W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
cubedbee said:
Thank you sir!
It is in that atmosphere I wish to have discussions! :B-fly:
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Thank you sir!
It is in that atmosphere I wish to have discussions! :B-fly:
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
M
Monkey Del
Guest
- Thread starter
- #22
Gary_Bee said:
AMEN!. Gary gets it!
It leads to people Praying to Mary, instead of the Father and having a CO-Mediator.
The word says we have One mediator that is Christ Jesus.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,646
- 6,010
No, it isn't and I'm sure Joseph and Mary would have agreed.
This whole doctrine is rather silly (well, extremely silly) and is completely ignorant of scripture as there is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support it. All speculation. The passages Monkey Del posted in Mark 3 and 6 are very clear - Jesus had brothers and sisters.
M
Monkey Del
Guest
- Thread starter
- #24
What other religions Lift up a woman as being the Mother of Heaven with a beloved son?
1. Ancient Egyptians (Osiris, Iris)
2. Ancient Summarians
3. Ancient Roman
4. Ancient Greek
5. Ancient Babylonian.
6. Wicken...except the leave off the Son altogether calling her Mother Nature.
I see a Pattern Here.
Do Catholics pray to Angels?
I know one that does, he prays to his "guardian Angels". Isn't this the Worshipping of Angels?
1. Ancient Egyptians (Osiris, Iris)
2. Ancient Summarians
3. Ancient Roman
4. Ancient Greek
5. Ancient Babylonian.
6. Wicken...except the leave off the Son altogether calling her Mother Nature.
I see a Pattern Here.
Do Catholics pray to Angels?
I know one that does, he prays to his "guardian Angels". Isn't this the Worshipping of Angels?
W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #25
Free said:
Please explain the following:
Matthew 19:12
1 Cor 7:8
1 Cor 7:32 - 35
1 Tim 5:9 - 12
In the 1 Tim quote, notice a reference to a widow being "married only once," or in other words, remains unmarried in her widowhood, similarly to the widowed priest, remains unmarried if he is to become a bishop! (1 Tim 3:2)
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #26
More false claims by Bill the Roman Catholic
Did ALL the Early Church Fathers believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
Let us look at the FACTS!
Bill: The problem is, all (note: Bill claims ALL) of the early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era, believed that Mary was Ever Virgin. And the (Roman Catholic) Church does too!
Gary: Problem is, again you make false claims. Some early Fathers opposed the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, including Tertullian. Further, the doctrine was neither widely accepted nor formulated by creed or even local church councils until several centuries after the time of Christ. Like many other Roman Catholic traditions, there is no evidence to support the idea that it was an apostolic teaching, as Roman Catholics like Bill claim. Nor is it built on any alleged “unanimous consent of the Fathers,†of which the Council of Trent speaks.
Let us examine what some of these Early Church Fathers thought...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hegesippus (110-180AD)
The church father Hegesippus (110-180AD) apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22).
We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus (130-200AD)
Irenaeus (130-200AD) refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tertullian (160-230AD)
Tertullian (160-230AD) apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19). Elsewhere, Tertullian comments:
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.
Did ALL the Early Church Fathers believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
Let us look at the FACTS!
Bill: The problem is, all (note: Bill claims ALL) of the early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era, believed that Mary was Ever Virgin. And the (Roman Catholic) Church does too!
Gary: Problem is, again you make false claims. Some early Fathers opposed the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, including Tertullian. Further, the doctrine was neither widely accepted nor formulated by creed or even local church councils until several centuries after the time of Christ. Like many other Roman Catholic traditions, there is no evidence to support the idea that it was an apostolic teaching, as Roman Catholics like Bill claim. Nor is it built on any alleged “unanimous consent of the Fathers,†of which the Council of Trent speaks.
Let us examine what some of these Early Church Fathers thought...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hegesippus (110-180AD)
The church father Hegesippus (110-180AD) apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22).
