M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Read it again JON… I am in full context with my contentions, it is you guys whom are not in concert.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Redbandito
Guest
"Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom were early Church fathers! Doesn’t that prove that Mary believed to have sin?"
I’m sorry, but maybe I missed where you provided sources for Basil, and Chrysostom’s beliefs that Mary had sinned. I have already responded to your misuse of Origen. I am also aware that some Father’s believed Mary had “possibly” committed venial sin. What is important to remember is that the Church Father’s are NOT Apostolic Tradition, but witnesses to it. Their writings represent the topics of their time. Thus, when certain notions were challenged, we have the Church Fathers’ writings to show us how the Church handled them. Yet, each Church Father was not infallible. Their theology is to be judged based on how it aligns with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Here is a good article on the ECF’s. Please read it Martin. Maybe it could help our discussion.
Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
By Steve Ray
An article in the soon-to-be-published Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics
and Evangelism by Ignatius Press
The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to
the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as
revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the
universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and
a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective
patristic testimony.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind.
“Consent” in Latin means agreement, accord, and harmony; being of the same
mind or opinion. Where the Fathers speak in harmony, with one mind
overall-not necessarily each and every one agreeing on every detail but by
consensus and general agreement-we have “unanimous consent”. The teachings
of the Fathers provide us with an authentic witness to the apostolic
tradition.
St. Irenaeus (AD c. 130-c. 200) writes of the “tradition derived from the
apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church
founded and organized at Rome’ (Against Heresies, III, 3, 2), and the
“tradition which originates from the apostles [and] which is preserved by
means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (Ibid., III, 2, 2)
which “does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us” (Ibid.,
III, 5, 1). Unanimous consent develops from the understanding of apostolic
teaching preserved in the Church with the Fathers as its authentic witness.
St. Vincent of Lerins, explains the Church’s teaching: “In the Catholic
Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith
which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in
the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of
the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe
if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality
if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout
the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those
interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy
ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we
adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the
least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2). Notice that St.
Vincent mentions “almost all priests and doctors”.
I’m sorry, but maybe I missed where you provided sources for Basil, and Chrysostom’s beliefs that Mary had sinned. I have already responded to your misuse of Origen. I am also aware that some Father’s believed Mary had “possibly” committed venial sin. What is important to remember is that the Church Father’s are NOT Apostolic Tradition, but witnesses to it. Their writings represent the topics of their time. Thus, when certain notions were challenged, we have the Church Fathers’ writings to show us how the Church handled them. Yet, each Church Father was not infallible. Their theology is to be judged based on how it aligns with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Here is a good article on the ECF’s. Please read it Martin. Maybe it could help our discussion.
Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
By Steve Ray
An article in the soon-to-be-published Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics
and Evangelism by Ignatius Press
The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers (unanimem consensum Patrum) refers to
the morally unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on certain doctrines as
revealed by God and interpretations of Scripture as received by the
universal Church. The individual Fathers are not personally infallible, and
a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective
patristic testimony.
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: únus, one + animus, mind.
“Consent” in Latin means agreement, accord, and harmony; being of the same
mind or opinion. Where the Fathers speak in harmony, with one mind
overall-not necessarily each and every one agreeing on every detail but by
consensus and general agreement-we have “unanimous consent”. The teachings
of the Fathers provide us with an authentic witness to the apostolic
tradition.
St. Irenaeus (AD c. 130-c. 200) writes of the “tradition derived from the
apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church
founded and organized at Rome’ (Against Heresies, III, 3, 2), and the
“tradition which originates from the apostles [and] which is preserved by
means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (Ibid., III, 2, 2)
which “does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us” (Ibid.,
III, 5, 1). Unanimous consent develops from the understanding of apostolic
teaching preserved in the Church with the Fathers as its authentic witness.
St. Vincent of Lerins, explains the Church’s teaching: “In the Catholic
Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith
which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in
the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of
the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe
if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality
if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout
the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those
interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy
ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we
adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the
least of almost all priests and doctors” (Commonitory 2). Notice that St.
