for you, a non-Catholic, to consider.

In your posts, you are relying on Augustine’s opinions in order to undermine the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; it’s almost like he was a proto-Protestant of some sort, isn’t it?

So, it appears you accept Augustine as an authority on what is true doctrine. Will you accept any of his views on any of these topics?

Now, if Augustine sees the authority of the Catholic Church as sufficient to bind the conscience of the believer where the scriptures are silent regarding purgatory, why is it ay different regarding the Immaculate Conception?

I don’t mean to say that Augustine is an authority on what is true doctrine. Only God and His Word teach absolute truth with authority. Augustine has many wonderful teachings that we can learn from, but he is not infallible as a teacher. My point in quoting him is showing his understandings of Original Sin and Mary during his time. I am using his writings as an historical reference to “development” of doctrine.

 

[susanlo]

susanlo-
Here are a few more quotes from ECF’s BEFORE Augustine regarding the Immaculate Conception and, as an added bonus, notice how many of them speak of Mary as “virgin” - not merely because she was a virgin at the time that Jesus was conceived but because she remained a virgin all of her life…a point that even the earliest Protestant Reformers such as Luther and Calvin defended.

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus (180 AD)

“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… 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 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 the Heresies, Book III [A.D. 180]).

St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

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]).

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]).

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

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 Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30, 387 A.D.)

St. Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 350)

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]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

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]).

Finally, have you observed how careful Augustine is to tread lightly around the subject of Mary’s sinlessness? Has it occurred to you that this is evidence of the fact that it was widely believed that Mary was without sin PRIOR to the time that Augustine wrote and that this suggests that the belief was held much earlier than you seem to allow?

I don’t see anything here about the perpetual virginity, although I do think that Origen in the 3rd century did write about that. There were various opinions about that in the first 500 years. None of these quotes state that her birth was distinctive and unique.

I can’t find the full text for the Nisibene Hymns and there is so much taken out of that 2nd quote and filled in with “…” that it is hard to know what is actually being talked about. Is “alone Most Immaculate” referring to Mary or Jesus? It can’t be both. Or maybe we are missing too much of the quote to really understand it.

I see 2 copies of Ambrose’s Commentary of Psalm 118 online. Neither contain the quote above. Where can I find the full text including this quote?
beliefnet.com/columnists/bread_on_the_trail/2011/07/st-ambrose-gods-temple-is-holy-and-you-are-his-temple.html
fministry.com/2012/12/st-ambrose-on-psalm-118.html

The view of Mary being sinlessness was held by Pelagius and others. Most spoke of her with much respect and honor as they should. Augustine also spoke carefully and said she may have been exempt from ACTUAL sin. The idea that there was definitely Original Sin and that Mary along with Jesus were exempt, was a later development.

 

[Good_Fella]

None of these quotes state that her birth was distinctive and unique.

True, it isn’t literally stated that Mary’s birth was “distinctive and unique”, but it is implied. Justin Martyr, for instance, draws a parallel between Eve and Mary. He speaks of Eve having been “a virgin and undefiled” before she “conceived the word of the serpent” and fell from God’s grace. As a result, she morally contributed to bringing sin and death into the world. Mary, too was a virgin and undefiled when God created her, but she received the word of the angel “in faith and joy”, thereby remaining in God’s grace. As a result, she morally contributed to regenerating humanity unto God by giving birth to our Lord and Saviour. She helped regain what Eve helped forfeit for all her descendants. Both Eve and Mary were born sinless, which make their births “distinctive and unique”, only Eve eventually fell from God’s grace, while Mary continued to excel in it (Luke 1:28, 30).

Hippolytus draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. In ancient Judaism, the Ark of the Covenant was the only religious relic that was venerated and even bowed to (Joshua 7:6), since it was regarded to be intrinsically holy, being the medium by which YHWH physically manifested Himself in the glory cloud.* The Ark was God’s personal dwelling place in the world, as was the Temple in Jerusalem, having no relation to anything that was regarded to be profane. The purpose for which the Ark was constructed rendered it sacred. This holy object that was sanctified by God was made of the purest natural materials; incorruptible acacia wood (shittim) as well as pure gold that covered the Ark without and laced it within. The golden wreath which decorated the Ark added the final touch. The Ark was so holy, in fact, that if anyone were to touch it without having first been ritually purified, they would be struck dead, albeit any good intentions (2 Samuel 6:6-7). The Ark was eventually housed in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, which was a perfectly clean and sacred place where only the Jewish high priests could enter once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) according to their law (Leviticus 16:2-4).