We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus (130-200AD)
Irenaeus (130-200AD) refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
Irenaeus seems to associate "come together" with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tertullian (160-230AD)
Tertullian (160-230AD) apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19). Elsewhere, Tertullian comments:
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.
W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #27
Re: More false claims by Bill the Roman Catholic
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.[/quote:9a9a1]
<Sigh!> I don't have the time to go through these quotes, so I will simply provide the following link, which I have given before:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48 )
Gary_Bee said:
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.[/quote:9a9a1]
<Sigh!> I don't have the time to go through these quotes, so I will simply provide the following link, which I have given before:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48 )
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #28
Dates
Bill, it was YOU who claimed the "ALL". The website you keep spamming shows that the "ever-virgin" concept was NOT an "ALL" situation. Secondly, you claimed that "all of the early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era believed Mary was ever-virgin"
I have shown you Hegesippus (110-180AD), Irenaeus (130-200AD), Tertullian (160-230AD) who did NOT believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even your website acknowledges that Tertullian did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
As for your "living at the very edge of the apostolic era" claim, the first reference you have is dated Athanasius (362AD).... 362!! Over 330 years AFTER the death of our Lord!
You will have to do a lot better than this to convince me Bill.
I have rejected the Origen (185-255AD) quote. I think it is out of context. Read it carefully. I do stand to be corrected on that count. If so, your "very edge of apostolic era" becomes 232 AD. i.e. 200 years after our Lord's death. Even so, Hegesippus (110-180AD), Irenaeus (130-200AD) and Tertullian (160-230AD) were all closer to the very edge of the apostolic age. They ALL 3 rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Bill, it was YOU who claimed the "ALL". The website you keep spamming shows that the "ever-virgin" concept was NOT an "ALL" situation. Secondly, you claimed that "all of the early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era believed Mary was ever-virgin"
I have shown you Hegesippus (110-180AD), Irenaeus (130-200AD), Tertullian (160-230AD) who did NOT believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even your website acknowledges that Tertullian did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
As for your "living at the very edge of the apostolic era" claim, the first reference you have is dated Athanasius (362AD).... 362!! Over 330 years AFTER the death of our Lord!
You will have to do a lot better than this to convince me Bill.
I have rejected the Origen (185-255AD) quote. I think it is out of context. Read it carefully. I do stand to be corrected on that count. If so, your "very edge of apostolic era" becomes 232 AD. i.e. 200 years after our Lord's death. Even so, Hegesippus (110-180AD), Irenaeus (130-200AD) and Tertullian (160-230AD) were all closer to the very edge of the apostolic age. They ALL 3 rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary.
W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #29
OK, it's quiet in my house now, so I can give a complete answer where Gary Bee last posted:
OK..
This particular quote is not in Jurgens, but I found it in:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-165.htm
I will quote a bit from it:
Concerning the relatives of our saviour
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
An interesting fragment, but I wonder if "according to the flesh" meant that he was his actual brother, born of Mary, or a half-brother, being fathered by Joseph by a first wife now deceased (or was deceased, of course, before he could take Mary as his wife.) Some scholars think that Jesus had half-brothers through Joseph even while Jesus could not have been biologically related to Joseph, the holy Spirit doing the conceiving here.
Another link I found does not put Hegesippus in a very good light insofar as scholarship goes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hegesippus
Which would then put him in doubt as to his opinion of the "siblings" of Jesus. Nevertheless, he is considered a good witness of the times.
