Unanimous consent

[ematouk]

I have been studying the Immaculate Conception from a RCC perspective recently. But here is a problem I find with it.

The Dogma clearly states it was the “unanimous opinion of the fathers” (under the heading “Testimonies of Tradition”). It also claims “This doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors" (ibid.)

But can we really believe this as Dogma when it is so clearly false?

Pope Leo 1 taught “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.” (St Pope Leo 1, Sermon 24 in "Nativ.Dom”[AD. 440]). Pope Gelasius also taught “It belongs alone to the Immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all." (St Pope Gelasius, Dicta, vol. 4, col. 1241 [AD. 492]). Who is the more infallible? Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo 1 and Pope Gelasius? Can the Catholic Church really attest that these early Popes believed in the Immaculate Conception that apparently “always existed in the church”?

St Augustine of Hippo also affirmed “For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin." (St Augustine, “Psalm 34” Discourse 2; [AD. 420])

The quotes above were taken from quoted from newadvent.org/fathers/

Also the famous quote by Ludwig Ott “Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary” **(Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p. 201 [June, 1974]) **.

How do Catholics respond to this? Is the fact the RCC is wrong on unanimous consent enough to debunk the Dogma?

God bless.

 

[dvdjs]

I have been studying the Immaculate Conception from a RCC perspective recently. But here is a problem I find with it.

The Dogma clearly states it was the “unanimous opinion of the fathers” (under the heading “Testimonies of Tradition”)

.

This question probably belongs on another forum. But on the subject point of “unanimous consent”, it is worth pointing out the problem of pronouns (“it” in the quote above) with indefinite antecedents.

The “it” as it turns out is NOT applied, in Ineffabilis Deus, to the dogma of the immaculate conception itself, but to the idea that:

“… the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory.”

(under the heading “MARY COMPARED WITH EVE”, btw.)

Are there Fathers who deny these remarks?

 

[mgy100]

Some folks consider newadvent an outdated and biased source, fyi.

 

[anthony022071]

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

 

[Alexius]

I have been studying the Immaculate Conception from a RCC perspective recently. But here is a problem I find with it.

The Dogma clearly states it was the “unanimous opinion of the fathers” (under the heading “Testimonies of Tradition”). It also claims “This doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors" (ibid.)

But can we really believe this as Dogma when it is so clearly false?

Pope Leo 1 taught “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.” (St Pope Leo 1, Sermon 24 in "Nativ.Dom”[AD. 440]). Pope Gelasius also taught “It belongs alone to the Immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all." (St Pope Gelasius, Dicta, vol. 4, col. 1241 [AD. 492]). Who is the more infallible? Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo 1 and Pope Gelasius? Can the Catholic Church really attest that these early Popes believed in the Immaculate Conception that apparently “always existed in the church”?

St Augustine of Hippo also affirmed “For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin." (St Augustine, “Psalm 34” Discourse 2; [AD. 420])

The quotes above were taken from quoted from newadvent.org/fathers/

Also the famous quote by Ludwig Ott “Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary” **(Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p. 201 [June, 1974]) **.

How do Catholics respond to this? Is the fact the RCC is wrong on unanimous consent enough to debunk the Dogma?

God bless.

Good to have another Orthodox Christian on the forum!

I think the declaration is that the Blessed Theotokos was born without stain of sin. She was…I doubt you disagree with this…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[anthony022071]

Irenaeus:

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . 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 . . . having become disobedient [sin], 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 [no sin], 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]).

Ambrose of Milan:

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]).

Gregory Nazianzen:

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Theodotus of Ancrya:

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople:

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Romanos the Melodist:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

< "For example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets her with the phrase: “Hail, Full of Grace” – a phrase which most modern Bibles mistranslate as “highly favored one” or even “highly favored daughter.” Yet those words are not in the original Greek. In the Greek, it is “Kecharitomenae” – literally, “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced” implying an “overflowing” or “abundance” of grace.

Furthermore, the angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary; and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.

So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.

So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, right? (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it?

We Catholics say that it was at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother. Why? Because of Genesis 3:15. Here, God speaks to satan, saying:

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam.

Yet, as I said, this realization took a while to develop in the Church, not being dogmatized for universal acceptance until 1854. So, we know that the early Church believed that Mary was sinless. Yet, was the Immaculate Conception believed by any Christians in ancient times? Yes it was.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception comes to us from the Syrian-speaking Church in the East – the branch of early Christianity which was closest in culture to the original, Jewish community of believers." >

 

[Alexius]

Here it is:

I believe that the Blessed Theotokos was conceived without stain. She was; however, surely tempted and surely had the ability to sin. When I see “stain,” I think of an absence of grace in her soul. I think that is a difference. Does the declaration require one to believe she couldn’t sin, or had a sinful nature? Not all Church Fathers agreed that she was without actual sin, by the way. I also think that it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that Latin theologians started trying to figure out how she was “without sin.” It seems that the teaching of inherited guilt may have played a part in some of their understandings.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have been studying the Immaculate Conception from a RCC perspective recently. But here is a problem I find with it.