Vincent mentions “almost all priests and doctors”.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Continued…
The phrase Unanimous Consent of the Fathers had a specific application as
used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First
Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The
Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of
Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the
Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated “There are almost as many sects
and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one
rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the
present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not
God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not
claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as
prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Counccils, is
provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the
Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a
part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the
opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a
certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally
infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of
the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is
required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the
proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of
the Church to bring order out of the enveloping chaos. Opposition to the
Church’s teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at
the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]) who
misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying “unanimous
consent”. First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means each
Father must have held the same fully developed traditions and taught them
clearly in the same terms as used later in the Church Councils. This is a
false understanding of the phrase and even in American law unanimous consent
“does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but
it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one
voted in the negative” (Black’s Law Dictionary). Second he misapplies the
term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers
intended, but to tradition. His assertions are not true, but using a skewed
definition and application of “unanimous consent”, he uses selective
patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.
As an example, individual Fathers may explain “the Rock” in Matthew 16 as
Jesus, Peter, Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith. Even the Catechism of the
Catholic Church refers to the “Rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place
(CCC 552) and his faith (CCC 424) in another. Matthew 16 can be applied in
many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without
emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon
which the Church has been built his Church. Webster and others emphasize
various patristic applications of a biblical passage as “proof” of
non-unanimous consent.
Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope
Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus
Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be
carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the
recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained
equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are
concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus
not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today
are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down
which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what
they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not
under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different
opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”
The phrase Unanimous Consent of the Fathers had a specific application as
used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First
Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The
Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of
Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the
Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated “There are almost as many sects
and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one
rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the
present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not
God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not
claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as
prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
A fine definition of Unanimous Consent, based on the Church Counccils, is
provided in the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, “When the Fathers of the
Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a
part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the
opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a
certain criterion of divine tradition. As the Fathers are not personally
infallible, the counter-testimony of one or two would not be destructive of
the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is
required” (Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: Dimension Books, 1965), pg. 153.
The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the
proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of
the Church to bring order out of the enveloping chaos. Opposition to the
Church’s teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at
the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]) who
misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying “unanimous
consent”. First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means each
Father must have held the same fully developed traditions and taught them
clearly in the same terms as used later in the Church Councils. This is a
false understanding of the phrase and even in American law unanimous consent
“does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but
it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one
voted in the negative” (Black’s Law Dictionary). Second he misapplies the
term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers
intended, but to tradition. His assertions are not true, but using a skewed
definition and application of “unanimous consent”, he uses selective
patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.
As an example, individual Fathers may explain “the Rock” in Matthew 16 as
Jesus, Peter, Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith. Even the Catechism of the
Catholic Church refers to the “Rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place
(CCC 552) and his faith (CCC 424) in another. Matthew 16 can be applied in
many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without
emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon
which the Church has been built his Church. Webster and others emphasize
various patristic applications of a biblical passage as “proof” of
non-unanimous consent.
Discussing certain variations in the interpretations of the Fathers, Pope
Leo XIII (The Study of Holy Scripture, from the encyclical Providentissimus
Deus, Nov., 1893) writes, “Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be
carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the
recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained
equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are
concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus
not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today
are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down
which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what
they hand down with unanimous consent; for ‘in those matters which are not
under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different
opinions, just as we are,’ according to the opinion of St. Thomas.”
R
Redbandito
Guest
Continued…
Referred works:
St. Irenaeus’ quote: Ante-Nicene Fathers. Roberts and Donaldson, Eerdmans,
1985, vol. 1, p. 415, 417).
St. Vincent’s quote: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, Eerdmans, 1980, vol. 11, p. 132.
Luther quote: (Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher [Rockford,
IL: TAN Books, 1976], 22).
Maryknoll quote: (Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, pg. 154).
William Webster’s quote: (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 31).
Black’s Law Dictionary: Black’s Law Dictionary, Henry Campbell Black, St.
Paul, MN: West Publ. Co., 1979, p. 1366.
Pope Leo XIII quote: Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London:
B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).
Yves Congar on the “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” from his book
TRADITION AND TRADITIONS published by McMillan Company, New York, 1966.
Republished by Basilica Press and available at the Basilica website at
Missionaries of Faith Foundation.
“The unanimous consensus of the Fathers or of the Ecclesia clearly indicates
a “locus” of the divine action” taken from Traditions and Tradition: An
Historical and a Theological Essay (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pgs.