From the following link, I found this interesting tidbit:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
John P. Meier argues:
...the way the text identifies James is not likely to have come from a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Neither the NT nor early Christian writers spoke of James of Jerusalem in a matter-of-fact way as "the brother of Jesus" (ho adelphos Iesou), but rather -- with the reverence we would expect -- "the brother of the Lord" (ho adelphos tou kyriou) or "the brother of the Savior" (ho adelphos tou soteros). Paul, who was not overly fond of James, calls him "the brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19 and no doubt is thinking especially of him when he speaks of "the brothers of the Lord" in 1Cor 9:5. Hegesippus, the 2d-century Church historian who was a Jewish convert and probably hailed from Palestine, likewise speaks of "James, the brother of the Lord" (in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4); indeed, Hegesippus also speaks of certain other well-known Palestinian Christians as "a cousin of the Lord" (4.22.4), the "brothers of the Savior" (3.25.5), and "his [the Lord's] brother according to the flesh" (3.20.1). The point of all this is that Josephus' designation of James as "the brother of Jesus" squares neither with NT nor with early patristic usage, and so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator. (p. 58)
This argument is a strong one. A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus." It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come from a Christian pen when identifying James.
NOTE: This is a study in the authenticity (I gather) of Josephus and his writings, and my search engine found Hegesippus within!
You may find this an interesting read, hence I present the link here.
And here is another jewel, from Orthodox Church sources, you may find interesting:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/evervirgin.htm
And from the pen of J.B. Lighfoot himself:
http://philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm
And then finally, on "home ground" we find this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethre ... e_Lord.asp
All of these links mention Hegesippus, but I don't see much in the way of him concluding that Jesus had actual blood brothers ("the Lord's brother according to the flesh") to infer that Mary had other children.
In any case, it is an interest attempt, and a worthy one, show that I may have been wrong in the blanket assumption that all of the fathers were in total agreement on the ever-virginship of Mary. You may have shown one example where I was wrong. But I do not think the case is a strong one.
I am surprised that you have come to accept this argument, long since refuted!
The statement, "as yet a virgin" does not assume that she ceased to be a virgin after Christ's birth! It is almost like the statement, ""...and he knew her not until..." (Matthew 1:25) But I will let the following fragment explain it, as the do a better job them I, from the link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethre ... e_Lord.asp
Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea-nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary's "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
The problem here is, Mary did indeed remain a virgin! This "Catholic mind" cannot begin to see how you could derive such a thing! But I am glad you said "seems to associate" because it is leaves you with an out. But yes, a "coming together" can be seen as sexual intercourse, come to think of it, but then again, the statement "remained in virginity" thwarts that idea completely.
Joe Gallegos seems to agree with you! Here is what is said from his site, including the different interpretational wording of Tertullian's statement:
"And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? who is the first to recognise Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age."
Tertullian,On Monogamy,8(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:65
Tertullian was one ecclesiastical writer who denied Mary's perpetual virginity despite his affirmation of the Virgin birth.
But I don't see it that way, Gary. "Wife of one husband" which equates to "Monogamy," does not necessarily mean that there was sex after the birth. But be happy that Joe Gallegos, a friend of mine who is a patristics expert, agrees with you here!
Nice try, but I do not think you really make a case of anyone of the early fathers denied perpetual virginity of Mary. In any case, I better be careful making a statement that:
"None of the early church fathers supported the doctrine of (fill in the space) in the future!"
Else Gary Bee will get me!
Now, here is the Joe Gallegos link that give a list of those who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary (I may have given it previously in other messages):
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
Here is another link to the writings of the late Fr. William Most on the subject that I am sure you will find interesting reading:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT
And as you read this, Fr. Most would seem to agree with you, that there are at least two fathers who did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there are caveats to that as well, as you will read within.
Happy New Year to you and yours, Gary!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
OK..
This particular quote is not in Jurgens, but I found it in:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-165.htm
I will quote a bit from it:
Concerning the relatives of our saviour
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
An interesting fragment, but I wonder if "according to the flesh" meant that he was his actual brother, born of Mary, or a half-brother, being fathered by Joseph by a first wife now deceased (or was deceased, of course, before he could take Mary as his wife.) Some scholars think that Jesus had half-brothers through Joseph even while Jesus could not have been biologically related to Joseph, the holy Spirit doing the conceiving here.
Another link I found does not put Hegesippus in a very good light insofar as scholarship goes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hegesippus
Which would then put him in doubt as to his opinion of the "siblings" of Jesus. Nevertheless, he is considered a good witness of the times.
