Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella;8515978:

Isn’t that exactly what the bible teaches?

What Christians knew before the NT was written and compiled based on Tradition.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us (sacred Tradition), just
as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and preachers of the word have handed them down to us (oral Tradition),
I too have decided, after investigating everything anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you (sacred Scripture),
most excellent Theophilus.
Luke 1, 1-4

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Jesus is alluding to his divinity in this prayer of his, but not explicitly telling his disciples that he is God, of the same substance and essence of the Father (homoousios) as opposed to having a similar divine nature (homoiousios) [Council of Nicea, A.D. 325]. The Gospel was written upon reflection after Jesus had ascended into heaven and sent the Paraclete. I doubt the apostles fully comprehended the meaning of Jesus’ words at the time he said this prayer.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[pablope]

]I think this issue of Mary’s sinless/sinful state has caused Christians to slide into Phariseeism. For Catholics, the doctrine of Mary never sinning has become a rule that must be believed in order to be in good standing with the Church. But then how did Mary escape original sin must be explained, so the Immaculate Conception becomes a rule that must be believed to be in good standing with the Church, neither of which has anything to do with salvation.

The IC is not a rule…is dogma…declared formally…sure in the 1850s or so…but it does not mean it was not known or believed early in the Church.

And it is not that we should believe it to be in good standing…we believe it because it is the teaching of the Church Magisterium…led by the Pope.

Protestants (some of whom seem a little obsessed with this belief) point to Romans 3:23 and say all includes Mary. Then they have to contend with does all mean everyone, does it mean all those being addressed by the letter to Romans, or does all mean those who read this verse, does all mean the same in other verses (as a previous poster has pointed out)?
** Again, this has nothing to do with our salvation**.

And how do you know that, Steve? Do you or is it God who gets to decide what has to do or nothing to do with salvation?

To clarify, in the third Chapter of Romans Paul is explaining that the Jewish Christians shouldn’t look down on their former-pagan brothers and sisters because everyone sins and must be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

Personally, I still think Mary was a sinner (I can’t think of a gentler way to say it). I won’t quote any Scripture, but God has always used fallen, broken, humble, obedient, sinful, beautiful people to do miraculous things. If you choose to believe the same, or different, God Bless you. Just don’t be a stumbling block to a fellow believer.

Let me cite this passage from Luke…

Luke 1… 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

And let me ask you this…or ponder on it…if Elizabeth and Zechariah are capable of being blameless and righteous…do you think the BVM is also not capable of being like Elizabeth and Zechariah?

 

[pablope]

The immaculate conception is a fairly new doctrine within the light of the timetable of Catholicism. I have the quotes of many Popes and church fathers who absolutely deny that Mary was sinless. Pope Pius IX made this part of the Catholic doctrine, but many before him found this to be heretical.

I go with scripture which tells me that all men are sinful and there weren’t any exceptions made.

Hi…Fg…let me ask you the same question I asked Steve…below…

Let me cite this passage from Luke…

Luke 1… 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

Let me ask you this…or ponder on it…if Elizabeth and Zechariah are capable of being blameless and righteous…do you think the BVM is also not capable of being like Elizabeth and Zechariah?

 

[KathleenGee]

ForeverGrace,

Fundamentalists think Catholic teachings are the teachings of men…our doctrines…man made…the Immaculate Conception…to falsify God with man made doctrines is essentially being on a ‘Ship of Fools’, which Catholicism is not.

Catholicism is the Bark of Peter…The ancient title of Mary was also Mary Maris Stella…Star of the Sea…Mary, full of grace–the Latinized name derived from Hebrew Miriam-- Bitter.

The Catholic ‘documentation’ you wanted Catholics to see demonstrated lack of context, which is always missing when fundamentalists, Mormons, and Muslims use Catholic texts against 9its believers. Furthermore, I still recognized the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception within most of those quotes. You are looking at them not only out of context but with the filter of how your own faith formation has been constructed. You are not understanding and interpreting these passages the same as us.

