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.
Not true at all. The NT was the result of the workings of the Holy Spirit. This is why I believe it to be true. If Catholic doctrines were developed amongst much opposition from the ECFs, it seriously muddies the waters of proof that the Early Church is indeed the Roman Catholic church of today. Truthfully, I think that this is the least of your problems.
Your post has no substance.
If the exclusion of sources (not the sites from whence the quotes were copied, but the documents from which the quotes on those sites were taken) wasn’t bad enough, now the disagreement among the ECF on the OT and NT canon is somehow different than the disagreement re: Mary.
SIA, you’ll have to prove why this is so…
 
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?
Where do any of your initial assertions ***condemn ***Mary?

What you don’t mention (or I overlooked) is that there was a huge debate about whether Mary should be concidered the Mother of God. That one was highly contested.

There were many things debated and disagreed upon throughout the history of the church. This is not news.
 
Why should I provide it?
Because you are the one making the claim that they are true. The burden is on you to provide proof of your claims. That’s how it works in real life, instead of whatever world you live in.
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.
That’s irrelevant what others do. That has no bearing on your responsibility to prove your claims. Do you even know if those quotes are factual? Since you didn’t have the references, how do you know they are accurate? It would be very foolish to present an argument and find out that your source is not accurate.

Think about it.

MW
 
And why can’t you provide proper citations? I mean, how hard can it be?

Your response is classic fundamentalist:

You start off trying to pin Catholics, or stun them in ths case.
Then, when you get asked a tough question, you dodge it with more questions.
You start off with a strong case, then dissolve from there.

So here’s my challenge to you, SIA:
Provide correct citations.

If you do that, proper rebuttals can be set in motion, but right now they are stalled because no one can figure this out.

Think of it as a late Christmas present. 👍
Hey there Coolduude,

Sia, can’t provide proper citations because what he did was copy and paste from the Spero Forum word for word. trying to make us believe that he did the research lol.

Shame on you Sia “aka” copy and paste lol

Ufamtobie
 
I think what is most interesting is that there is a CONSTANT argument by many catholics I run into that ALL catholics believe the same thing. That they are ONE with no division (not like us protestants with 33,000+ denoms :rolleyes:), but you just need to go over to the Traditional Catholic forum here on CAF and see that this is not true. Those quotes cited in the OP are good evidence of this.

With this I am told that the people can argue and be divided but the Church remains the same and believes the same, it doesn’t matter what the people believe. As someone posted on this thread, those church fathers may not agree but because they aren’t infallible it doesn’t matter. But isn’t the belief system of a church evident by its members? How can you be a member of a church but not believe all it teaches? Is the Catholic Church teaching too vague and leaves it open for interpretation?

This is an honest question, I am really confused by this. How can catholics bash on protestants regarding the supposed division that to them is so obvious but yet just dismiss their own division without much of an argument. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. 🤷
 
I think what is most interesting is that there is a CONSTANT argument by many catholics I run into that ALL catholics believe the same thing. That they are ONE with no division (not like us protestants with 33,000+ denoms :rolleyes:), but you just need to go over to the Traditional Catholic forum here on CAF and see that this is not true. Those quotes cited in the OP are good evidence of this.

**Gabriel of 12:
This is not true; for one the quotations are incomplete and does not complete the thought of the Church father. For one to arrive at a mischievious incomplete statement of a belief in Mary or not from an incomplete thought of the writer only a selected sentence does not justify the claim of the writer and to conclude that they did without the full context of the quotes. I read them and they have nothing to do with explaining Mary’s doctrinal belief’s today, pro or con. Jesus being the only one born without sin does not explain away the doctrinal belief’s in Mary, but confirm who she was.

The division you try to emphasize among 2000 years of Catholics is not there. For one Catholics have the freedom to argue, refute, discuss, or have a different opinion. But what you will not have a division among Catholics is her defined, revealed, apostolic doctrines. Remember these quotes have no Papal bulls attached, or infallible teachings, just theological commentaries, These are made evident to defend and or define what is already believed, when the apostolic teachings are attacked, such as the Immaculate conception, etc. These early church father teachings helped to define and reveal the already believed apostolic teachings about Mary, to clarify these Marian belief’s down through the centuries. There is no division. But nice try though.👍 **

This is an honest question, I am really confused by this. How can catholics bash on protestants regarding the supposed division that to them is so obvious but yet just dismiss their own division without much of an argument. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. 🤷
**Gabriel of 12:
No double standard, protestants and non catholics are not in communion with each other, due to different doctrinal belief’s. Catholics are in communion, in One body, One baptism, One Church, One Lord Jesus Christ. This is a fundamental difference.

To place theological opinions as causing division among Catholic doctrinal belief’s is a far stretch from the Truth.**

Peace
 
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
 
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.
Great response 👍
 
What about Peter Lombard? He couldn’t have made it any more clear that the Immculate Conception is Impossible. Can you show anything from Lombard to the contrary??
Interesting. Is your information from Lombard’s “Liber Primus Sententiarum” (Book of Sentences)? If so, which book (“Distinction”) is it from? I’ve searched through the online edition and don’t see anything from Lombard stating definitively that “the Immaculate Conception is impossible”.