From the following link, I found this interesting tidbit:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
John P. Meier argues:
...the way the text identifies James is not likely to have come from a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Neither the NT nor early Christian writers spoke of James of Jerusalem in a matter-of-fact way as "the brother of Jesus" (ho adelphos Iesou), but rather -- with the reverence we would expect -- "the brother of the Lord" (ho adelphos tou kyriou) or "the brother of the Savior" (ho adelphos tou soteros). Paul, who was not overly fond of James, calls him "the brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19 and no doubt is thinking especially of him when he speaks of "the brothers of the Lord" in 1Cor 9:5. Hegesippus, the 2d-century Church historian who was a Jewish convert and probably hailed from Palestine, likewise speaks of "James, the brother of the Lord" (in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4); indeed, Hegesippus also speaks of certain other well-known Palestinian Christians as "a cousin of the Lord" (4.22.4), the "brothers of the Savior" (3.25.5), and "his [the Lord's] brother according to the flesh" (3.20.1). The point of all this is that Josephus' designation of James as "the brother of Jesus" squares neither with NT nor with early patristic usage, and so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator. (p. 58)
This argument is a strong one. A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus." It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come from a Christian pen when identifying James.
NOTE: This is a study in the authenticity (I gather) of Josephus and his writings, and my search engine found Hegesippus within!
You may find this an interesting read, hence I present the link here.And here is another jewel, from Orthodox Church sources, you may find interesting:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/evervirgin.htm
And from the pen of J.B. Lighfoot himself:
http://philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm
And then finally, on "home ground" we find this link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethre ... e_Lord.asp
All of these links mention Hegesippus, but I don't see much in the way of him concluding that Jesus had actual blood brothers ("the Lord's brother according to the flesh") to infer that Mary had other children.
In any case, it is an interest attempt, and a worthy one, show that I may have been wrong in the blanket assumption that all of the fathers were in total agreement on the ever-virginship of Mary. You may have shown one example where I was wrong. But I do not think the case is a strong one.
I am surprised that you have come to accept this argument, long since refuted!
The statement, "as yet a virgin" does not assume that she ceased to be a virgin after Christ's birth! It is almost like the statement, ""...and he knew her not until..." (Matthew 1:25) But I will let the following fragment explain it, as the do a better job them I, from the link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethre ... e_Lord.asp
Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea-nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary's "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
The problem here is, Mary did indeed remain a virgin! This "Catholic mind" cannot begin to see how you could derive such a thing! But I am glad you said "seems to associate" because it is leaves you with an out. But yes, a "coming together" can be seen as sexual intercourse, come to think of it, but then again, the statement "remained in virginity" thwarts that idea completely.
Joe Gallegos seems to agree with you! Here is what is said from his site, including the different interpretational wording of Tertullian's statement:
"And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? who is the first to recognise Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age."
Tertullian,On Monogamy,8(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:65
Tertullian was one ecclesiastical writer who denied Mary's perpetual virginity despite his affirmation of the Virgin birth.
But I don't see it that way, Gary. "Wife of one husband" which equates to "Monogamy," does not necessarily mean that there was sex after the birth. But be happy that Joe Gallegos, a friend of mine who is a patristics expert, agrees with you here!
Nice try, but I do not think you really make a case of anyone of the early fathers denied perpetual virginity of Mary. In any case, I better be careful making a statement that:
"None of the early church fathers supported the doctrine of (fill in the space) in the future!"
Else Gary Bee will get me!
Now, here is the Joe Gallegos link that give a list of those who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary (I may have given it previously in other messages):
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
Here is another link to the writings of the late Fr. William Most on the subject that I am sure you will find interesting reading:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT
And as you read this, Fr. Most would seem to agree with you, that there are at least two fathers who did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there are caveats to that as well, as you will read within.
Happy New Year to you and yours, Gary!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
Mary dogma
Thanks Bill. Nice try... sorry you have not convinced me at all. All Roman Catholic polemics. The sources clearly show the opposite to what you say. Secondly, we have no "early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era".