397-400. A new edition has just been published by Basilica Press. “In every
age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are
commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not
because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel
principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and
also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the
patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first
appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-,
theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of
the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact
the Church’s belief. As a matter of fact, a few testimonies sufficed, even
that of one single man if his particular situation or the consideration
accorded him by the Church were such as to give to what he said the value of
coming from a quasi-personification of the whole Church at that time. The
decisive factor was not mere quantity but the representative quality of the
testimony: “Non numerentur, sedponderentur!” “Unanimous patristic consent as
a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often
been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural
interpretation has been especially stressed. “Application of the principle
is difficult, at least at a certain level. [It is here where Bill is no
surgeon. Rather than understanding the concept in its complexities, he
swings the axe and slashes through the whole concept with the precision of
wood chopper, not a surgeon or theologian.] In regard to individual texts of
Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus
is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for
dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation
of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a
passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One
example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18.
Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal
primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own
ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.
“This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the
Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but
the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its
experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church
in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our
Christianity. This instance shows too that we may not, at the doctrinal as
distinct from the purely historical level, take the witnesses of Tradition
in a purely material sense: they are to be weighed and valued. The plain
material fact of agreement or disagreement, however extensive, does not
allow us to speak of a consensus Patrum at the properly dogmatic level, for
the authors studied in theology are only “Fathers” in the theological sense
if they have in some way begotten the Church which follows them. Now, it may
be that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most
clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through
the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the
factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of
the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church’s faith.
Referred works:
St. Irenaeus’ quote: Ante-Nicene Fathers. Roberts and Donaldson, Eerdmans,
1985, vol. 1, p. 415, 417).
St. Vincent’s quote: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, Eerdmans, 1980, vol. 11, p. 132.
Luther quote: (Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher [Rockford,
IL: TAN Books, 1976], 22).
Maryknoll quote: (Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, pg. 154).
William Webster’s quote: (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 31).
Black’s Law Dictionary: Black’s Law Dictionary, Henry Campbell Black, St.
Paul, MN: West Publ. Co., 1979, p. 1366.
Pope Leo XIII quote: Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London:
B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 491-492).
Yves Congar on the “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” from his book
TRADITION AND TRADITIONS published by McMillan Company, New York, 1966.
Republished by Basilica Press and available at the Basilica website at
Missionaries of Faith Foundation.
“The unanimous consensus of the Fathers or of the Ecclesia clearly indicates
a “locus” of the divine action” taken from Traditions and Tradition: An
Historical and a Theological Essay (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pgs.
397-400. A new edition has just been published by Basilica Press. “In every
age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are
commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not
because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel
principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and
also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the
patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first
appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-,
theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of
the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact
the Church’s belief. As a matter of fact, a few testimonies sufficed, even
that of one single man if his particular situation or the consideration
accorded him by the Church were such as to give to what he said the value of
coming from a quasi-personification of the whole Church at that time. The
decisive factor was not mere quantity but the representative quality of the
testimony: “Non numerentur, sedponderentur!” “Unanimous patristic consent as
a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often
been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural
interpretation has been especially stressed. “Application of the principle
is difficult, at least at a certain level. [It is here where Bill is no
surgeon. Rather than understanding the concept in its complexities, he
swings the axe and slashes through the whole concept with the precision of
wood chopper, not a surgeon or theologian.] In regard to individual texts of
Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus
is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for
dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation
of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a
passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One
example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18.
Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal
primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own
ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.
“This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the
Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but
the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its
experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church
in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our
Christianity. This instance shows too that we may not, at the doctrinal as
distinct from the purely historical level, take the witnesses of Tradition
in a purely material sense: they are to be weighed and valued. The plain
material fact of agreement or disagreement, however extensive, does not
allow us to speak of a consensus Patrum at the properly dogmatic level, for
the authors studied in theology are only “Fathers” in the theological sense
if they have in some way begotten the Church which follows them. Now, it may
be that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most
clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through
the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the
factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of
the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church’s faith.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Continued…
We shall come
back, in the next chapter, to this problem which we have already, in fact,
encountered: that is, the question of the precise distinction to be made
between material (historical) and formal (dogmatic) Tradition. “It can,
however, be seen that as regards the explanation of a particular text, or a
particular article of doctrine, the theological weight of the consensus
Patrum is subject to so many conditions’ that it cannot be easily assessed.
