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

[cfrancis]

I have a better idea. Why don’t you refute all twelve using your references and show us.

It appears you have chosen to skip over posts #10-20 where the ECFs you provided actually support the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

Let me see if we can find any reference to Clement of Alexandria speaking of Mary…

 

[cfrancis]

Clement of Alexandria on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
I went to CCEL and searched through the plain text version of Book II of the ECF, the one containing Clement’s writings. He mention’s Mary only in regard to her perpetual virginity.

Here is the link to the text file from CCEL. Perhaps you can search through it to find the quote from Clement you provided, for I was unable to find it.

In fact, in searching for a reference for this quote from Clement, I find the quote on many anti-Catholic sites, each time without a reference.

Do you have the source of Clement’s quote?

 

[steve_b]

That has never happened in all the time I have been here. Not once. If people cannot be taken on their own merits here then they should not be here period. If you do not wish to respond to the material at hand, that’s your perrogative.

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

SIA:

I gave factual information and I refuse to be interrogated in such a fashion that nobody else is here simply because this time, it is a Protestant using ECF info. to refute Catholicism.

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?

SIA:

If you do not agree with the quotes given, Refute them!

:doh2: Sheesh!!!

That’s NOT how it works. In order to agree or disagree with something you’ve posted on what someone else says, I need your references to verify they are quotes actually made by those you say, said them… Don’t take offense, I would ask this of anyone.

You posted quotes with absolutely ZERO references to those quotes other than some website said these various people said them. And I’m supposed to believe that?

All I’m asking you to do is provide the references and I’ll be happy.

Otherwise, these quotes are NOT admissable as evidence because there is NO proof they said these things other than some website said it’s so. That and $5 will get you a cup of joe at our local coffe shop

Provide the references…THEN we’ll talk.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have a better idea. Why don’t you refute all twelve using your references and show us.

Until you can produce references for what you post, there is no need to take seriously the discussion.

 

[SIA]

Clement of Alexandria on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
I went to CCEL and searched through the plain text version of Book II of the ECF, the one containing Clement’s writings. He mention’s Mary only in regard to her perpetual virginity.

Here is the link to the text file from CCEL. Perhaps you can search through it to find the quote from Clement you provided, for I was unable to find it.

In fact, in searching for a reference for this quote from Clement, I find the quote on many anti-Catholic sites, each time without a reference.

Do you have the source of Clement’s quote?

Why should I provide it?
Many Catholic posters who use quotes and such against Protestants do not produce theirs. Besides, what difference does it make if the quotes are not fabricated which they certainly are not.

 

[SIA]

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?

:doh2: Sheesh!!!

That’s NOT how it works. In order to agree or disagree with something you’ve posted on what someone else says, I need your references to verify they are quotes actually made by those you say, said them… Don’t take offense, I would ask this of anyone.

You posted quotes with absolutely ZERO references to those quotes other than some website said these various people said them. And I’m supposed to believe that?

All I’m asking you to do is provide the references and I’ll be happy.

Otherwise, these quotes are NOT admissable as evidence because there is NO proof they said these things other than some website said it’s so. That and $5 will get you a cup of joe at our local coffe shop

Provide the references…THEN we’ll talk.

You can’t refute them period. My references are going to be anti-Catholic in your eyes anyway so why get into that argument? It isn’t about the truth with many of you, it’s about your church and what your church sanctions. The point here stands. Many of the Early Church Fathers made statements which directly and in some cases completely oppose Catholic teaching regarding Mary.

 

[SIA]

Until you can produce references for what you post, there is no need to take seriously the discussion.

I don’t care what you do. I made a statement and I stand by it because it is true.

 

[SIA]

Clement of Alexandria on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
I went to CCEL and searched through the plain text version of Book II of the ECF, the one containing Clement’s writings. He mention’s Mary only in regard to her perpetual virginity.

Here is the link to the text file from CCEL. Perhaps you can search through it to find the quote from Clement you provided, for I was unable to find it.

In fact, in searching for a reference for this quote from Clement, I find the quote on many anti-Catholic sites, each time without a reference.

Do you have the source of Clement’s quote?

