All right, on page 67 of this thread, time to blast through with a few paragraphs from my
awesome article on the Immaculate Conception:
The conviction of the patristic writers relative to her holiness is founded, necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the passing of time. In denying that she herself had ever sinned, the Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above the rest of humanity, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was
"most pure"; “inviolate”; “unstained”; “unspotted”; “blameless”; “entirely immune from sin”; “blessed above all”; "most innocent."
If she was free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original sin? Assuredly, this freedom excluded deliberate venial sin, and hence with greater reason it should exclude the deprivation of grace implied in original sin, for while venial sin is more voluntary, nevertheless, simply as sin and with its conjoined ignominy, the consequences of original sin are more serious and more unbecoming to the Mother of Christ since it would put her at odds with God. As St. Anselm stated (and he reflects the common mind of the writers on this point): “It was fitting that the Virgin should be radiant with such purity that under God no other can be greater” (De conc virg, c. 18; PL 158:451).
“In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence, and her sanctity unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner…they celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.” (Pius IX,
Ineffabilis Deus, 12/8/1854)
Although neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly (explicite) teach an immaculate conception of Mary; still, they teach it implicitly (implicite), in two fundamental notions:
– Mary’s most perfect purity and holiness
St. Ephrem says: “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 thy Mother no stain [of sin]” (Carm Nisib 27). The firm stand of the Syrian Church regarding the utter sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, is also evinced in the writings of such renowned figures as St. James of Sarug (c. 451-519), who denied that there was the slightest defect or stain upon the soul of Mary.
St. Augustine says that all men must confess themselves sinners, “except the Holy Virgin Mary, whom I desire, for the sake of the honor of the Lord, to leave entirely out of the question, when the talk is of sin” (On Nature and Grace or De natura et gratia 36:42). According to the context, this is at least freedom from all personal sins. Juniper Carol’s Mariology: “St. Augustine’s opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity.”
– the similarity and contrast between Mary and Eve
Mary is the Second or New Eve. Mary is, on the one hand, a replica of Eve in her purity and integrity before the Fall (i.e. sinless), on the other hand, the antitype of Eve, in so far as Eve is the cause of corruption, and Mary the cause of salvation.
St. Ephrem (c. 330) teaches: “Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life” (Op syr II, 327). St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 167) was perhaps the first to invoke this beautiful antithesis:
“While still a virgin and without corruption, Eve received into her heart the word of the serpent and thereby conceived disobedience and death. Mary the Virgin, her soul full of faith and joy, replied to the angel Gabriel who brought her glad tidings: ‘Be it done to me according to thy word.’ To her was born He of whom so many things are said in the Scriptures.” (St. Justin, Dial Tryph Jud 100; cf. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv haer III:22:4; Tertullian, De carne Christi 17).
Individual Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults: such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, lack of faith under the cross, etc. The Latin patristic authors are (virtually) unanimous in teaching the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. St. Augustine teaches that every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God (propter honorem Domini). St. Ambrose says she is virgin in both body and mind, who by God’s grace was made free from all sin (omni integra labe peccati). St. Ephrem the Syrian puts Mary in her immaculateness on the same plane as Christ. According to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the fullness of grace which Mary received in the passive conception implied confirmation in grace and therefore sinlessness (ST III:27:5 ad 2).
In a few paragraphs, that’s why the
Immaculate Conception came to be defined. Thank you. And see you on page 175 of this thread again in the year 2011. Just checking in for now.
Phil P
