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

[coolduude]

continued…

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation” (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?” (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

“This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh” (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh” (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema” (ibid.).

John Cassian

“Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God” (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

“You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God” (ibid., 2:5).

Council of Ephesus

“We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her” (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

Vincent of Lerins

“Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ” (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).

 

[coolduude]

Good? Or no?

To the other posters-

Sorry if that was long. You don’t have to read it. Hopefully that will end our dispute though.

I apologze if I apologeticaly went overboard.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Good? Or no?

To the other posters-

Sorry if that was long. You don’t have to read it. Hopefully that will end our dispute though.

I apologze if I apologeticaly went overboard.

Hey coolduude, your not related to St. Jerome? He had a manner of settling disputes over Catholic doctrines that made no defense for the opposing party. I hope the “Rock” you displayed does not hurt anyone? You dont mind if I copy your ECF quotes? they are very inspiring, thank you in advance.

Peace be with you

 

[coolduude]

Hey coolduude, your not related to St. Jerome?

Haha, no, I am not. (At least, I’m pretty sure I’m not!)

You dont mind if I copy your ECF quotes? they are very inspiring, thank you in advance.

No, I don’t mind! I can give you an EXCELLENT EFC link if you want. And it’s from CA too. You can trust it. Just let me know.

Peace be with you too, brother (or sister!)

 

[Zooey]

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.

[SIGN1]
Piffle!
Pshaw!
Pfui!!
[/SIGN1]

It appears that St Bernard & St Thomas were distressed over a change in the dates & celebrations in the Christian year. So what??? (She asked, rolling her eyes towards the heavens).

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

So then, by your own admission here, Mother Church and these Early Church Fathers don’t agree.

As far as I can make out:

1. 
   *]No one said any such thing.
   *]No one knows where your "quotes’ come from, nor even if they are quotes.
   *]Even if they all said exactly what you say (which is in question, see #1 &2, above), what difference would that make? When, oh when (& where, oh where?) is it written that “all the saints always agree with each other because you have to be right all the time in order to get to Heaven”? Because that is what you are saying, you see: The saints=those in Heaven; no es verdad? OK, so none of us can be saved without attaining to accord on all things…So,my father the hunter & my cousin the vegan will have to :slapfight: it out at the pearly gates?? God, deliever me from such errant nonsense!!
   

   We can’t even find all the ECF in agreement on the OT and NT!
   
   Which, according to your logic SIA, means the canon isn’t correct…

   Well,** of course,** the canon isn’t correct. Its lacking the:jrbirdman: 13,474 Gospels of :whackadoo: St Wombat the :yukonjoe: Scratchy. (A problem which:compcoff: I addressed at some length on these fora in the Year of Our Lord 2005 …just check your search function).
   Oy, vay!!!

 

[cfrancis]

Where is your evidence to refute the twelve ECF quotes? Until I see real refutations to prove that the ECFs quoted actually do agree with the Marian dogmas in their beliefs, then I will know that you cannot refute them. I actually know this already because not one of you has been able to refute the quotes. Again I say to you; if I am incorrect in the quotes, show me the refutation. It should be easy.

I’ll save the comments re: your trustworthyness for the next post. As for this post, your comments forced me to go through the thread once more, for we appear to be reading two different threads, as the quotes have been dealt with:
Post #8: St Ambrose
#10: St Bernard, St Thomas Aquinas
#11: St Ambrose
#14: St Bernard
#15: St Thomas Aquinas
#20: General comments on all 12
#21: St Bernard
#29: St Augustine
#32: St Ambrose, St Augustine
#62: Clement of Alexandria
#74: St Ambrose
#80: St Thomas Aquinas

 

[cfrancis]

Here’s the problem. First of all, regardless of where these statements were shown or referenced from, they are quotes from the respected ECF’s. There is no cutting or pasting here. Secondly, every statement is in refutation of one or more of the Marian dogmas. Do you not agree that each made the statements shown? I have done exactly what so many other posters do here; the difference is that this time it is a Protestant using EC information to refute Catholicism and not the other way around. My response to you is to simply refute the ECF quotes here. There is no other course of action on your behalf because the facts have been presented already.

I must object to the statement highlighted above. There are many reputable, charitable non-Catholic posters on these forums who should also object to that statement.
**Exhibit A: **lletusreason.org

Exhibit B: speroforum

C’mon SIA,

Get real. I give you references when talking with you, that you can go to and look up yourself. I don’t expect you to just take my word.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4157944&postcount=233

People give you references also, documented so you can go immediately to them for verification. Whether you agree or disagree, at least you can go to the reference to see directly what is being quoted.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4117406&postcount=13

You’ve asked people for proper proof. Why don’t you just take them at their word like you expect everyone to take you at YOURS? …
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4509351&postcount=102
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4501925&postcount=71

If you have given factual information, why aren’t you providing the references? This should be the easiest job of all to provide references for quotes made by some very famous people… Help me out here, where are the references?

 

[SyCarl]

For the original poster, here are sources for some of his statements.

Please be advised that I am not saying that Catholic beliefs about Mary are necessarily wrong. What I am saying is that they are not required to be a good Christians as the fathers were.

Clement of Alexandria

Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless

.
The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.ii.html

For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all.