Students and devotees of the Fathers-among whom I should wish to number
myself-might well feel disappointed if they had no other guidance. But, for
a start, there are the foundations of faith, the articles on which the whole
structure rests; there are the directions, meanings and spiritual climate in
which the content and implications of our covenant relation, as attested in
Scripture, have been lived, developed, specified and defended. As far as the
reading of Scripture is concerned, there has been built up in that way
something more valuable than an interpretative exegetical consensus on some
individual verse, I mean the total framework, inside which and starting from
which all Catholic reading of written revelation has been formed and
educated. This is the most important element, the essential contribution of
the Fathers to the formation of an exegetical Tradition. “When we see the
Fathers in this way, as those who have formed the milieu of the Church’s
historical growth (see the next chapter), we find that they are unanimous,
we are at the heart of their real consensus. We have seen that Tradition is
for a Christian almost what the educational milieu is for man in general;
the child needs to form its own conclusions in a milieu which provides him
with security; it is fundamentally the role of the consensus of the Fathers
to provide such an element in the Church.”
We shall come
back, in the next chapter, to this problem which we have already, in fact,
encountered: that is, the question of the precise distinction to be made
between material (historical) and formal (dogmatic) Tradition. “It can,
however, be seen that as regards the explanation of a particular text, or a
particular article of doctrine, the theological weight of the consensus
Patrum is subject to so many conditions’ that it cannot be easily assessed.
Students and devotees of the Fathers-among whom I should wish to number
myself-might well feel disappointed if they had no other guidance. But, for
a start, there are the foundations of faith, the articles on which the whole
structure rests; there are the directions, meanings and spiritual climate in
which the content and implications of our covenant relation, as attested in
Scripture, have been lived, developed, specified and defended. As far as the
reading of Scripture is concerned, there has been built up in that way
something more valuable than an interpretative exegetical consensus on some
individual verse, I mean the total framework, inside which and starting from
which all Catholic reading of written revelation has been formed and
educated. This is the most important element, the essential contribution of
the Fathers to the formation of an exegetical Tradition. “When we see the
Fathers in this way, as those who have formed the milieu of the Church’s
historical growth (see the next chapter), we find that they are unanimous,
we are at the heart of their real consensus. We have seen that Tradition is
for a Christian almost what the educational milieu is for man in general;
the child needs to form its own conclusions in a milieu which provides him
with security; it is fundamentally the role of the consensus of the Fathers
to provide such an element in the Church.”
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
that is your opinion.Read it again JON… I am in full context with my contentions, it is you guys whom are not in concert.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
8.)
Jerome
I don’t think Jerome believed in sinlessness of Mary. The following quote is from a treatise he wrote verses Pelagianism.
Not to suggest that RCs agree with all of the arguments used by Pelag’s. Rather, I’m saying that a bit of what Jerome said against the Pelag’s is relevant to the RCC’s claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He’s God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn’t think they’d be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It’s important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I’ve included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary among other people. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she’s only relatively righteous. She, too, is a sinner.
“Medical skill, craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always without sin is a characteristic of the Divine power only. Therefore, either give me an instance of those who were for ever without sin; or, if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and do not mock the ears of fools with this being and possibility of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man was ever able to do?..For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says, ‘For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiator.’…For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from another, and that one man’s righteousness is not the same as another’s, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when compared with others…Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord’s Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, ‘Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.’ Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents…And again, he in comparison with whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue, relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior in some other particular…We are not told that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you ever read of…And although he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to Quirinus, he does not perceive that he has said just the opposite in the work under discussion. Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs” (Against the Pelagians, 1:9, 1:14, 1:16, 1:23-24, 1:32)
Jerome
I don’t think Jerome believed in sinlessness of Mary. The following quote is from a treatise he wrote verses Pelagianism.
Not to suggest that RCs agree with all of the arguments used by Pelag’s. Rather, I’m saying that a bit of what Jerome said against the Pelag’s is relevant to the RCC’s claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He’s God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn’t think they’d be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It’s important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I’ve included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary among other people. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she’s only relatively righteous. She, too, is a sinner.
