Immaculate Conception refuted by Church Fathers?

[J1Priest]

Listening to a debate about Mariology between Martin Walter and Fr. Pacwa, the Protestant apologist gives a load of quotes from Church Fathers (including Popes) in saying things such as “Christ alone was sinless” or that He was conceived sinless but from the sin of His mother…
[bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaMary.mp3](http://www.bringyou.to/Mart(name removed by moderator)acwaMary.mp3)
Fr. Pacwa does not respond to those quotes (and many other claims).

So, some of the quotes are something like this,​

215 AD Tertullian) “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3).

Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom)​

Or other stuff found in the bottom of this website letusreason.org/RC1.htm
(note that these are not the quotes that the Protestant uses)

Thank you

Pax Christi,
Juan J.

 

[Todd_Easton]

You may find the article on “Immaculate Conception” in the Catholic Encyclopedia helpful, especially the sections entitled “Proof from Tradition” and “The Controversy.”

 

[Safe_Eagle]

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

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

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“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 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.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

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

“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 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my 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 VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“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).

“[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.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

 

[thistle]

The Immaculate Conception only became dogma in 1854 so prior to that people were free to hold whatever opinion they had.
St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. In his Catechetical Instructions he said “Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it.”

 

[J1Priest]

Yes, but when we take in account things such as the Eucharist, we see that Tradition agrees (at least for the most part) in the view that we hold today (perhaps a less developed understanding).

The same with many other things. We see their roots in Scriptures and then we look at Tradition.

But if we do this with the Immaculate Conception, first the roots in Scriptures are ambigous (the argument of her being the New Ark is enough to convince me), and when we look at Tradition we begin to see a whole lot of different opinions, so even the argument of Mary being the Ark and thus having to have been conceived without sin does not seem to be too strong…

Or the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Protestant apologists do cite him sometimes, and it’s difficult for me…

Like, we have Church Fathers, early Popes, Doctors of the Church, even St. Thomas Aquinas, in disagreement with the dogma…

thnx,

Pax Domini,
Juan J.

 

[Todd_Easton]

But if we do this with the Immaculate Conception, first the roots in Scriptures are ambigous (the argument of her being the New Ark is enough to convince me), and when we look at Tradition we begin to see a whole lot of different opinions, so even the argument of Mary being the Ark and thus having to have been conceived without sin does not seem to be too strong…

The Bible says that the blessed Virgin Mary was “graced” or “favored” by God prior to Angel Gabriel’s visit. (Luke 1:28) When and to what extend she was “graced” or “favored” by God was not definitively settled, and so open for debate, until her Immaculate Conception was made a dogma in the 1850s.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, people believed in the Immaculate Conception pretty much from ‘the start’ --and if you look carefully at the quotes above (especially in context of the ENTIRE documents and in context of the other church fathers, the Church itself, etc) you’ll find that NONE of them CONTRADICT the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as we know it. Even these writers (and I am not denigrating them by saying so), gifted as they were, are not inerrant in every concept or turn of phrase they use, you know.

St. Thomas, for instance, is often brought up by nonCatholics as reflecting “Catholic teaching” that ‘ensoulment’ did not take place until 6 months gestation, so therefore the Church "changed its teaching’ in proclaiming that “conception” marks the ‘soul’ of a person; therefore that abortion before 6 months gestation was not murder, etc.

But we do not, and never did, claim that St. Thomas’ statement on ensoulment reflected definitive dogma. We do (in the context of the FULL document) realize that St. Thomas was attempting not to give ‘loopholes’ for later ‘progressive choicers’ but rather attempting in so far as the limited science of the time ‘understood it’ to speak of the fact that ‘EVEN’ an unborn child was still a person.

Just as in the Bible where it speaks figuratively of the earth being ‘set firmly in place’ should not be understood as proclaiming that the earth is FIXED and does not move in space, likewise language which focuses on cultural or figurative language, or is an attempt to focus attention on ONE figure, or can even be understood not to be dismissive of another ‘figure’ outside that ‘one’ figure, is not to be understood in only ONE way --the way that we English speakers of the U.S.A. in 2007 ‘understand’ it NOW.

Finally, point of information yet again, please:

Just because something was declared dogma in 1854 does NOT mean that it ‘didn’t exist’ until then, or didn’t COUNT until then, or was ‘up for debate’ until then.

It means that it WAS TRUTH ‘before’, remains truth TODAY and WILL continue truth FOREVER.

The reason that it had to be DECLARED was that people were questioning it and some people were wondering, is it true or not?

So all the ‘wonderers’ were given the answer" Yes, it is true. It was true in about 20 B.C., it remains true today, and it will always remain true.

You weren’t ‘allowed’ to decide, “no it is not true”, though–ever. Not ‘before 1854’ and not after, either.

 

[Penitus]

As a Roman Catholic, I find it difficult to watch so many other Catholics who are uncomfortable with the fact that the Apostolic Fathers believed Mary sinned.

Yes, I admit it. Many Church Fathers make mention of Mary sinning. That does not make it so: no Apostolic Father is infallible. Mary’s sinlessness was a development of doctrine, not something handed down by the Apostles themselves.

It takes some to come to terms with this face, but I promise everything will be ok Mary is still sinless.

 

[Penitus]

Actually, people believed in the Immaculate Conception pretty much from ‘the start’ --and if you look carefully at the quotes above (especially in context of the ENTIRE documents and in context of the other church fathers, the Church itself, etc) you’ll find that NONE of them CONTRADICT the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as we know it.

None of the above quotes contradict it, but other Church Fathers did. Sorry to say:

“even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. ‘For while He yet talked to the people,’ it is said, ‘one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, ‘While He yet talked to the people;’ as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?” - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)

You read that right. John Chrysostom called our Mom vain. Too bad he was incorrect

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Penitus,

So did the Church claim new revelation when she made a dogma the Immaculate Conception? If not, how did they know to make it a dogma, if no one (Popes/Bishops) ever knew beforehand??