So then you have no refutation for the quote I produced by him. Just admit it for once.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Given the clearly documented diversity of practice in the early church one doesn’t find many apologists trying to prove the “rightness” of the Canon by appealing to this documentary evidence. The popularity/acceptance of individual books can be demonstrated, but since the Canon per se didn’t exist, it can’t be “proved” in that sense.

OTOH, when someone provides an ECF quote on a belief or practice (which are a good deal scarcer than references to Scripture and the use of it in the church), this is frequently deemed to prove “The Early Church believed this”. What it actually proves is that the writer in question believed it.

It also demonstrates that one or more individuals found it useful to keep a copy of that text for future reference. It comes as little surprise that more texts were preserved over the years that agreed with what the later church was teaching. One is less likely to keep texts that one disagrees with or considers “wrong”.

This brings us back to my assertion, that using the ECF’s to demonstrate the historicity of a currently held belief and then use the list of currently held beliefs to validate writings from the ECF period begs the question. If one tries to prove both, one proves neither.

Either one can prove:

a) a belief currently held as correct today is similar to a belief that one or more individuals in the Early Church held; or

b) a particular statement/writing/declaration by a particular ECF would/would not be considered orthodox by today’s standards.

You can prove one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Thoughts?

Hi Non Serviam, long time no talk. I think you have a fairly good grasp on what’s going on through Tradition. You understand that not every book that was considered Scripture by some early Christians “made the final cut” so to speak. And you also recognize that a statement of doctrine made by a single ECF does not amount to a definition for the whole Church. You are right to point out any apologist who tries to “prove” a doctrine by citing a single ECF needs to show you more.

For example, in the early Church there were some who taught Christ had two natures, human and divine, in one person (e.g. Pope, Cyril of Alexandria). Then you had some who believed the divine Jesus and human Jesus were separate persons (e.g. Nestorius). So what you have is data that both teachings existed in the early Church. How can this be sorted out?

Take a Scriptural example for instance. In Acts 15, there is another issue. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised? Some argued yes, some argued no.

What settled these matters but a council? The ordained leaders of the Church, magisterially, gathered to determine what is sound. The universality of a teaching, as determined by such a council, is a method that they would have used to dispel a false teaching. You see this when the canon of Scripture was determined. They recognized which books were used consistently in the life of the Church, i.e. what was taught in the “churches”. The truth can be revealed in the form of patterns among apostolic churches with the help of the Holy Spirit to reveal and define the actual truth.

That is why the last words of Dei Verbum (the Church’s constitution on divine revelation) ends with the united sentence:

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. (Dei Verbum II.10)

 

[PJM]

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. Ambrose - of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption He is speaking of Our Lords Assendtion, and our BVM’s Bodily Assumption (which he denies), not the Immaculate Conception. Different issue. (Same results) PJM. mc.

1. ]Pope Galatus It belongs to the Immaculate Lamb to have NO 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?

Very Good question… But me thinks your perhaps trying too hard

Before I relply to your question note that the two I copied from your post agree that Mary was born SINLESS!

The key word to your question is your use of the WORD "EARLY"

The Fathers you quoted were 15 hundred years or more ago.

So the question is what is a Dogma, and has does it come about?

This issue did not take DOGMATIC form until 1854, by Pope Pious IX. Twelve or thirteen hundred years later.

A doctine is a Catholic teaching that has been debated and held in “common belief” for a long period of time. This was.

A dogma, is a doctrine that, at the bequest of the Magistrium, the bishops and the laity, is defined, and proclaimed as The (single) Truth." As a matter of Faith and or Morals, we have God’s personal promise that it cannot be in error. CANNOT!

So, yes my friend, those EARLY Fathers were wrong. Note none of them as POPE made an infallible proclamation to vaild their point of view. ALL that they were doing was expressing their limited understanding. They were debating the issue, not blindly accepting a teaching, nor or we.

This Doctrine has stood the test of time and has now been INFALIBILY defined. Amen and Amen:thumbsup:

God bless you my friend,

PJM m.c.

 

[SIA]

Very Good question… But me thinks your perhaps trying too hard

Before I relply to your question note that the two I copied from your post agree that Mary was born SINLESS!

