Several Early Church Fathers do not agree with Roman Catholic teachings regarding Mary.

[SIA]

You have heard me say it time and time again. Some of you claim that I have no material or actual quotes from early Church Fathers to back up making this statement. You are wrong and I will produce them here. I decided to make a thread out of this fact in history that isn’t very popular with many Catholics but does remain a fact. Many of the early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to Catholic teaching regarding Mary. Here are some.

1. Clement of Alexandria - The Word, Jesus Christ **ALONE **was born without sin.
2. St. Augustine- Christ alone being made a man but remaining God NEVER had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.****
3. Ambrose - of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experiencednot the contagion of earthly corruption
4. St. Bernard - Our astonishment is not small in seeing that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a NEW FEAST that is UNKNOWN to the rite of Church that cannot be approved by reason that it is condemned by the ancient traditions, The feast of The Immaculate Conception.
5. St. Thomas Aquinas**- What honor should we believe in attributing to Mary that honor may be had for her conception… which was anterior to her birth? Then would you say if others, according to your own reasoning, were to maintain that it is necessary to hold feasts in honor of her parents, that is logical. Then it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all. there would be feasts without number on the earth and it would be converted into a paradise.

6.Peter Lombard- But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was **conceived without original sin? We say that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

7.Melchoir Cannas - The dogma that holds the blessed Virgin was free from the original sin was NOWHERE delivered in Holy Scripture.

1. St. Antoninus**Leo l- The Lord Jesus Christ ALONE among the sons of men was born WITHOUT SIN.
2. Pope Galatus It belongs to the Immaculate Lamb to have NO SIN.
3. Gregory l - Christ ALONE was truly born HOLY.
4. Innocent lll- Eve was produced WITHOUT SIN but she brought fourth in sin. Mary was brought forth IN SIN, but she brought forth without sin.

How is it that so many of the Early Church go so far as to condemn the Catholic teachings of Mary, but yet Catholicism plainly ignores them. Are you saying that they are all wrong?**

 

[1edyson]

citations would be good so we can take the individual statements in their full contexts .

 

[_bbq]

You have made many points that appear to hold your position with respect to the thoughts of the early fathers, but I believe that you are missing some essential elements of the understanding of the Catholic Doctrine on the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

1. It is important to understand that there are many critical concepts of Christianity, shared by most denominations, that are not explicitly stated in scripture (although NEVER at odds with Scripture if you seek to understand Scripture as it is intended). I recommend a quick study of early church history and the struggle to understand the divinity of Jesus. Specifically, Docetism and Ariansim required the development of the understanding of the dual-nature of Jesus Christ (as well as an authoritative governing body on Earth!). Equally as important is the concept of the Trinity that also required formal definition beginning in the second century and concluding in the fourth. Lastly, the canon of the Bible itself is nowhere listed in the Bible. Many early Christians debated which books to include and which to exclude until the Synod of Hippo and Carthage, and then finally authoritatively defined at the Council of Trent.

So that rules out Melchoir Cannas and in my mind the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in general. It also provides a framework for understanding how Doctrines are defined over time and sometimes with great debate, although the Doctrine itself is never changed or redefined. Each Doctrine has been and forever will be truth. It is only more clearly explained or revealed to all of mankind through God’s Church. That, I believe, explains some of the context for the statements by St. Bernard and St. Thomas Acquinas.

1. My second point involves How The Blessed Mary was conceived without sin “by a singular privilege and grace granted by God” [Ineffabilis Deus]. Our Blessed Mother was not by her own merits granted this privilege. She shares all of our human nature and required Jesus Christ as a savior as much as anyone else in the history of the humanity. By that singular privilege, she was kept free from original sin by a preemptive work of the Lord. An analogy that is often used is that of someone about to fall into a pit and someone comes along and stops that person from falling. In this example, had it not been for Jesus saving her from the pit, she would have fallen like anyone else. Many non-Catholic Christians confuse this point as though Mary did not require a savior. That is absolutely false.

So, Christ received His human nature from Mary. Human nature is inherently sinful because of the fall of man. Christ, being our Lord and Saviour was born without the stain of Original Sin and Mary would have been born with Original Sin, because of her human nature, had it not been by preempted by a single privilege of God. I think that explains the context for St Augustine’s and Peter Lombard.

1. Romans 3:23 states that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Well, even though that passage is written in a very definitive and all-encompassing manner, we know that there are exceptions to it. Obviously, Jesus Christ is the biggest exception, as well as children who die before the age of reasoning. I am intentionally separating the concept of Original Sin, an inherited stain on our souls, in this context from sin that is committed with intention. This passage refers to the latter.