“Medical skill, craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always without sin is a characteristic of the Divine power only. Therefore, either give me an instance of those who were for ever without sin; or, if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and do not mock the ears of fools with this being and possibility of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man was ever able to do?..For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says, ‘For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiator.’…For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from another, and that one man’s righteousness is not the same as another’s, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when compared with others…Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord’s Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, ‘Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.’ Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents…And again, he in comparison with whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue, relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior in some other particular…We are not told that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you ever read of…And although he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to Quirinus, he does not perceive that he has said just the opposite in the work under discussion. Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs” (Against the Pelagians, 1:9, 1:14, 1:16, 1:23-24, 1:32)
R
Redbandito
Guest
I, in NO WAY, see this teaching against Mary’s sinlessness. If anything, he affirms it in this section: **“Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord’s Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, ‘Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.’ Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her.” **This represents the Catholic position on Mary’s sinlessness.8.)
Jerome
I don’t think Jerome believed in sinlessness of Mary. The following quote is from a treatise he wrote verses Pelagianism.
Not to suggest that RCs agree with all of the arguments used by Pelag’s. Rather, I’m saying that a bit of what Jerome said against the Pelag’s is relevant to the RCC’s claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He’s God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn’t think they’d be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It’s important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I’ve included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary among other people. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she’s only relatively righteous. She, too, is a sinner…
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I don’t see Jerome saying that she was not sinless. I only read.8.)
Jerome
I don’t think Jerome believed in sinlessness of Mary. The following quote is from a treatise he wrote verses Pelagianism.
Not to suggest that RCs agree with all of the arguments used by Pelag’s. Rather, I’m saying that a bit of what Jerome said against the Pelag’s is relevant to the RCC’s claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He’s God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn’t think they’d be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It’s important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I’ve included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary among other people. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she’s only relatively righteous. She, too, is a sinner.
“Medical skill, craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always without sin is a characteristic of the Divine power only. Therefore, either give me an instance of those who were for ever without sin; or, if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and do not mock the ears of fools with this being and possibility of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man was ever able to do?..For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says, ‘For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiator.’…For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from another, and that one man’s righteousness is not the same as another’s, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when compared with others…Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord’s Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, ‘Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.’ Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents…And again, he in comparison with whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue, relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior in some other particular…We are not told that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you ever read of…And although he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to Quirinus, he does not perceive that he has said just the opposite in the work under discussion. Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs” (Against the Pelagians, 1:9, 1:14, 1:16, 1:23-24, 1:32)
A quote from the commentator from the site you are referring to.I don’t think Jerome believed in sinlessness of Mary.
R
Redbandito
Guest
2.)****]
Tertullian
Though T is accepting Mary as the 2nd eve typology, he clearly argues her against her sinlessness
Bologna Martin! Where did Tertullian “clearly argue” this? I read that whole passage, and he does not utter a word that even implicitly accuses Mary of sin.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Red, the commentary is not Martin. He got it from a Protestant site to show that some ECF did not believe in Marian doctrines. It’s some other Protestant.Bologna Martin! Where did Tertullian “clearly argue” this? I read that whole passage, and he does not utter a word that even implicitly accuses Mary of sin.
For once I like to read Martin’s own commentary on the subject.
R
Redbandito
Guest
So far Myfavoritemartin is yet to provide us with any sources that support his cause besides an implicit reference by Theodoret (Implicit because it does not say Mary sinned, but rather that Christ rebuked her), who is arguing something that is theologically untenable.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
One must be conscienscious of the words they are saying, and think of the souls whom are reading the words and the effect they may have.I answered to the best to my ability. I knew off hand that not all of the ECF agree and that subject was not brought up until (you, martin said that there were). You cited your verses, and you show were about to show 30 verses. .
Then that should clearly be stated, don’t try to make your case using ECF’s, even if in the big picture their o’all support backs the church at Rome be careful how you state them.I show more than enough ECF to support the position on Mary, but the authority comes from the Catholic Church itself. The Magisterium…
OKAY, define formalized…It was the Magisterium of the Church who formalized the Bible, and defined the Trinity…
C’mon
Please, read what you are responding to, slow down and think about how you are responding… I am not insulting, rather holding you reliable for your word, Please do the same for me… That is our call as Christians… I didn’t say you gave unreliable information, I said you where overzealous in your statements…There was no disinformation, martin. I ask that you do not attack me again because when you said that I gave unreliable factual information was** insulting **to me.