St. Thomas Aquinas was one of those who did not develop theology on Mary in this regard because for him in that era and juncture, he did not want to take away from Christ. The Dominicans are known for their Spiritual Ascent…coming to Christ intellectually…climbing up. The Dominicans are known for being great theologians.

But it was the Franciscans who were the ones who began the work of defining Mary Immaculate. The Franciscans are known for their Spiritual Descent…coming down to Christ’s feet to serve Him in their neighbor. They have great sense of humanity. It is no wonder, then, that they would be the ones to reflect on the nature of Mary’s humanity. And this not coming about until several hundreds of years after the death of St. Francis

Things take time in the Catholic Church…a gathering of many people of many charisms…

Since the beginning of Christianity, believers not only held Mary in the highest regard, but as separate in her essence from them. Only she had the virgin birth…and a birth giving flesh to the Messiah and Savior of the world. Reasonably speaking, that is putting her in another class of humanity of which we are not. And because she is Mother of the Redeemer…not recognizing anything else that she was a good woman, full of grace…it also reflects some deficiency in the complete reality of Who Christ is, what is fully meant to be Savior, Redeemer, the Word Incarnate. It has been in the tradition of our faith since earliest times that Mary was venerated.

However, theologically, it was debated back and forth about original sin, Mary’s conception without sin in lieu of Roman 3…just because she was singularly chosen, she was a virgin giving birth, and most of all — because she is the Mother of God.

Did Mary do anything to be full of grace?

Mary is the greatest of all followers of Jesus. Ever was, ever will be. It is not the purpose of the Bible to teach us about Mary, but the duty of Christ’s Church.

The Old Testament can show us holiness, we Gentiles, through the faith of the Jews, the fidelity to believe in the One True God. The Old Testament can show us morality through the 10 commandments. The Old Testament can tell us about the instructions by God to build the Temple, and how to provide worthy worship of Him–a sanctuary, the priests, the altar, and sacred rituals…these never intended to be put away.

The whole of Sacred Scripture is all about the fulfillment of God among us–Jesus Christ…and the establishment of His Church.

Yes, there is documentation about Mary being considered free of sin in early church teachings. Early Church Fathers speak of her. I especially love the treatise on Virgins by St. Ambrose who speaks of Mary, from that tradition of those who actually had seen her, and these witnesses passing down their testimony into the generations of future believers.

Mary is set aside. She always has been. She has never been looked upon as a sinful woman. Christ has never been seen as residing in a womb of sin. This is tradition going back to beginning Christianity.

The Sacred Scriptures speak of Christ…but not all is in Scripture but the life of Christ that is revealed in His Church, the communion of saints, and the veneration of Mary who began to make herself intercession known among believers beginning in the 2nd century. My pastor just the other day said, that even though no dogma was declared until the 1850’s, there were those believers from the beginning who knew in the Holy Spirit that Mary was free from sin.

God chose her. Why?

Where in Scripture that it explains why God chose Mary? How could a woman,a sinner, give birth retaining her virgin state?

What does it mean to be full of grace in fundamentalism? And how does one achieve to be full of grace?

 

[ForeverGrace]

joe3370,

I’m so sorry that you find the words of Ambrose, Augustine Gregory the Great and Pope Leo so offensive. It is their words, not mine, so if you are angry, please take it up with them.

Clearly, Augustine did not waiver:

Augustine:

"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.”

Protestants accept that Mary was chosen by God as a blessed woman. We believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit so he could not be affected by the sin of original spin. But no where are we told that Mary was also without sin in any other area of her life. It’s completely contrary to scripture.

As to the cut/paste, yep, I did copy a good deal of it. However, I’m involved with the website that posted the information and know the character of the person and his academic skills. They are huge. And of course, the web makes it quite easy to access and verify any claims. I’ve done my homework.
You posted this thread, so… you either want to create an argument or some other kind of dialogue. It’s your thread and I have participated. But… let me just say that the only word I hold as truth is that of our TRIUNE God. Your Popes however beloved, are mere men and it’s clear that they have engaged in some very ungodly behavior from time-to-time. Protestants have not managed to do any better. Facts are facts.