Also, Adam and Eve were “born” into this world without the stain of Original Sin.

These simple proofs by contradiction provide the appropriate rationale for the possibility of other exceptions to the general rule. God created the normal rules and only we are bound by them… He is not.

I think that I’ll stop here, but I welcome comments on my response from you and others.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Catholic Church has always taught and will forever teach that the early Fathers were wise men, but they were not infallible, and many argued over theology. Not all of their words are truth; some of it is theological speculation. To know what words are truth, it is necessarily to look no further than at the teachings of the Church.

 

[SIA]

The Catholic Church has always taught and will forever teach that the early Fathers were wise men, but they were not infallible, and many argued over theology. Not all of their words are truth; some of it is theological speculation. To know what words are truth, it is necessarily to look no further than at the teachings of the Church.

So then, many of the Early Church Fathers and their positions and beliefs were either disregarded or dismissed althogether by the popes of thier respective times. Obviously, Pius XII and St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas clearly disagree.

 

[Eucharisted]

So then, many of the Early Church Fathers and their positions and beliefs were either disregarded or dismissed althogether by the popes of thier respective times. Obviously, Pius XII and St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas clearly disagree.

No, Mother Church did not disgard or dismiss their positions; if that was so, we wouldn’t have their writings. Rather, she has grown in faith. Mother Church is led into all truths by the Spirit.

 

[BrianH]

To know what words are truth, it is necessarily to look no further than at the teachings of the Church.

In other words, if they agree with what we teach now, their words were true

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then, many of the Early Church Fathers and their positions and beliefs were either disregarded or dismissed althogether by the popes of thier respective times. Obviously, Pius XII and St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas clearly disagree.

This would be like saying these Church Fathers were ignored who believed certain other books belonged in the New Testament. It would be like saying Church Fathers who had different views on the Trinity than was finally defined are ignored. No, while a doctrine is developing, there cannot be contradictions made by these Church Fathers. When there are matters of varying views, like say at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the Church has the capacity to settle the matter.

Others are also correct about the contextlessness of some of your quotes. For example:Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

 

[SIA]

citations would be good so we can take the individual statements in their full contexts .

Those are their positions and their quoted statements. All 12 of them in their statements disagree with Catholic teaching and dogma regarding Mary. One or two random one liners could be refuted, but here are twelve bold factual statements made by earlier Christian figures with some of them being canonized saints in the Catholic church.

 

[cfrancis]

citations would be good so we can take the individual statements in their full contexts .

You can find SIA’s quotes on this site: letusreason.org/rc1.htm
The same quotes are found all over the internet, none of them with citations.
From this site: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/rc.html#p6, if you look under Program 6, you’ll find the dialogue to a debate.

Martin: I want you to listen to some of the long centuries. Clement of Alexandria, “The Word, Jesus Christ, alone was born without sin.” Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, one of the greatest theologians in the Church, “He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother.” Ambrose, “Of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only One who experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption.” St. Bernard, “For this reason, our astonishment is not small in seeing that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a new feast that is unknown to the rite of the Church that cannot be approved by reason, that it is condemned by the ancient traditions, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.” You and Bernard do not agree, and he’s Canonized!

Pacwa: That’s right.

Martin: You’re not!

Pacwa: But…

Martin: Can I finish this? You can go on from there…

Pacwa: Well, one of the things about Bernard is that he was wrong because there was a long-existing feast, often called the “Feast of St. Ann” conceiving Mary and was referred to…

Martin: But not of the Immaculate Conception.

Pacwa: …but it was of St. Ann conceiving Mary without sin…

**Martin: **Recognizing that she… Oh, no, I don’t think it was without sin.

Pacwa: …and one of the things about Bernard’s statement is that he does not deny the Immaculate Conception as it’s understood, he denied in his statement-- that you’re quoting there…if you’ll quote the rest of it-- that she was immaculate before she was conceived. And St. Thomas Aquinas makes the same denial. Neither Thomas nor Bernard believed that Mary was sinless before she was conceived.

I, too, would like to see the citations, to read the quotes in context.

 

[cfrancis]

I found this from Augustine’s Nature and Grace :

Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]— The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without SinHe 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.