The key word to your question is your use of the WORD "EARLY"

The Fathers you quoted were 15 hundred years or more ago.

So the question is what is a Dogma, and has does it come about?

This issue did not take DOGMATIC form until 1854, by Pope Pious IX. Twelve or thirteen hundred years later.

A doctine is a Catholic teaching that has been debated and held in “common belief” for a long period of time. This was.

A dogma, is a doctrine that, at the bequest of the Magistrium, the bishops and the laity, is defined, and proclaimed as The (single) Truth." As a matter of Faith and or Morals, we have God’s personal promise that it cannot be in error. CANNOT!

So, yes my friend, those EARLY Fathers were wrong. Note none of them as POPE made an infallible proclamation to vaild their point of view. ALL that they were doing was expressing their limited understanding. They were debating the issue, not blindly accepting a teaching, nor or we.

This Doctrine has stood the test of time and has now been INFALIBILY defined. Amen and Amen:thumbsup:

God bless you my friend,

PJM m.c.

Okay, FINALLY! The rubber is starting to meet the road! Your response is that these Early Church Fathers were incorrect in what they stated regarding Mary. This is a strong current to attempt to swim against to get papal infallibility.

 

[Hisalone]

Interesting discussion

 

[cfrancis]

Clement of Alexandria on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
I went to CCEL and searched through the plain text version of Book II of the ECF, the one containing Clement’s writings. He mention’s Mary only in regard to her perpetual virginity.

Here is the link to the text file from CCEL. Perhaps you can search through it to find the quote from Clement you provided, for I was unable to find it.

In fact, in searching for a reference for this quote from Clement, I find the quote on many anti-Catholic sites, each time without a reference.

Do you have the source of Clement’s quote?

So then you have no refutation for the quote I produced by him. Just admit it for once.

So, you have no source for Clement’s quote (other than the other anti-Catholic sites from which you lifted the material). It’s OK, just say so.

Actually, as you haven’t addressed the posts showing the ECFs you posted actually supporting Church teaching, there is nothing for us to admit, other than your misplaced protests re: providing sources.

If I post the following, stating it’s from Clement of Alexandria, what is your response?

“Some have attempted to spread a false teaching about the mother of our Lord, declaring her to be a sinner as the rest of humanity. Let them be refuted and corrected by that which was handed down to us by the Apostles and those they taught, that the mother of our Lord was spared the agony of sin by the merits of her Son, the Word made Flesh.”

 

[cfrancis]

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. Ambrose - of all that are born of women, the Holy Lord Jesus was the only one who experiencednot the contagion of earthly corruption

How about this quote from St Ambrose, a quote that speaks directly about Mary (unlike your quote):

“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”
**(Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]). **

EDIT: note the source info…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This was an interesting post, thanks for giving me a reply I had to ponder a bit.

Instinctively I knew there was a difference between the situations, but it took me a bit to clarify the difference in my head. It’s going to take a bit of typing on my part to explain it so please bear with me.

When discussing the Canon and the books it contains we are talking about something concrete and material as opposed to a belief or practice. There is substantial evidence of how various local churches used the books and which were and weren’t accepted in a region prior to the council where the Canon was recognized. (for an easy to read collection and survey of this evidence, I’d recommend The Canon by F.F. Bruce-a great read by an Anglican scholar, whose facts aren’t open to dispute regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions or not).

There was also much debate and confusion regarding the canon. Were those who held to a different canon in 150 AD wrong about the books of the bible? You and I would agree that they were wrong. There was nothing concrete about the Canon until the Church declared it as settled.

Thus in discussing the Canon and early churches we find statements like “Some of the churches in Asia Minor accepted some of the books in the current canon” or “ECF x rejected book y as inspired” or “The Canon adopted by local Council x contained most of the books in the current Canon but also accepted the spurious books y and z”. This information is derived from epistles, theological treatises, council decisions and lectionaries-there’s a relative wealth of information on the topic compared to other beliefs simply because of the concrete nature of Scriptural texts-either churches had them and read them or they didn’t.

This confirms my point!