I will make sure to not post on your threads in the future. It’s not my intention to win an argument, just to offer a different point of view.

Blessings!*

 

[PRmerger]

Richard Kastner,

You are so correct. The Bible has numerous documentations of the Deity of Christ. I always like to start with Exodus… the great I AM that I AM. From there, you can find other claims to the Deity of Christ. "And his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Prince of Peace. Good ol’ Isaiah spoke of it before the Messiah returned. I’ve lost count of the I AM verses. My personal favorite is John 10:30. “I and the Father are ONE”.

In His Amazing Grace

Amen!

And you can thank the Catholic Church for preserving and codifying these verses for you and telling you that they are the word of God.

 

[Canto]

joe3370,

I’m so sorry that you find the words of Ambrose, Augustine Gregory the Great and Pope Leo so offensive.

What’s so offensive about Ambrose saying that Mary was free from every stain of sin?
Or Augustine saying that when talking about sin we must exempt Mary?
Or Pope Gregory saying that Mary was a Mountain who surpassed the height of every elect creature?
Or even Pope Leo who said that Christ was born of his unsullied Mother?

 

[jediliz]

The angel greeted Mary and said “you have found favor with GOD” Now how many sinners would find favor with God BEFORE Jesus came…AND be CHOSEN to carry the Messiah?

 

[Marybeloved]

This list is a good illustration of people who like to read their own present-day prejudices into ancient readings and writings w/out taking any care at all to look at the larger contexts of the Author’s full writing, other writings, the beliefs an controversies of the time etc etc- Just like with the Romans 3 business.

“There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all.”

Perhaps the problem here is protestant presumptions about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception- It’s been explained so many times on this thread and no fresh arguments keep coming up from the other side- Perhaps we should just quote our former posts in reply from now on . How many times have Catholics said that the virgin was subject to original sin like everyone else but was saved at her conception in view of Christ’s merits? Catholics always say that mary was saved by Christ, so I have no idea what this quotation was intended to prove. Nor these:

Second Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 22), Chap. 3.

“And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception”

Eighth Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 28), Chapter 3

“And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succor the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, 'Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?”

. Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5.

“… when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.”

These quotes only show that the fathers taught what we all (Catholics) believe! That only Christ was not subject to original sin ! He was not subject to it- because it did not exist in his mother when he was conceived! She on the other hand, was subject to it, and was saved by an infusion of a complete and perfect grace (*kecharitomene) *that restored her whole human nature to original perfection, which is why Christ was not subject to the stain of original sin like all other children (including Mary) when Mary conceived him!

2 Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Luke 1:35:

For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty.

• Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59. (Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A.)
  **Augustine (354-430 AD): **

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.”

• NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin*Like Brother Joe already showed clearly your assumptions regarding what the fathers are saying here are wrong because these fathers explicitly taught Mary’s sinlessness. Perhaps you should try understand what the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate conception actually is, rather than rely on prejudiced assumptions- W/out the infusion of the fullness of grace she was fallen, there was no exemption from original sin for her except the generous grace with which she was infused at her conception, the existence of which grace, the angel testified.

 

[E.E.N.S]

It’s completely contrary to scripture.

In your personal interpretation of it. Certainly not mine. Good thing Jesus established an authoritative Church to make these kind of calls.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What Christians knew before the NT was written and compiled based on Tradition.

It was written and compiled by revelation of God

2Peter1
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us (sacred Tradition), just
as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and preachers of the word have handed them down to us (oral Tradition),
I too have decided, after investigating everything anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you (sacred Scripture),
most excellent Theophilus.
Luke1:1-4

This is most certainly talking about Paul relating the Gospel message to Luke who accompanied Paul on some of his journey’s related in Acts. The narrative of events that the eyewitnesses preached was the Gospel message, which can be read in Luke if you continue reading after this passage and also the message that Paul himself preached, having been taught it by Jesus Himself.

