They did not have a Pope. Control of the church was in the hands of the pillars, or the Apostles and James, the first born of Mary after Jesus
That quote doesn’t prove that there wasn’t a single authority. If you said, “that company is run by a board of directors,” that doesn’t mean there isn’t a chairman of the board. All you’ve proven is that there was hierarchy and control, which I think undermines your previous point, that there wasn’t.
Marcus Grodi quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch as saying,
“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110
members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/Main/Early_Church_Fathers_files/The%20ECF%20I%20Never%20Saw.pdf
In his book *Against Heresies, *written somewhere about 180 A.D, St. Irenaeus provides a thorough account of apostolic and papal succession. Although Irenaeus was bishop of modern day Lyons, he traced the history of the Church of Rome instead, as “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority.” You can find that here:
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IRENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_III/Chapter_III.
They did not believe that Mary remained a virgin.
Here’s a slew of Early Church Fathers who believed just that:
cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” Genesis 2:5 ), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin (Irenaeus).”
You’re quoting from
Against Heresies, which I just quoted above. The part you’re quoting can be found here:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm. I think you’ll find that he’s affirming the Virgin Birth, not negating the Perpetual Virginity.
I’m pleased that you’re acknowledging that Irenaeus is a representative of the early Church, because this book is so incredibly Catholic (as evidenced from his views on papal primacy). Hopefully, you’ll accept him as consistently when he disagrees with your views as when he agrees with them.
They do not believe she was sinless as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
I think the Encyclopedia is absolutely right here. The early Fathers were on a spectrum - some holding the modern Catholic position, others in error. You would find the same sort of spectrum if you looked at their understanding of the Holy Trinity, but that doesn’t mean that the Trinity is a Catholic invention.
The Encyclopedia also states:
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt – that is to say, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
* Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),
* Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
* Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
* Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
* Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
* Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
* Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
* Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).
So to say that the “early Church” didn’t hold this view seems misleading to me - the very text you’re citing says otherwise. More accurate would be to say that certain outliers didn’t hold the view, of which you quote generously.
This is also supported by Ambrose of Milan
I don’t think Ambrose is even considering Mary in this quote - it certainly doesn’t seem that he’s advancing a specific “Mary wasn’t without sin.” And if he was, he was wrong, and in the minority in any case.
John Chrystom talks of Jesus rebuking Mary
Again, you omit really important parts of the quotes you’re citing. This time, you use an ellipsis to get around it:
This is why He said, “Who is My mother and My brethren?” Not to insult her who had borne Him, (away with the thought!) but to procure her the greatest benefit, and not to let her think meanly of Him. For if He cared for others, and used every means to implant in them a becoming opinion of Himself, much more would He do so in the case of His mother.
newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm
So Chrysostom would have that Jesus rebuked her to increase her faith, and to prevent her from sinning. Which hardly refutes the proposition that Mary was sinless. It only means that: (1) Mary had the *capacity *to sin; and (2) Mary was not omniscient. Catholics will agree with that. Mary still needed Jesus to save her - Luke 1:47 made that explicit.
Even if St. John Chrysostom believed that Mary *had *sinned (although again, I must insist that I don’t see where you’re drawing that conclusion), it would merely be another person who was on the erroneous side of the spectrum. The truth is that the early Church had various views on Mary - some correct, some incorrect. To suggest that the ones that the Catholic Church infallibly declared correct make it a Catholic creation is bizarre. As the Catholic Encyclopedia link you provided shows, these views date back to the earliest days of the Church.
