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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SIA said:
  1. 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.****
Hmm. Was that St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The same St. Bernard who wrote:
If the winds of temptation arise; If you are driven upon the rocks of tribulation look to the star, call on Mary; If you are tossed upon the waves of pride, of ambition, of envy, of rivalry, look to the star, call on Mary. Should anger, or avarice, or fleshly desire violently assail the frail vessel of your soul, look at the star, call upon Mary.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Robert_in_SD said:
[from SIA: 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?
Click to expand...
None of these men are condemning the Catholic dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was not defined until long after these statements were made, and the concept of the immaculate conception had developed to a point that it was reconciled to the valid objections theologians had raised regarding Mary’s need for salvation by Christ. As I noted, Duns Scotus developed the concept that was the real sticking point - the connection between Mary’s conception and Christ’s merits.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
134 Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
SIA said:
You have heard me say it time and time again…
Click to expand...
Your Thread title is more appropriately named:

"Catholic Theologians Debated Over the Manner in Which Mary was “Full of Grace” Until the Issue was Resolved by the Dogmatic Declaration of the Church, on the Immaculate Conception."

Peace of Christmas,
-Robert
 
Eucharisted said:
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.
Click to expand...
So then, by your own admission here, Mother Church and these Early Church Fathers don’t agree.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Your Thread title is more appropriately named:

"Catholic Theologians Debated Over the Manner in Which Mary was “Full of Grace” Until the Issue was Resolved by the Dogmatic Declaration of the Church, on the Immaculate Conception."

Peace of Christmas,
-Robert
Click to expand...
That statement although and unfortunately true is blatant and purely authoritative rule with no regard to anything else including the Early Church.
 
theistgal said:
Hmm. Was that St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The same St. Bernard who wrote:

and

He may very well have disagreed with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Since it wasn’t officially defined till 1854, debate and disagreement on that doctrine was permitted. That applies to all the other saints you quoted. However, I’m pretty sure all of them would agree that devotion to “the Virgin of virgins” was still quite an important thing.

Do you agree with St. Bernard about that? 😉
Click to expand...
You just continue to beat around the point here. Bernard and the Roman Catholic church do not agree on the Immaculate Conception. Bernard is canonized and I’m guessing that you aren’t.
 
mark_a said:
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.
Click to expand...
?? What? I stated factual quotes from Early Church Fathers. Their statements refuted Catholic dogma on their own.
 
Rbt_Southwell said:
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
Click to expand...
The quotes are plain and blatantly state their positions. All twelve of them. It is you who refuse to acknowledge them.
 
SIA said:
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?

The first father I looked up DIRECTLY contradicts your conjecture:
St. Augustine regarding Mary:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Okay then, better yet, why don’t you prove to me that I have them all wrong and that they all concur with the Marian dogmas.🙂
 
SIA said:
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?

More clarity for you:

“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).

“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).
Click to expand...
 
SIA said:
That statement although and unfortunately true is blatant and purely authoritative rule with no regard to anything else including the Early Church.
Click to expand...
Poppycock. It is a conclusion that is based upon everything occurring within the Church from the earliest period. I could cut and paste all of the rationale within the document, but I thought it would address your concerns to show that the dogma is not about Mary - apart from Jesus. It is about Jesus, who physically came to us via Mary. How sad that you see everything “Mary” as a challege to your faith rather than an affirmation of it.

Have a “Mary” Christmas! And by that I mean have a Christmas that is filled with that same spirit of the first first Christmas.
[8] And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
[9] And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear.
[10] And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people;
[11] for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
[12] And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”
[13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
[14] “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”
[15] When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.”
[16] And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
[17] And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child;
[18] and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.
[19] But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.
(Lk 2:8-19)
Click to expand...
Peace of Christmas,
-Robert
 
SIA said:
You just continue to beat around the point here. Bernard and the Roman Catholic church do not agree on the Immaculate Conception. Bernard is canonized and I’m guessing that you aren’t.
Click to expand...
What I’m guessing is that you have already made up your mind and don’t want to be confused with the facts. 😉
 
Eucharisted said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great point, Eucharisted. The Fathers were indeed wise, right on many issues, but still individuals. Just like there are good, wise bishops out there today who happen to, once in a while, have opinions that are not in line with Church teaching. As a result, they are WRONG on those issues.

Peter alone possessed the charism of infallibility and only when the Church is united with the Magisterium can we be assured of perfect dogma.
 
yellowbird said:
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? 🤷
Click to expand...
Yellowbird, some people who have left their Catholic faith want to live in denial that Mary (who is really our Mother and a sinless vessel that held our Beloved Lord, who prays for us endlessly with love) is immaculate and assumed. It eases their consciences to think of her as a typical woman and that protestant mainline teaching about her is legit. It makes protestants feel justified in ignoring the RCC’s true words.

The Communion of Saints is key to Catholicism. The idea that we, as Christians, are a family, not separated by death, with saints praying for us in the Beatific Vision, and us praying for the souls of the departed. Mary is the Queen of the Saints, pure and sinless. She prays for us and is the heart of all the saints. Protestants like to think of there being only Jesus in the family and that saints don’t pray for us and that Mary was a passive lady who we hear from a bit and then she disappears off the map.

If the teachings about Mary were true, and they ARE, then all these folks who have left the Church or who have rejected it would come to the stark conclusion that they have rejected the Mother of God, their greatest patroness, their greatest Motherly hope, the beautiful Saint of Saints who intercedes for us all.

These folks that want to devalue and deny Mary’s holiness don’t see the whole picture as the Catholic Church has for centuries. The concept of the New Adam and the New Eve eludes them. The idea of “woman behold your son, son behold your Mother,” the “Woman clothed in the Sun,” “All generations will call me Blessed,” just eludes them.

To not accept Mary as your Mother is diabolical. Anyone who believes that Mary is not immaculate and that she is not our greatest love after Jesus is, sadly, being influenced by diabolical forces.

I weep when I hear “Ave Maria.” It strikes a chord in my soul. I imagine a “church” without Mary and it makes me sad. How empty a home is without a mother!
 
The problem with how SIA is attacking this issue is the usual misunderstanding of how the Church has always worked. Infallibility and perfect teaching don’t come from each member of the Blessed Church of Christ, it comes from the collective, prayerful understanding and meditation of truth in communion with Peter, pure and simple.

There are many saints who have not personally believed in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, her Immaculate Conception. Ambrose and Aquinas for example, struggled with such notions. Big deal.

Tertullian spoke great truth in his life been then look at where he ended his theological career! Out of line with orthodoxy!

There were opinions flying fast and furiously during the early days of the Church. It was only at Nicea when we hammered out our creeds and understandings of the nature of Jesus. And then we even needed further councils to expand on other misunderstandings.

Look at Peter himself! He had bad opinions about circumcision and the admission of the Gentiles but Paul set him straight. So, Peter by himself needed straightening out. And then the infallible, true doctrine came forth.

I could care less that a few early fathers doubted Mary’s status as sinless or not. What I care about is the collective teaching under Peter.

Ubi Petros ibi ecclesia Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

To try and understand Mary without Peter is like being locked in a closet with no flashlight, only a dim match…
 
SIA said:
?? What? I stated factual quotes from Early Church Fathers. Their statements refuted Catholic dogma on their own.
Click to expand...
The Church decides doctrine. Not individual Fathers. “Several early Church Fathers” are not the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top