M
Mannyfit75
Guest
These quote from the ECF does not prove anything that Mary was not sinless. It is a common belief by the ECF that they believed Mary is sinless.
I even cited Scripture reference to prove my point.
- Status
I even cited Scripture reference to prove my point.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Emmanuel,
You claimed you could show ECF unaminously backing Marian Doctrines… you used 4.5.6.th century quotes…
But, Unanimous means just that… I could take the year 300 AD for example and probably show you at a minimum 30 ECF’s whom show no backing to the current Marian doctrines.
R
Redbandito
Guest
By all means Martin, please show us.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I also quoted Scripture to prove current Marian doctrines, and the Magisterium of the Church.
I give them much credit than I do the ECF since the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.
Show me the quotes of the ECF that does not back it? Even if you show the ECF does not back up Marian doctrines, they aren’t the full authority. The Church is who made declarations about the Marian doctrines.
That is why the CC not only uses Scripture or the writings of the ECF, but its authority to bind and loose.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Even if he have proof, they are probably taken out of context. 
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
1.)
Theodoret
Theodoret didn’t really agree with the RCC view of Mary.
In his defense of Christ 2 natures, on of his examples is the contrast
between Jesus honoring Mary as His earthly mother,
while rebuking her as her Lord on the other hand. Obvious reference Luke 2:49 or John 2:4:
“If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former
and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh,
as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded,
but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony
of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only
begotten-the Lord Christ-the other sets forth His human qualities.
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)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
OMG, Theodoret said the Jesus rebuke Mary as her Lord? I read the Scripture many times and He did not rebuke his Mother.
There is not one verse in Scripture that Mary actually committed actual sin. If Jesus did, then he would be guilty of breaking the Commandment, “Honor, thy mother, and thy father?”
I hardly think Jesus disrespect his own Mother who have him a human body.
Oh, can you provide the citation or source of your information so that I may analysis it.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Is this all you have? For starters, which Catholic doctrine are you claiming this rebuts? Secondly, don’t you think you need a little more than one Church Father to support your claim? Finally, if indeed he is correct, Jesus broke the 4th commandment. A child who rebuked his parents was guilty of transgressing the law. Thus, this exegesis is highly improbable since Christ kept the whole of the law perfectly.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
when Jesus says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,” some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God’s word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.
IMO in this verse, Jesus gave honor to his mother since Mary heard the word of God and keep it and even said, “Be it done unto me according to your word.”
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.
Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for “rather” is “menounge.” Menounge really means “Yes, but in addition,” or “Further.” Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary’s example in order to build up His kingdom.
Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.
John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary’s significance. Jesus’ question to Mary, “what have you to do with me?” does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus’ question illustrates the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom. Jesus’ question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.
Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, “what have you to do with us.” The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.
John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.
IMO in this verse, Jesus gave honor to his mother since Mary heard the word of God and keep it and even said, “Be it done unto me according to your word.”
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.
Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for “rather” is “menounge.” Menounge really means “Yes, but in addition,” or “Further.” Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary’s example in order to build up His kingdom.
Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.
John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary’s significance. Jesus’ question to Mary, “what have you to do with me?” does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus’ question illustrates the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom. Jesus’ question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.
Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, “what have you to do with us.” The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.
John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
2.)]
Tertullian
Though T is accepting Mary as the 2nd eve typology, he clearly argues her against her sinlessness
"First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside [Matthew 12:46-50],
if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,
–who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel,
because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters,
were very well known to them…
But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present,
as even Apelles might learn. ‘The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.’ So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time;
whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other
Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life,
preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him,
His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth,
they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary
than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work.
Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race,
and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, ‘What are mother and brothers to me?’
And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age,
justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside,
or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity,
He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently,
and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers.
When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference;
and since He shows their title to this favour–even because they listened to the word (of God)
–He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren.
For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him.
Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if,
while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God,
He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him!
He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours–for God’s work.
But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren.
In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church,
which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.
It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s ‘womb and paps,’
but designating those as more ‘blessed who hear the word of God.’…For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had
crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that
Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation.
As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.
But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived;
for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow.
Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel,
Tertullian
Though T is accepting Mary as the 2nd eve typology, he clearly argues her against her sinlessness
"First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside [Matthew 12:46-50],
if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,
–who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel,
because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters,
were very well known to them…
But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present,
as even Apelles might learn. ‘The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.’ So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time;
whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other
Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life,
preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him,
His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth,
they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary
than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work.
Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race,
and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, ‘What are mother and brothers to me?’
And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age,
justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside,
or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity,
He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently,
and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers.
When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference;
and since He shows their title to this favour–even because they listened to the word (of God)
–He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren.
For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him.
Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if,
while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God,
He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him!
He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours–for God’s work.
But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren.
In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church,
which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.
It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s ‘womb and paps,’
but designating those as more ‘blessed who hear the word of God.’…For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had
crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that
Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation.
As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.
But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived;
for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow.
Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel,
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin’s womb His Word, as the good Brother,
who should blot out the memory of the evil brother." (On the Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)
who should blot out the memory of the evil brother." (On the Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Simon,
Is Theodoret speaking here in his role as Orthodoxos?
If so, how does this passage from the Dialogues pertain to, and is indicative of, the Catholic Church"view of Mary?" Which of the two dogmas concerning the Theotokos are you referring to?
Remember one thing while arguing against devotion to Mary and her history with the Church: if you are looking for EARLY, contemporaneous with St Paul type of proof, then tread very, very carefully.
Why? Because all Protestant changes in biblical exegesis and doctrine date almost 1500 years AFTER the birth of Jesus. By your own standards then, Sola Scriptura, OSAS, dispensation by the gospel, the rapture, and all those other 19th century ideas must be ignored and forgotten.
After all, what is sauce for the Catholic goose is sauce for the Protestant gander.
Pax Christi
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
3.)
Origen
“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
“Origen stated she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; , he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
Origen
“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
“Origen stated she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; , he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Martin,
please cite your source. I like to know where you are getting this. I have read some of them and they don’t appear to be your own writing. Most of the commentary is probably from Protestant Apologist rather than your own.
please cite your source. I like to know where you are getting this. I have read some of them and they don’t appear to be your own writing. Most of the commentary is probably from Protestant Apologist rather than your own.
L
lak611
Guest
The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but in 2 Corinthians 13:13, it says, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” So it is clear that Paul understood and taught the Trinity.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Counting post 134, My attempt to show 30 ECF’s that contradict what is taught NOW…
I am at
6.)
Leo I, of the fifth century, taught sin was passed by means of intercourse, therefore Mary was conceived in original sin:
“And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred.” (Sermon 22:3)
Also, he refers to Jesus being “the one” conceived without sin. He even calls Christ’s stock,( Mary), corrupt:
“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 24:3)
Also:
“And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’” (Sermon 28:3)
Unclean seed includes Mary.
He states one from Adam who is sinless.(Christ)
I am at
6.)
Leo I, of the fifth century, taught sin was passed by means of intercourse, therefore Mary was conceived in original sin:
“And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred.” (Sermon 22:3)
Also, he refers to Jesus being “the one” conceived without sin. He even calls Christ’s stock,( Mary), corrupt:
“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 24:3)
Also:
“And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’” (Sermon 28:3)
Unclean seed includes Mary.
He states one from Adam who is sinless.(Christ)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
martin,
Like I stated early. Even though not all ECF believed in certain doctrine about Mary, the Church itself made it final and dogmatic.
There were even ECF who doubt to put the Book of Revelations of in the canon of Scripture as well as other NT text. Does it mean that some of the text in the Bible are not inspired because one ECF does not believe.
The only institution that resolved and clear this issue is the Magisterium of the Church, who has the final say in all matters concerning faith and morals. Like I said before, ECF may disagree on certain dogmatic views, but the Catholic Church settle the issue through the Church Councils.
Like I stated early. Even though not all ECF believed in certain doctrine about Mary, the Church itself made it final and dogmatic.
There were even ECF who doubt to put the Book of Revelations of in the canon of Scripture as well as other NT text. Does it mean that some of the text in the Bible are not inspired because one ECF does not believe.
The only institution that resolved and clear this issue is the Magisterium of the Church, who has the final say in all matters concerning faith and morals. Like I said before, ECF may disagree on certain dogmatic views, but the Catholic Church settle the issue through the Church Councils.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
- Status