This, too, from St Ambrose (at this site) :

“. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
(Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Those are their positions and their quoted statements. All 12 of them in their statements disagree with Catholic teaching and dogma regarding Mary. One or two random one liners could be refuted, but here are twelve bold factual statements made by earlier Christian figures with some of them being canonized saints in the Catholic church.

So what does Ambrose believe? You claim he disagrees with Catholic teaching. I showed otherwise. Please provide the context of your Ambrose quotation so that we might have a fair examination. And do the same for Augustine please.

 

[yellowbird]

I don’t understand why some people are so passionate about proving Mary was supposedly sinful? Why? It doesn’t add anything to God - Mary was without sin BECAUSE of God so it actually takes away from Him.

You couldn’t of course, but even if you were to prove that Mary sinned - so what? Do you think Catholics would turn from the Church? Never. It doesn’t change a thing… Jesus is the center - always has been, always will be.

So what’s the point? Some Early Church Fathers may have disagreed with the teaching. So what?

 

[cfrancis]

Here’s St Bernard:

“I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of woman. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely benefited the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all.”

– LETTER XLV (circa A.D. 1140), para. 4

I re-read your quote from St Bernard, and noticed in that quote, he spoke nothing about Mary’s sinlessness, only about a feast day associated with it.

 

[cfrancis]

Re: St Thomas Aquinas, it appears he believed in Mary’s sinlessness; what he questioned was when this grace was applied and if it applied to original sin.

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology

I found this at www.cin.org :

In any event, here is what Aquinas said (Summa Theologiae III:27:4):

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

"We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc. "

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand why some people are so passionate about proving Mary was supposedly sinful? Why? It doesn’t add anything to God - Mary was without sin BECAUSE of God so it actually takes away from Him.

You couldn’t of course, but even if you were to prove that Mary sinned - so what? Do you think Catholics would turn from the Church? Never. It doesn’t change a thing… Jesus is the center - always has been, always will be.

So what’s the point? Some Early Church Fathers may have disagreed with the teaching. So what?

The point for me would be this: I have no problem with Marion beliefs. In fact, I generally believe them, but, as a Lutheran, I don’t expect or require others to do so. The issue, or point, for me is not the doctrines, but the binding of consciences of Christians to do so. And your middle paragragh is exactly the reason why.

btw, yours is an excellent post. Your first paragraph speaks to why I do, without compulsion, believe the BVM was ever-virgin, and full of grace.

Jon

 

[Mad_Amos]

Appeals to the authority of the Early Church Fathers as a basis for undermining the veracity of Catholic doctrine is quite the slippery slope.

Although such citations are excellent demonstrations of contemporaneous religious thought at a specific point in time (and especially useful for establishing Church teaching as historical rather than innovative) they are no more authoritatively binding on the faithful than the political musings of an American President carry legislative weight.

For every “smoking gun” put forth by the contrarian are countless statements that suggest otherwise. Indeed, the case can be made that by and large these learned men espoused beliefs that soundly support the veracity of the Roman Church. Through simple extrapolation, then, the fatal flaw in the aforementioned strategy soon becomes apparent: if the Church can be shown to be true - and any student of logic understands that truth is not measured in degrees, then syllogistically the infallibility of her Magisterium would also be true.

And one of the dogmatic assertions of that infallible Magisterium is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Those are their positions and their quoted statements. All 12 of them in their statements disagree with Catholic teaching and dogma regarding Mary. One or two random one liners could be refuted, but here are twelve bold factual statements made by earlier Christian figures with some of them being canonized saints in the Catholic church.

SIA:

You misquote or quote out of context.

You approach the early Church like a verseslinging Sola Scripturan: picking and choosing, cafeteria-style, what fits your preconceived outlook.

Give us ALL the citations, and not the secondary source you cut and pasted from, then stick around and answer our questions about your disingenous baiting.

Robert

 

[mark_a]

You have heard me say it time and time again. Some of you claim that I have no material or actual quotes from early Church Fathers to back up making this statement. You are wrong and I will produce them here. I decided to make a thread out of this fact in history that isn’t very popular with many Catholics but does remain a fact. Many of the early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to Catholic teaching regarding Mary. Here are some.

1. Clement of Alexandria - The Word, Jesus Christ **ALONE **was born without sin.
2. St. Augustine- Christ alone being made a man but remaining God NEVER had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.
3. Ambrose - of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experiencednot the contagion of earthly corruption
4. St. Bernard - Our astonishment is not small in seeing that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a NEW FEAST that is UNKNOWN to the rite of Church that cannot be approved by reason that it is condemned by the ancient traditions, The feast of The Immaculate Conception.
5. St. Thomas Aquinas****- What honor should we believe in attributing to Mary that honor may be had for her conception… which was anterior to her birth? Then would you say if others, according to your own reasoning, were to maintain that it is necessary to hold feasts in honor of her parents, that is logical. Then it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all. there would be feasts without number on the earth and it would be converted into a paradise.