By the way, now please give me "early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era" for all the other Roman Catholic dogma about Mary. i.e. (2) Immaculate Mary (Mary born without sin) (3) Assumption of Mary (Mary's body does not rot; assumpted into heaven) (4) Mary the mediatrix
I am sure that will be even more interesting! It should be a very short post.
Thanks Bill. Nice try... sorry you have not convinced me at all. All Roman Catholic polemics. The sources clearly show the opposite to what you say. Secondly, we have no "early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era".
By the way, now please give me "early fathers, who lived at the very edge of the apostolic era" for all the other Roman Catholic dogma about Mary. i.e. (2) Immaculate Mary (Mary born without sin) (3) Assumption of Mary (Mary's body does not rot; assumpted into heaven) (4) Mary the mediatrix
I am sure that will be even more interesting! It should be a very short post.
W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
Re: Mary dogma
It will be!
As I know that there was disagreement here, albeit the distinct minority, as I recall. And even in this disagreement, there is a remarkable majority that believed it.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm
And for good measure:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm
Now, where did I lay that sandwich I was eating...................?
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.
- The Divine Praises -
Gary_Bee said:
It will be!
As I know that there was disagreement here, albeit the distinct minority, as I recall. And even in this disagreement, there is a remarkable majority that believed it.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm
And for good measure:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm
Now, where did I lay that sandwich I was eating...................?
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.
- The Divine Praises -
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
More Roman Catholic bias
Usual Roman Catholic bias. How come your friend does not quote the many more (I would think at least 15) who did not consider Mary sinless?
Usual Roman Catholic bias. How come your friend does not quote the many more (I would think at least 15) who did not consider Mary sinless?
W
William Putnam
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
Re: More Roman Catholic bias
Perhaps he would disagree with you about your assertion that even one of them believe that.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.
- St. Therese of Avila -
Gary_Bee said:
Perhaps he would disagree with you about your assertion that even one of them believe that.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.
- St. Therese of Avila -
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
Mary sinless?
Ambrose
Ambrose believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:
"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 if any Catholic wants to argue that Ambrose's phrases "every man" and "all" are referring to all people *except* Mary, Ambrose tells us elsewhere that being immaculately conceived is unique to Christ:
"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)
.
Ambrose
Ambrose believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:
"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 if any Catholic wants to argue that Ambrose's phrases "every man" and "all" are referring to all people *except* Mary, Ambrose tells us elsewhere that being immaculately conceived is unique to Christ:
"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)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
Mary sinless?
Augustine
Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:
"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)
Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the *only* post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is the view held by the universal church of his day, a view supported by "the catholic faith":
"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. 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.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)
"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." - Philip Schaff (section 81)
.
Augustine
Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:
"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)
Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the *only* post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is the view held by the universal church of his day, a view supported by "the catholic faith":
"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. 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.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)
"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." - Philip Schaff (section 81)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
Mary sinless?
Basil
Basil explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear. Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus' resurrection, just as Peter was restored:
"About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation....By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, 'All ye shall be offended because of me.' Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. 'That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn." - Basil (Letter 260:6, 260:9)
.
Basil
Basil explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear. Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus' resurrection, just as Peter was restored:
"About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation....By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, 'All ye shall be offended because of me.' Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. 'That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn." - Basil (Letter 260:6, 260:9)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
Mary sinless?
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria doesn't seem to have viewed Mary as sinless. He refers to Christ as the only sinless person:
"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)
.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria doesn't seem to have viewed Mary as sinless. He refers to Christ as the only sinless person:
"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
Mary sinless?
Cyril of Alexandria
"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)
.
Cyril of Alexandria
"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
Mary sinless?
Cyril of Jerusalem
"For we tell some part of what is written concerning His loving-kindness to men, but how much He forgave the Angels we know not: for them also He forgives, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins....Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation of the Only-begotten....This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 2:10, 12:32, 17:6)
.