Gal.1
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is alluding to his divinity in this prayer of his, but not explicitly telling his disciples that he is God, of the same substance and essence of the Father (homoousios) as opposed to having a similar divine nature (homoiousios) [Council of Nicea, A.D. 325]. The Gospel was written upon reflection after Jesus had ascended into heaven and sent the Paraclete. I doubt the apostles fully comprehended the meaning of Jesus’ words at the time he said this.

I posted Jn.17 in responce to this

I don’t recall Jesus explicitly telling his disciples: “I am God,” or “I am consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.”

Jn. 17 certainly does bring out that Jesus believed and brought out that He was “consubstantial” with the Father. Other passages that I have posted certainly bring out that He revealed and His disciples understood that He was God. Let me know if you would like me to post more.

 

[PRmerger]

It was written and compiled by** revelation of God**.

This is very Catholic of you to say. And it reinforces that, as there was not yet any New Testament, this “revelation of God” had to be something OTHER than the New Testament, no?

So what was this “revelation of God”?

wait for it…

wait for it…

It was…

SACRED TRADITION!

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll give it one more shot:

If it’s not just your opinion, then it must be verifiable fact. Is it verifiable fact?

It’s your interpretation of Romans 8:3, and I do not even know of any other protestants that agree with you regarding your subjective take on that particular verse, not that that would matter for it would merely be their subjective interpretation/opinion and not verifiable fact!

Richard, by saying, “This is not subjective and it’s not my opinion. It is the word of God…” - you are essentially telling me that my subjective opinion, regarding the same verse, is 100 % wrong! You are calling my interpretation of the word of God wrong and your interpretation of the word of God - right. How can you deny that simple logic???

Easily…because he is Protestant. Private interpretation runs wild in Protestanism. Richard’s interpretation is just another private interpretation expected to believed as the Word of God.

 

[joe370]

Easily…because he is Protestant. Private interpretation runs wild in Protestanism. Richard’s interpretation is just another private interpretation expected to believed as the Word of God.

The logic, or lack thereof, escapes me…

 

[joe370]

In your personal interpretation of it. Certainly not mine. Good thing Jesus established an authoritative Church to make these kind of calls.

Otherwise we are all simply left with subjective opinions when faced with doctrinal differences…

 

[Nicea325]

The logic, or lack thereof, escapes me…

Me too…

 

[joe370]

Hey Mary…

Marybeloved
These quotes only show that the fathers taught what we all (Catholics) believe! That only Christ was not subject to original sin ! He was not subject to it- because it did not exist in his mother when he was conceived! She on the other hand, was subject to it, and was saved by an infusion of a complete and perfect grace (*kecharitomene) *that restored her whole human nature to original perfection, which is why Christ was not subject to the stain of original sin like all other children (including Mary) when Mary conceived him!

Bingo… Excellent post…

 

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by ForeverGrace forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
3. Gelasius I

Gelasius’ fifth letter. I found it elsewhere identified as his seventh letter. Regardless, it is written to the Picenian Bishops. It states:

“Accordingly whatever those parents produced of their stock, is indeed the work of God, according to the institution of nature, but not without the contagion of that evil which they derived through their own transgression”

Gelasius “Lib. contra Pelagium,” which I found elsewhere cited as as “dicta adv. Pelag. haeresin.,” which in any event means it is a work against the Pelagians. It states:
It belongs alone to the immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all.
Gregory Ist (or Gregory the Great)

That’s a very thin snippet you’ve provided there- But my guess is that he taught no different from your other quotations- Christ alone was not subject to any sin at all in any way- Nothing can be presumed here about Mary who is subject to original sin but saved from it, and free of any actual sin.