The Dogma clearly states it was the “unanimous opinion of the fathers” (under the heading “Testimonies of Tradition”). It also claims “This doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors" **(ibid.)
**

First, from the Catholic perspective, the “dogma” of the immaculate conception is limited to only a portion of the Papal Bull. You seem to erroneously think the dogma includes every word in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. The reasons given by the pope in support of the dogma are not part of the dogma.

Here’s the dogmatic formula from the Ineffabilis Deus:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

That is the formula for the “dogma” strictly so-called. When you claim: “The Dogma clearly states it was the ‘unanimous opinion of the fathers’”, you are incorrect. The dogma does not state this.

Secondly, you’re taking the phrase, “unanimous opinion of the Fathers” out of its proper context.

Observe:

“Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory.”

How is this false?

Thirdly, the Catholic Church understands “unanimous consent” in the manner articulated by our early Fathers, such as St. Vincent de Lerins (d. c. AD 450):

                         ... 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 [note: as opposed to that which is merely regional]; ***antiquity***, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers [note: as opposed to something novel]; **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**.

Commonitorium, ch. 2]

The Catholic “rule of faith” is clearly not a “unanimous vote” among all opinions as you imply.

Lastly, not every utterance or sermon of Catholic bishops, even of the Bishops of Rome are deemed infallible. If you really want to understand dogma from a Catholic perspective as you state, then you need to realize that your argument above is flawed in many ways.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

< "For example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets her with the phrase: “Hail, Full of Grace” – a phrase which most modern Bibles mistranslate as “highly favored one” or even “highly favored daughter.” Yet those words are not in the original Greek. In the Greek, it is “Kecharitomenae” – literally, “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced” implying an “overflowing” or “abundance” of grace.

Furthermore, the angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary; and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.

So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.

So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, right? (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it?

We Catholics say that it was at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother. Why? Because of Genesis 3:15. Here, God speaks to satan, saying:

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam.

Yet, as I said, this realization took a while to develop in the Church, not being dogmatized for universal acceptance until 1854. So, we know that the early Church believed that Mary was sinless. Yet, was the Immaculate Conception believed by any Christians in ancient times? Yes it was.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception comes to us from the Syrian-speaking Church in the East – the branch of early Christianity which was closest in culture to the original, Jewish community of believers." >

She didn’t pass on a sinless humanity onto her Son. It was formed at the Incarnation. Otherwise, you create an infinite regression.

And a thousand years ago in the West, St. Bernard of Clairvaux denounced it as an innovation, quite unknown previously to its promotion in England.

 

[Mousey]

I went to New Advent and could not find any of the quotes:nope: . Are you sure you found them there. How about a link to the page?:bible1:

 

[anthony022071]

< Here it is:

I believe that the Blessed Theotokos was conceived without stain. She was; however, surely tempted and surely had the ability to sin. When I see “stain,” I think of an absence of grace in her soul. >

A person may have grace and yet still have a soul stained with sin. But Mary was “full of grace”,or “perfectly graced”.

< I think that is a difference. Does the declaration require one to believe she couldn’t sin, or had a sinful nature? Not all Church Fathers agreed that she was without actual sin, by the way. I also think that it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that Latin theologians started trying to figure out how she was “without sin.” It seems that the teaching of inherited guilt may have played a part in some of their understandings. >

I think that she could have chosen to sin,just as Eve,who was without stain when she was created,chose to sin. Mary is the “New Eve”. She was like Eve,before Eve chose to sin.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/ic.html

< “Protestantism, being rooted in nominalism as it is, invariably confuses Original Sin with “Original Guilt.” But, what Original Sin really is is a “macula” - a “dark spot” - a “place void of light” - that is, the light of God’s grace. And, along with this lack of grace is a mysterious “knowledge” (“intimate experience”) of sin - the very thing that makes us weak to sin and inclined to commit it. Jesus and Mary, however (like Adam and Eve before the Fall), had no “knowledge” of sin whatsover. John the Baptist would have had some (because he was not conceived without sin). However, the only way a totally sinless human like Mary could have sinned was (like Adam and Eve) if she freely and intentionally chose to offend God - a direct insult and totally willing disobedience. Mary could not, for example, claim to be tempted out of weakness or appetite, since these things (unlike with us) were simply not in her.” >

 

[anthony022071]

I went to New Advent and could not find any of the quotes:nope: . Are you sure you found them there. How about a link to the page?:bible1:

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

 

[Alexius]

< Here it is:

I believe that the Blessed Theotokos was conceived without stain. She was; however, surely tempted and surely had the ability to sin. When I see “stain,” I think of an absence of grace in her soul. >

A person may have grace and yet still have a soul stained with sin. But Mary was “full of grace”,or “perfectly graced”.