The Ark held the two stone tablets on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments, the budded rod of the high priest Aaron, and a golden jar of the manna that came down from heaven during the Israelites’ sojourn in the desert. When the Ark was carried in procession, it was accompanied by joyous singing, the playing of several musical instruments, and the wearing of religious vestments. The procession was an occasion for celebrating being blessed by God and receiving the grace of His faithful covenant (2 Samuel 6:3). It was also associated with God’s providential care. For instance, in the Battle of Jericho, the Ark was carried round the city’s walls seven times (figuratively the number of days God created the world) until they came tumbling down (Joshua 6:11-17). And as the Levitical priests carried the Ark in procession, God caused the water of the Jordan to recede to provide a path for His chosen people to cross into the Promised Land (Joshua 3:2-4, 17). As the anti-type of the Ark, Mary is God’s sacred and holy vessel, and channel of divine grace.

Since nascent time, the Church has venerated Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. The first converts to the Christian faith in the first century were Jews. Because of their Judaic heritage, they naturally perceived Mary to be the anti-type of Ark of the Covenant and saw its culmination in her. The parallel was so clear to them that it became a sacred tradition of the Church, one that has lasted in the Church to this present day. Just as the Israelites venerated the Ark until its disappearance prior to the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century B.C., so did the first Christian ecclesia in Palestine revere the mother of the Lord because of her personal association with the physical manifestation of God’s presence (the Divine theophany) on earth.

The first Christian ecclesia couldn’t but acknowledge Mary’s exceptional holiness and separation from all that is profane and even sinful, for it was she who was chosen to carry the Divine Word made flesh in her womb (Luke 1:35; John 1:14). Mary’s soul could be compared with the gold that covered and laced the Ark, and her body with the incorruptible acacia wood that framed it, the Temple where the Ark was eventually kept, her womb with the sacred sanctuary - the Holy of Holies. The connection was clear to them. As the mother of our Lord, Mary held not only the Divine Word, but also in his person the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:8-10), and the “true manna come down from heaven” - the “Bread of Life” (John 6:35, 51). Mary held within her the anti-type of these sacred Christological relics. Since they find their ultimate fulfillment in the holy person of the Divine Son, so too the Ark that held them culminates in the holy person of the Lord’s Mother who was full of grace (Lk.1:28). Just like the Ark, God made Mary according to His specifications and created her to be holy as His sacred vessel. Thus, she was born in this state, which made her birth “distinctive and unique”.

That this nascent Marian tradition of the Church did in fact exist is undeniably certain. In his Gospel, Luke draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark by alluding to persons and events found in the Book of Exodus, the Second Book of Samuel, 1 Chronicles, 1 Kings, and Zephaniah. All that the evangelist wrote down by Divine inspiration was drawn from what was handed on through the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Everything recorded in his Gospel came from the first witnesses and servants of the spoken word (Lk. 1:1-4). God’s unwritten and spoken word, and His written word, are the truth.

Shall I go on?

:heaven:

 

[Della]

I don’t know if the discussion has moved beyond citing Aquinas, but I came across this article that I thought might be helpful: newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-st-thomas-deny-dogma-of-immaculate.html.

It’s a dangerous thing, IMHO, for anyone to cherry-pick quotes from saints to try to make them deny Church teachings. I’ve seen both Catholics and Protestants do this, so I’m not singling out anyone. The Church is perfectly aware of what Catholic theologians, both recent and from centuries ago, have discussed and published. So, to engage in such tactics is a major fail–especially with those who know better. We should all be careful about wanting to win debates so much we pass on bad information or biased opinions instead of the truth of the matter.