However, please note that Lombard (like Aquinas) does pose a lot of rhetorical questions, and then answers them (lots of “It is said that …” followed by “however …”).

So your quote-mining source (and it’s definitely at the Spero Forum, by the way - a Google search for your Lombard quote easily picked that up) picked up the “it is said” without going on to the “however”.

(And in defense of the Spero Forum, by the way, it should be pointed out that the site itself doesn’t seem to be anti-Catholic -just some of the posters in the forum.)
 
I think what is most interesting is that there is a CONSTANT argument by many catholics I run into that ALL catholics believe the same thing. That they are ONE with no division (not like us protestants with 33,000+ denoms :rolleyes:), but you just need to go over to the Traditional Catholic forum here on CAF and see that this is not true. Those quotes cited in the OP are good evidence of this.
The OP cut and pasted material that he has been asked to provide references for. He hasn’t done that. Therefore, as copied, those “quotes” aren’t evidence of anything until it is established the “quotes” are really “quotes” from those individuals.
Singin:
With this I am told that the people can argue and be divided but the Church remains the same and believes the same, it doesn’t matter what the people believe. As someone posted on this thread, those church fathers may not agree but because they aren’t infallible it doesn’t matter. But isn’t the belief system of a church evident by its members? How can you be a member of a church but not believe all it teaches? Is the Catholic Church teaching too vague and leaves it open for interpretation?
Consider Augustine for example.

If someone like the OP SIA, wrote

"I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." - St. Augustine:

I recognize this quote, and that it came from Augustine. I really wouldn’t need further evidence. But as written, it is not properly referenced. If I quoted that and was asked to provide where the quote came from so that I can validate that Augustine really spoke those words, I would need to add for the inquirer

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manicheaus, chapter 5.

And I would be more than happy to provide that information because THEN the quote is properly referenced. If I REALLY wanted to make it easy on the inquirer to validate the quote, I would give the link. newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
As you probably know, all the ECF’s are online

SIA, the OP was asked so many times it became rediculous, to give references to the quotes he copied from some web site. Not to post the web site where he got the quotes from, but to post the references to the quotes so that the “quotes” can be proven and the author can be validated. But he didn’t comply.

I bring this particular quote from Augustine up for a reason. IMO this quote taken in context gets to the heart of Augustine’s frame of mind on everything regarding theology. Augustine adds

So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe** in the gospel tell me not to believe**** in Manichæus, how can I but consent?**

Augustine in effect is really saying, if push comes to shove, no matter the subject, (theologically speaking) Augustine will side with the Catholic Church over his own opinion. BTW, for fuller understanding of the point, go to the link, may I suggest reading all of chapter 5.

So in the end, if SIA tries to pit Augustine against the Catholic Church as he tried to do, SIA doesn’t understand the mind of Augustine. Ultimately, the Catholic Church brings all opinions in her, into line on doctrines and dogmas.

As an aside, before a doctrine or dogma is defined, and proclaimed, there is wiggle room for one to agree or disagree on definitions. That is perfectly acceptable.

It does NOT follow that a dogma is new to the faith and never been heard of or believed before. It just means that it has not been officially defined previously.
Singin:
This is an honest question, I am really confused by this. How can catholics bash on protestants regarding the supposed division that to them is so obvious but yet just dismiss their own division without much of an argument. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. 🤷
After doctrines and dogmas are defined and proclaimed, everyone in the Catholic Church is expected to be on the same page. There is no wiggle room then. Therefore, there is no double standard.

As you know, Paul condemned division.
 
To declare something IMPOSSIBLE is hardly taking anything out of context. try again.
If you cannot provide the proper reference or citation, then what you said about the early father is merely your conclusion not theirs.
 
He is leading his Church. I don’t believe however that his Church is exclusively the Roman Catholic church. That’s the difference.
Why do you have to be separated from the church? Surely the Holy spirit never lead to separation?
 
Because YOU brought the argument up in discussion. It is YOUR responsibility to refute our Church’s doctrines using writings of the early Church Fathers, and citing them in at least half an intellectual way. It is not our responsibility to ‘refute’ anything. If I had to choose between Church teaching and your misunderstanding of doctrine, of course I would uphold Church teaching. I certainly wouldn’t swing over to your side because of such an incredibly weak argument on your part.
Yep. Before you agree with anything, you better read the whole things presented to you. In this case, SIA is just like selling life insurance without disclosing the whole policy.
 
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 actually know this already because not one of you has been able to refute the quotes.
Well, gee, this takes common sense!

We can’t refute because we have no citations! :mad:

Why don’t you just do what everyone has been telling you to, and give us the citations!

It really can’t be that hard, can it?
 
Ok, SIA, I’m tired of waiting for your “citations” so I decided to get my own research. Is this what you were looking for?:

Mary: Ever Virgin

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
 
continued…

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
 
And now on to “Full of Gace”

The Ascension of Isaiah

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

Pseudo-Melito

“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).*
 
continued…

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?” (ibid., 2:2:7).

“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]).

Augustine

“Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both” (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).

“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).



“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).

“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).

Gregory of Tours

“The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).

“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8).
 
And last, but not least, the “Mother of God” claim!

Irenaeus

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius

“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz

“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top