You try to put my words out of context.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Mannyfit75;1816127:
Okay, HOW does this teach Mary has sinned? The only thing I can think of is that you are referring to the sentence, “For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil.” Yet, this is clearly hyperbolic. Adam and Eve were not “born under sin.” Thus, it follows that the Second Adam and the Second Eve would not be either. You admit this with the Second Adam, but fail to apply this consistently. Why? Other than that sentence, NOTHING in this passage gets even remotely close to saying Mary sinned. Good try.No problem.
Jesusformadrid asked this…
So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?
Mannyfit responded…
No problem.
I say, I can post 50-75 ecf statements that prove that they in fact were not even close to unanimous consent…
Below are just 2, Ambrose and Justin Martyr…in response to sinlessness.
Emanuell, It almost comes across as decietful that you so boldly say “No problem”… For you to respond that way would incline
us to believe you’ve read and studied each and every one and because your able to post an endless supply of 5th 6th 7th century
that it was a unanimous thing…
Sinlessness
Ambrose:
“He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized,
so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female,
but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted,
but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement.
For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David:
‘For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.’” (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)
And where exactly do you suggest this teaches Mary sinned? All I see is praise for Jesus. No argument is made that Mary sinned.“For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption,
by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” (cited in Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I show the ECF because JFM wanted to see some writings concerning the ECF. He seek the Truth so I gave it to him.One must be conscienscious of the words they are saying, and think of the souls whom are reading the words and the effect they may have.
Then that should clearly be stated, don’t try to make your case using ECF’s, even if in the big picture their o’all support backs the church at Rome be careful how you state them.
The Catholic Church settled the matter by defining the dogma in their Magisterium writings and documents, partially the Church Councils to be more specific.OKAY, define formalized…
No problem there.Please, read what you are responding to, slow down and think about how you are responding… I am not insulting, rather holding you reliable for your word, Please do the same for me… That is our call as Christians… I didn’t say you gave unreliable information, I said you where overzealous in your statements…
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
9.)IRENAEUS
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus uses “come together” with intercourse. Implying that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus uses “come together” with intercourse. Implying that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Finally, I read this passage. Where is this challenge issued? The question he asked was not whether any other human was sinless, but rather why these guys are complaining about suffering when an innocent man suffered the ultimate death.Justin Martyr challenges trypho to find one other than our Saviour whom was sinless, are you willing to do this?
See…
“Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove;
even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race,
which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression…
For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses,
'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.
’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined.
But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements,
how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes?
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead,
He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed,
and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family,
yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 95)
Furthermore, there are a couple of references to “no one has accurately done all,” yet your interpretation of this would have us believe he is contradicting himself. For “no one” would indeed include Christ. Furthermore, an infant has done no wrong. And while they are born into sin, this passage is clearly talking about personal sin. Thus, he uses hyperbolic language to make a point. He makes no reference at all to anything that would contradict the sinlessness of Mary.
R
Redbandito
Guest
That, is in fact, not what he is implying. The point he was making was that it was a virgin birth. Irenaeus is providing a proof of the virgin birth, no more. In no way is he answering a question to Mary’s perpetual virginity in this statement.9.)IRENAEUS
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus uses “come together” with intercourse. Implying that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
Secondly, what does this have to do with Mary’s sinlessness?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Not some! JFM specifically asked for unanimous proof!I show the ECF because JFM wanted to see some writings concerning the ECF. He seek the Truth so I gave it to him.
No offense,
No offense, this all means nothing to me.The Catholic Church settled the matter by defining the dogma in their Magisterium writings and documents, partially the Church Councils to be more specific.
No problem there.
What are dogmas magesterium and doctines…
Sounds like ways of MAN! (my opinion)
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Martin,Not some! JFM specifically asked for unanimous proof!
No offense,
No offense, this all means nothing to me.
What are dogmas magesterium and doctines…
Sounds like ways of MAN! (my opinion)
You aren’t Catholic and you probably won’t be. But as a Catholic, the Magisterium of the Church was given to us by Jesus Christ himself. The ECF were unanimous and the Church leaders through the council and in union with the Pope defined the doctrine of the Virgin Mary.
These doctrines were already held beliefs by early Christians. Not only did I cite the ECF I also cited the Bible that support Marian doctrines.
"Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
Jesus has kept his promise and I don’t he will not leave his Church.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos.
The Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession that is over 2,000 yrs old.
Just as in the Nicene Creed states, "I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.