Book of the Morals, an exposition of Job, Book 18, on Job 27 (and quoted by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, 3rd part, question 34, article 1, reply to objection 3)
For we, though we are made holy, yet are: not born holy, because by the mere constitution of a corruptible nature we are tied and bound, that we should say with the Prophet, Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. But He only is truly born holy, Who in order that He might get the better of that same constitution of a corruptible nature, was not conceived by the combining of carnal conjunction.

“Moreover, since no one among men in this world is without sin (and what else is sinning but flying from GOD?), I say confidently that this my daughter also has some sins.”
NPNF2: Vol. XII, Selected Epistles, Book VII, Epistle 30.

St. Thomas’ objection to the Immaculate Conception is well known (By the way he lived 1000 years ago, so this idea of new inventions of the belief by catholics in 19th and 20th Century should already appear to be totally baseless!)- It is also well known that he was clearly opposed and contradicted even by his own students in this one stance, when they accepted his stance on his other teachings- It’s he, St. Thomas who was going against the grain in his views on the Immaculate Conception, and this is the view of the Church as she did define the dogma, almost a millenium after St. Thomas.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603):

And what a thing it would be, were we to neglect for the salvation of the soul what we carefully attend to in matters of earthly concern! And so, since, according to the words of the Apostle John, no one is without sin, let us call to mind enticements of thought, incontinence of tongue, deeds of transgression; and let us, while we may, with great knocking, do away with the stains of our iniquities, that our just and loving Redeemer may not execute vengeance according to our deservings, but according to His mercy be bent to pardon.

Same Romans 3 argument here- He’s speaking of the general human condition, nothing can be presumed here about Our Lady’s sinfulness .

4. Roman Clergy, post Honorius I (John IV before his reign)

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 19:

“And in the first place, it is blasphemous folly to say that man is without sin, which none can be, but only the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who was conceived and born without sin; ***for all other men, being born in original sin, are known to bear the mark of Adam’s transgression, ***even whilst they are without actual sin, according to the saying of the prophet, "For behold, I was conceived in iniquity; and in sin did my mother give birth to me."

However, this same quotation is attributed elsewhere attributed to John IV, because it was apparently written by him and three other high-ranking clergy while he was Rome’s bishop-elect (see this source).

Since, the Pope already gives context, I don’t understand why this should even confuse you- MARY WAS SUBJECT TO ORIGINAL SIN, JESUS WAS NOT. Mary was saved from the same source that saves us- already before Jesus was killed, before he was born, before he was conceived, before his mother knew about him, before she knew her own identity as the prophesied virgin- She was saved!- Declared by God the Father himself through his Holy messenger to be kecharitomene, filled completely with grace or made full of grace, .

Peace!

 

[joe370]

Marybeloved, what I eventually learned as a former protestant, plagued with doubts regarding protestantism, eg sola scritpura, sola fida, etc…was:

Including Thomas Aquinas, who always deferred to the authority of the CC teaching office, there were 2 other ECF’s who exhibited some doubt as well, but of course they had every right to hold to their own personal opinion since the CC had yet to officially define it as a dogma. The idea that Mary sinned was never universally or officially taught/believed by the Church fathers, even prior to it being dogmatically defined.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved, what I eventually learned as a former protestant, plagued with doubts regarding protestantism, eg sola scritpura, sola fida, etc…was:

Including Thomas Aquinas, who always deferred to the authority of the CC teaching office, there were 2 other ECF’s who exhibited some doubt as well, but of course they had every right to hold to their own personal opinion since the CC had yet to officially define it as a dogma. The idea that Mary sinned was never universally or officially taught/believed by the Church fathers, even prior to it being dogmatically defined.

You’re right! After all, there were some who contradicted the formulation of the Blessed Trinity and The Hypostatic union of Christ, why not the Virgin’s sinlessness, IC, perpetual virginity, or assumption? I just wanted to show that the idea of Mary sinning was a relatively late view and also clearly a minority view. I once read that in the East, St. Thomas’ students accepted his entire teaching wholeheartedly except his denial of the IC which they openly opposed and contradicted him about.