Given the clearly documented diversity of practice in the early church one doesn’t find many apologists trying to prove the “rightness” of the Canon by appealing to this documentary evidence. The popularity/acceptance of individual books can be demonstrated, but since the Canon per se didn’t exist, it can’t be “proved” in that sense.

Again, you confirm my point. It was firmly established by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

OTOH, when someone provides an ECF quote on a belief or practice (which are a good deal scarcer than references to Scripture and the use of it in the church), this is frequently deemed to prove “The Early Church believed this”. What it actually proves is that the writer in question believed it.

I agree. No individual represents the entire Church unless it is a Pope speaking for the Magisterium.

It also demonstrates that one or more individuals found it useful to keep a copy of that text for future reference. It comes as little surprise that more texts were preserved over the years that agreed with what the later church was teaching. One is less likely to keep texts that one disagrees with or considers “wrong”.

Not relevant.

This brings us back to my assertion, that using the ECF’s to demonstrate the historicity of a currently held belief and then use the list of currently held beliefs to validate writings from the ECF period begs the question. If one tries to prove both, one proves neither.

Either one can prove:

a) a belief currently held as correct today is similar to a belief that one or more individuals in the Early Church held; or

b) a particular statement/writing/declaration by a particular ECF would/would not be considered orthodox by today’s standards.

You can prove one or the other, but not both at the same time.

What we can prove is that beliefs held today were held by early Church fathers. Until the Church rules officially on a matter, it is open to other interpretations. Unanimity is not required to identify early beliefs, but about some doctrines that are rejected by protestants there is near unanimity among the fathers. For example, the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was universally held.

Here is the key question:

Did Jesus found a Church and did he promise to lead it into all truth?

If the answer is yes, then all other questions pale in comparison.

As Chesterton, a Catholic convert said, “We don’t need a Church that is right when we are right, we need a Church that is right when we are wrong.”

 

[SIA]

Can anybody reute all twelve quotes that I provided and prove that the Early Church was totally in accordance with the Marian teachings of Catholicism? I’m seeing the picking apart of Ambrose and maybe a couple others but nobody had openly refuted that these 12 Early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to the Catholic teachings on Mary.

 

[mark_a]

Can anybody reute all twelve quotes that I provided and prove that the Early Church was totally in accordance with the Marian teachings of Catholicism?

Not in a billion years.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Can anybody reute all twelve quotes that I provided and prove that the Early Church was totally in accordance with the Marian teachings of Catholicism? I’m seeing the picking apart of Ambrose and maybe a couple others but nobody had openly refuted that these 12 Early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to the Catholic teachings on Mary.

Why bother?

The fact that a doctrine ,not yet defined, was not held unanimously is not only acceptable, it is to be expected. The defined canon of the New Testament was not held by all early fathers. Does this make you doubt the validity of the New Testament?

What’s amazing is the large percentage of early fathers who already understood the immaculate conception well before it was defined as doctrine.

We exposed several distortions in your post. Some of the people you quoted did in fact support the doctrine as defined by the Church.

 

[cfrancis]

Can anybody reute all twelve quotes that I provided and prove that the Early Church was totally in accordance with the Marian teachings of Catholicism? I’m seeing the picking apart of Ambrose and maybe a couple others but nobody had openly refuted that these 12 Early Church Fathers made statements in direct opposition to the Catholic teachings on Mary.

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…

 

[cfrancis]

From St Thomas Aquinas:

84 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.

" The Blessed Virgin Mary shone with a purity
greater than which under God cannot be compre-
hended." (Dist. XVII, Quest. II, art. 4, 3 m ).

" Increase of purity is to be measured
according to withdrawal from its opposite, and
**since in the Blessed Virgin there was ’ depuratio ’
from all sin, she consequently attained the summit
of purity **; but yet under God, in Whom there is no
capability of defect as is in every creature of itself".

And again he writes in Dist. XLIV, Quest. I, art 3 :
" Purity is increased by withdrawal from its op-
posite, and consequently some created being can
be found purer than which nothing can be found in
creatures, if never sullied by defilement of sin, **and
such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was
exempt from original and actual sin **".