The Instructor, Book 3, Chapter 12
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.xii.html

Augustine (as Augustine is quoting Ambrose, this reference covers him too.)

“Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.… Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”

On the Grace of Christ; And on Original Sin, Book 2, Chapter 47
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xv.iv.xlvii.html

St. Bernard

Wherefore I cannot but wonder that there should have been among you at this time some who wished to sully this splendid fame of your Church by introducing a new Festival, a rite which the Church knows nothing of, and which reason does not prove, nor ancient tradition hand down to us. Have we the pretension to be more learned or more devoted than the Fathers? It is a dangerous presumption to establish in such a matter what their prudence left unestablished. And the matter in question is of such a nature that it could not possibly have escaped the diligence of the Fathers if they had not thought that they ought not to occupy themselves with it….For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? **Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? **Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it….If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception….Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity.

LETTER XLV (circa A.D. 1140),To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary.
ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html?highlight=mary#highlight

Leo the Great

For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor, was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock.

Sermon 24
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xiii.html

I have seen Aquinas’ parents and grandparents statement somewhere but can’t find it at the moment. He did write:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all….But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 27, Article 2
newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Some other quotes include:

Augustine

But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine….Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us.

A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.iv.v.html

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins

On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 2 Chapter 47
newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.

Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

John Chrysostom

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 has 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 has 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.

Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

Ambrose

He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last.

On The Mysteries, 8:46
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Cyril of Alexandria

He took thought for His mother, paying no heed to His own bitter agony, for His sufferings affected Him not. He gave her into the charge of the beloved disciple (this was John, the writer of this book), and bade him take her home, and regard her as a mother; and enjoined His own mother to regard him as none other than her true son----by his tenderness, that is, and affection, fulfilling and stepping into the place of Him, Who was her Son by nature… Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress? Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour’s Will concerning her.

Commentaries on John, Book 12
tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_12_book12.htm

And Symeon further said to the holy Virgin, “Yea, a sword shall go through thy own soul also,” meaning by the sword the pain which she suffered for Christ, in seeing Him Whom she brought forth crucified; and not knowing at all that He would be more mighty than death, and rise again from the grave. Nor mayest thou wonder that the Virgin knew this not, when we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves with little faith thereupon: for verily the blessed Thomas, had he not thrust his hands into His side after the resurrection, and felt also the prints of the nails, would have disbelieved the other disciples telling him, that Christ was risen, and had shewed Himself unto them

Commentaries on Luke, Sermon IV
tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_01_sermons_01_11.htm#C4

John of Damascus

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.

Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

Basil the Great

About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation. “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary His mother, Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” Here I am astonished that, after passing by the previous words as requiring no explanation, you should enquire about the expression, “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also.” To me the question, how the same child can be for the fall and rising again, and what is the sign that shall be spoken against, does not seem less perplexing than the question how a sword shall pierce through Mary’s heart…Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him.

Letter 260
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cclxi.html

Gregory Nazianzin

the Father’s Definition and Word, came to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man. Conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost

Orations, Number 38
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxi.html

Hiliary of Poiters

So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord.

Dialogues, 2 The Unconfounded
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.ix.iii.html

 

[cfrancis]

Thank you SyCarl, for providing the sources

 

[SIA]

Thank you for providing those quotes from ECFs. I think what we have here is truly a situation of some of the ECFs clearing agreeing with the Marian dogmas and some clearly do not. The remaining others I believe still toiled with them.

 

[cfrancis]

Thank you for providing those quotes from ECFs. I think what we have here is truly a situation of some of the ECFs clearing agreeing with the Marian dogmas and some clearly do not. The remaining others I believe still toiled with them.

Similar to the ECF toiling with the canonicity of certain works.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi MarcoPolo, thanks for the warm welcome back-I’ve been occupied with family concerns the last while, but it is nice to be back.

Thank you for grasping the point I was seeking to make. What the ECF’s do or do not prove has direct bearing on this thread. SIA’s attempt to make these “quotes” prove something is as questionable as a Catholic apologist attempting to prove the Catechism via the ECF’s and identify who belongs in the RCF’s by using the Catechism to vet their teachings.

It appears that many of the individuals cited by SIA have other quotes in their writing which suggest that their view on Mary is complex to say the least-and even if it was proved than all or none of these individuals believed or disibelieved a particular Marian dogma, it wouldn’t speak to the actual truth or falsity of the dogma.

I completely agree that a council is the method identified in the New Testament for resolving a difference that impacts multiple local churches. Likewise, direction by leadership, whether in verbal or written form appears to be the method of resolving a difficulty at the local level.

I also find it interesting that you make universality of teaching the criterion of acceptance rather than acceptance of the teaching by the See of Rome. Not a point for this thread, but interesting nonetheless.

Where we differ is on the acceptance or rejection of the “development” of the Magisterium, the Papacy and the monarchical episcopate. I believe these items have increasingly tainted the conciliar process over time. Also a topic for another thread.

Either way, it’s good to see you again and I hope the holidays have been good to you.

Thanks, and also to you. If there’s any of these “that’s another thread” items above you’d like to discuss, feel free to shout em out. I think the talks have been fruitful.

Take care.