Cyril of Jerusalem
"For we tell some part of what is written concerning His loving-kindness to men, but how much He forgave the Angels we know not: for them also He forgives, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins....Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation of the Only-begotten....This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 2:10, 12:32, 17:6)
.
G
Gary
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
Mary sinless?
Ephraim
For hundreds of years, no church father said that Mary was sinless from conception onward. During that same time, many church fathers and Roman bishops said that she *was* a sinner. Roman Catholics try to counter such widespread evidence by arguing that at least *some* church fathers did believe in the sinlessness of Mary. One of the most commonly cited fathers in this context, if not *the* most commonly cited, is Ephraim. Catholic Answers cites him as follows:
"'You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?' (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])."
Ephraim says nothing of sinlessness from conception onward. He may have believed, like Augustine, that Mary *became* sinless, but was conceived in sin.
In another passage, Ephraim writes (as though Mary was speaking):
"The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother's garments on, she clothed her body with His glory." (On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, 11)
If Mary took part in *the* second birth, the implication is that she was a sinner who was regenerated. After citing the same passage cited by Catholic Answers, in addition to citing other passages that refer to Mary being spiritually "baptized" and "cleansed", the Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll wrote:
"These texts are no contradiction of Mary's initial holiness; nor are others found in the Armenian version of the commentary on the Diatessaron which seem to imply fault - doubt, for example, on the Resurrection. Here E. confused Mary with Mary Magdalene. Again the absence of a doctrine of Original Sin cannot be invoked." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], pp. 132-133)
In other words, O'Carroll is telling us that Ephraim viewed Mary as being spiritually baptized and cleansed and saw her as doubting the resurrection, yet he may have viewed her as sinless anyway. We can understand why a Roman Catholic scholar would put forward such an argument, but it isn't credible. If Ephraim viewed Mary as participating in the second birth, as being spiritually baptized and cleansed, as doubting Christ's resurrection, then he probably didn't think she was sinless from conception onward. Thus, Ephraim is another example of how a church father can hold a high view of Mary, even viewing her as sinless or almost sinless for a large portion of her life, without thereby agreeing with the Roman Catholic view of her.
.
Ephraim
For hundreds of years, no church father said that Mary was sinless from conception onward. During that same time, many church fathers and Roman bishops said that she *was* a sinner. Roman Catholics try to counter such widespread evidence by arguing that at least *some* church fathers did believe in the sinlessness of Mary. One of the most commonly cited fathers in this context, if not *the* most commonly cited, is Ephraim. Catholic Answers cites him as follows:
"'You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?' (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])."
Ephraim says nothing of sinlessness from conception onward. He may have believed, like Augustine, that Mary *became* sinless, but was conceived in sin.
In another passage, Ephraim writes (as though Mary was speaking):
"The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother's garments on, she clothed her body with His glory." (On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, 11)
If Mary took part in *the* second birth, the implication is that she was a sinner who was regenerated. After citing the same passage cited by Catholic Answers, in addition to citing other passages that refer to Mary being spiritually "baptized" and "cleansed", the Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll wrote:
"These texts are no contradiction of Mary's initial holiness; nor are others found in the Armenian version of the commentary on the Diatessaron which seem to imply fault - doubt, for example, on the Resurrection. Here E. confused Mary with Mary Magdalene. Again the absence of a doctrine of Original Sin cannot be invoked." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], pp. 132-133)
In other words, O'Carroll is telling us that Ephraim viewed Mary as being spiritually baptized and cleansed and saw her as doubting the resurrection, yet he may have viewed her as sinless anyway. We can understand why a Roman Catholic scholar would put forward such an argument, but it isn't credible. If Ephraim viewed Mary as participating in the second birth, as being spiritually baptized and cleansed, as doubting Christ's resurrection, then he probably didn't think she was sinless from conception onward. Thus, Ephraim is another example of how a church father can hold a high view of Mary, even viewing her as sinless or almost sinless for a large portion of her life, without thereby agreeing with the Roman Catholic view of her.
.