6.Peter Lombard- But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was **conceived without original sin? We say that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

7.Melchoir Cannas - The dogma that holds the blessed Virgin was free from the original sin was NOWHERE delivered in Holy Scripture.**

1. St. Antoninus
2. Leo l- The Lord Jesus Christ ALONE among the sons of men was born WITHOUT SIN.
3. Pope Galatus It belongs to the Immaculate Lamb to have NO SIN.
4. Gregory l - Christ ALONE was truly born HOLY.
5. Innocent lll- Eve was produced WITHOUT SIN but she brought fourth in sin. Mary was brought forth IN SIN, but she brought forth without sin.

How is it that so many of the Early Church go so far as to condemn the Catholic teachings of Mary, but yet Catholicism plainly ignores them. Are you saying that they are all wrong?
You are better off using SS to disprove Marian doctrine. Using Catholics to try to disprove solitary doctrines won’t work any better than using the Reformers to disprove Protestant acceptance of contraception.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You have heard me say it time and time again. Some of you claim that I have no material or actual quotes from early Church Fathers to back up making this statement. You are wrong and I will produce them here. I decided to make a thread out of this fact in history that isn’t very popular with many Catholics but does remain a fact. Many of the early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to Catholic teaching regarding Mary. Here are some.

1. Clement of Alexandria - The Word, Jesus Christ **ALONE **was born without sin.
2. St. Augustine- Christ alone being made a man but remaining God NEVER had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.****
3. Ambrose - of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experiencednot the contagion of earthly corruption

Which of these comments was delivered while addressing the sinless nature of Christ, and which of these comments was delivered while specifically addressing the immaculate conception of Mary, the Mother of God? I’ll venture to guess that none of these comments were intended by their original authors to address Mary’s state, but were instead intended to addres Christ’s state, when compared to the state of the rest of us, who are living in sin.

4. St. Bernard - Our astonishment is not small in seeing that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a NEW FEAST that is UNKNOWN to the rite of Church that cannot be approved by reason that it is condemned by the ancient traditions, The feast of The Immaculate Conception.

1. St. Thomas Aquinas****- What honor should we believe in attributing to Mary that honor may be had for her conception… which was anterior to her birth? Then would you say if others, according to your own reasoning, were to maintain that it is necessary to hold feasts in honor of her parents, that is logical. Then it would be necessary to honor her grandparents and her great grandparents and there would be no end at all. there would be feasts without number on the earth and it would be converted into a paradise.

6.Peter Lombard- But this is asked on what account and whence is it that Mary was **conceived without original sin? We say that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

7.Melchoir Cannas - The dogma that holds the blessed Virgin was free from the original sin was NOWHERE delivered in Holy Scripture.

1. St. Antoninus**Leo l- The Lord Jesus Christ ALONE among the sons of men was born WITHOUT SIN.
2. Pope Galatus It belongs to the Immaculate Lamb to have NO SIN.
3. Gregory l - Christ ALONE was truly born HOLY.
4. Innocent lll- Eve was produced WITHOUT SIN but she brought fourth in sin. Mary was brought forth IN SIN, but she brought forth without sin.As for the latter, the dispute - resolved by Duns Scotus - was not whether or not Mary could be born without sin, but whether such a state could be reconciled with the need for a personal savior. The response, which was adopted by the Holy Father who defined the dogma, is that Mary was saved by the merits of Christ in a uniqe way at the moment of her conceptions, so that she - as was fitting for her role - would be a suitable vessel of honor for the Lord. She did not merit her own freedom from Original Sin. She was granted the favor because it suited God’s plan. Those early (and later) fathers who rejected theological speculation concerning the nature of Mary’s conception rejected theories that postulated Mary’s salvation apart from Christ. Catholic doctrine - consistent with these theologians - also rejects such a thing. Mary was saved from Original Sin by the merits of her own Son.

Peace of Christmas,
-Robert

How is it that so many of the Early Church go so far as to condemn the Catholic teachings of Mary, but yet Catholicism plainly ignores them. Are you saying that they are all wrong?/

Peace of Christmas,
-Robert