< I think that is a difference. Does the declaration require one to believe she couldn’t sin, or had a sinful nature? Not all Church Fathers agreed that she was without actual sin, by the way. I also think that it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that Latin theologians started trying to figure out how she was “without sin.” It seems that the teaching of inherited guilt may have played a part in some of their understandings. >

I think that she could have chosen to sin,just as Eve,who was without stain when she was created,chose to sin. Mary is the “New Eve”. She was like Eve,before Eve chose to sin.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/ic.html

< “Protestantism, being rooted in nominalism as it is, invariably confuses Original Sin with “Original Guilt.” But, what Original Sin really is is a “macula” - a “dark spot” - a “place void of light” - that is, the light of God’s grace. And, along with this lack of grace is a mysterious “knowledge” (“intimate experience”) of sin - the very thing that makes us weak to sin and inclined to commit it. Jesus and Mary, however (like Adam and Eve before the Fall), had no “knowledge” of sin whatsover. John the Baptist would have had some (because he was not conceived without sin). However, the only way a totally sinless human like Mary could have sinned was (like Adam and Eve) if she freely and intentionally chose to offend God - a direct insult and totally willing disobedience. Mary could not, for example, claim to be tempted out of weakness or appetite, since these things (unlike with us) were simply not in her.” >

Thank you for the last part. I do understand that…

The term stain is foreign to many Easterners, though, including myself. For us, no soul is not born with a stain of sin. I think we believe the same, but we approach it differently.

I wonder, though. Why did she have to receive this grace at birth and not later at the Annunciation?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also the famous quote by Ludwig Ott “Neither the Greek nor the Latin fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary” **(Ludwig Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, p. 201 [June, 1974]) **.

How do Catholics respond to this?

I respond by asking, do you have a copy of Ott’s book? I ask this because the sentence you quote is followed immediately by this sentence: “**Still, they teach it implicitly (implicite)”

**It seems to me that if what you say is true, that you are trying to understand, then you wouldn’t be taking quotes out of their context as you have done.

St. Ephraim of Syria (from the same portion of Ott’s book):

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in they Mother no stain" (Carm. Nisib. 27)

St. Augustine of Hippo (from the same portion of Ott’s book):

… says that all men must confess themselves sinners, “except the Holy Virgin Mary, whom I desire, for the sake of the honour of the Lord, to leave entirely out of the question, when the talk is of sin” (De natura et gratia 36, 4). According to the context, however, this must be taken as referring to freedom from personal sin.

 

[Volodymyr]

There are two different ideas which Catolics have confused:

1. Immaculate life of Mary
2. Immaculate conception of Mary

Most Church Fathers, Orthodox church agree that Mary was sinless and spotless - by grace of God. But she was a normal human person who could have sinned. Otherwise, Christ does not receive a true human nature from his Mother by some kind of special semi-divine nature.

Immaculate conception has little reference in early church fathers if one is careful to make sure that such Father is talking of the mechanism of conception - and not just that Ioakim and Anna conceived a child who was immaculate.

Because Catolics believe such a semi-divine status for Mother of God, they have come to believe her as Co-Redeemer, which is truly an un christian idea. No christian has believed such a thing until Catolics have made Mary immaculately conceived and have had to follow their own reasoning that she is somehow not really like us and sinless, but different in nature.

 

[anthony022071]

padrimariani.org/en/laity/conf_ICI.html

< 3). Finally, the rejection of all “progress” or “development” of doctrine by the Synod of Constantinople [1895] was really somewhat disingenuous. The synod appealed to the teachings of St. Vincent of Lerins to bolster its case. In the same work that they quote by St. Vincent, however, the saint goes on to say while the ancient Catholic Faith is certainly unchangeable in its essence, this does not preclude “progress” in “understanding” of the Faith (Commonitory, 23, 28):

But perhaps someone is saying: ‘will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?’ Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and exceedingly hateful toward God that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress, and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in a group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were…

For example: our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it were unjust and incongruous if we, their descendants, were to gather instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last, what we sow and what we reap, and that we reap from the wheat of instruction the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds, and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction have been added, still the same nature of each kind remains. >

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some folks consider newadvent an outdated and biased source, fyi.

Just to clarify something. Your profile, MGY100, says your religion is “pravoslavnia”. If one googles that, it turns up a Russian publication and a white supremacist organization. Can you explain what your religion is?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Because Catolics believe such a semi-divine status for Mother of God…

This is false. There is no such Catholic belief as “semi-divine status for Mother of God.”

… they have come to believe her as Co-Redeemer, which is truly an un christian idea. No christian has believed such a thing…

This too is false.

** St. Ephrem of Syria** (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast).

St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

From a tenth-century English manuscript now at Salisbury:

“Sancta Redemptrix Mundi, Sancta Salvatrix Mundi, ora pro nobis”

All of the just are “co-workers with God” (1 Cor 3:9). Mary’s role was unique, however, as it was her fiat, not any other’s, that untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience.

 

[Mousey]

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

Although this is a wonderful site, it does not contain the ops quotes.