Gary Bee gave the following early church fathers as not believing in the sinlessness of Mary, to which I will attempt a reply:
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)
First of all, have you read this from Ambrose:
Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants of hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up nor from Sara but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.
(Commenetary on Psalm 118, 1314, page 166, Vol. 2 Jurgens)
And even another one from Joe Gallego's web site:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm
"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),in JUR,II:166
I could not find the particular passage in your quote from "Repentance," but Jurgens apparently calls it "Penance" (AD 387/390) so I am assuming it is from the same writing. It appears that the thrust of Ambrose here was the Novationist heresy, apparently over the issue of the Church's power to forgive sins.
If so, I see little reference to Mary even while he says "all men are under sin" (paraphrased) simply because Mary is not the subject, all men are, just like "no, not one (of the Jews)" declared as not worthy because they rejected God, does not account for the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew and so was His own apostles! It is a declarative for men in general who are born into sin. And in the light of the discussion, Ambrose, it seems to be, had it been appropriate, could have easily cited the exception for Mary. But that was not the thrust of his argument!
But if you wanted to know how Ambrose really felt about Mary, I refer you to my quote in
brown above. And that settles that!
Now, on the St. Augustine quote you give above:
Did you notice by what means Jesus was to avoid corruption? "He repelled it by His heavenly majesty."
But as to St. Augustine, what did he say about the sinlessness of Mary?
"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,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135
And by now, you know where I got that from!
That settles St. Augustine as well...
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr didn't think Mary was sinless. He refers to every person being a sinner, and he denies that a Jewish opponent he was debating, Trypho, can cite a single person who didn't need to be saved by Christ from sins he had committed. No Roman Catholic could issue such a challenge to Trypho:
"Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression....For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." (Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 95)
What did I say above? Who spoke of the Jews, in general that "no, not one is worthy" (I forget the wording that would, taken to it's utter conclusion without exception, would also exclude the apostles, all who were Jews, including Mary herself! Therefore, in his debate here, the earliest known one against Judaism, has it's thrust on mankind in general, without a need to a reference to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. And so to include her in the general condemnation of
all men, is your doing, not mine or any Catholic I know of.
Leo I, a Roman bishop of the fifth century, taught that sin is transmitted by means of sexual intercourse, thus suggesting that Mary was conceived in original sin:
"And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred." (Sermon 22:3)
Is this pope St. Leo, the Great? That is the only one I can find.
I don't understand the statement above. First he says that "this one [Mary} received purification frm the Source of her conception" which would tell me she was conceived but protected in a purification from the original sin that would normally be infused, as if it were an exception of God. But then the last sentence speaks of "no intercourse" where indeed, her own parents would have done so else she would not have been conceived! Strange.
[quote[Elsewhere, Leo refers to Jesus being the *only* one conceived without sin. He even refers to Christ's stock, a reference to Mary, being corrupt:
"For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock." (Sermon 24:3)[/quote]
Where is your source for this? I can't find it in Jurgens nor in the internet, other then the famous pope.
[quote[And elsewhere:
"And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, 'Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?'" (Sermon 28:3)[/quote]
Again, I an not sure, as he is asking a question here, and of course I would answer, God can, in the event of her own conception, God could intervene that she would not be tainted by the sin normal intercourse would produce. Without further references, I am only guessing here as I read this.
The unclean seed would include Mary. And he refers to there being *one* from Adam who is sinless.
Unless that same "unclean seed" is rendered cleaned before conception somehow.
Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll comments that Leo viewed sin as being communicated by means of sexual intercourse (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 217). The Protestant historian Philip Schaff lists Leo I among seven Roman bishops who rejected Mary's sinlessness (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123).
Does O'Carroll say that Leo denied Mary's sinlessness?
And somehow, I am not surprised that Philip Schaff would think so of Leo I. In any case, I would prefer a more definitive statement, such as "Mary, herself, was not immune to the burden of original sin" or similar words. So far, I have not see such a declaration.
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)
Does Basil make the claim that Mary sinned because of doubt, as her son hung on the cross? We certainly know that she was distressed to see her own son so, her "heart pierced with a sword" as Simeon predicted, but this is not necessarily the depths of despair, since in scripture we see Mary "holding things in her heart" with the events she witnessed concerning her son.
This is a stretch, I think, if you think St. Basil is even implying that Mary was a sinner here.
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)
The problem is, it is not specific in declaring the sinless state of Mary. It is only a "spin" by those who would see Mary as a sinful person in opposition the Catholic teaching, in my ipinion. I am certainly not convinced a bit here.
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)
Sounds like the "spin" I have been talking about. Again, I want to see a definitive statement that Mary was a sinner like anybody else, or similar wording.
[quote:4f313]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)
As I often do, I attempt to find context to authors, and in a couple of cases already, I have demonstrated the belief in the sinlessness of Mary in my reply here, but not for Cyril of Jerusalem and a few others so far. But what is interesting is the overall "Catholicity" of these authors, especially for Cyril here, and as shown in this link from the old 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm
And when I see this, a balk at any suggestion that he may have denied the sinlessness of Mary in the face of his "Catholicity" seen. Therefore, I again remain totally unconvinced that Cyril did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary.
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])."
First of all, it is not surprising to see a "fuzziness in doctrine" the earlier to go in church history. Therefore, the outspoken statements about Mary are certainly sparce, just like we find on doctrines such as the Eucharist, baptism, and............The Holy Trinity. You don't see that word in the earlier writings either. So it does not surprise me that we see little spoken of Mary in those very early times, let alone, the scarcity of writings due to antiquity and the primitive nature of the very early church after the close of the apostolic era.
I also take exception to the statement, "many church fathers and Roman bishops said she *was* a sinner." You have yet to show me such a definitive statement from the pen of any church father so far, only supposition and implication in ambiguity.
Ephraim says nothing of sinlessness from conception onward. He may have believed, like Augustine, that Mary *became* sinless, but was conceived in sin.
I feel compelled to quote St. Augustine one more time:
"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,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135
Now that is an explicit statement about the sinlessness of Mary! And I fail to see anything to suggest he thought that she "*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)
If Jesus "put His Mother's garments on," would they not have been with the stain of sin in the first place? This harks further in the fact that the womb of Mary, to hold the sinless Christ, had to be sinless flesh to be worthy to hold the Lord in gestation for the 9 month period! The holy blessed tabernacle of the Lord for nine months!
Pardon me, but my emotions are getting away from me here...
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.
Actually, to be fair, I am sure there was much speculation of the "when" the sinless nature of Mary began. And I am not surprised to see that there was some theory that it may have occurred at the moment Christ was conceived in her womb. I am also surprised to also see that not all of the fathers were in total agreement with the present definition of the holy Trinity either, coming together as it were, when it was finally defined.
Nevertheless, I still see no definitive statements that any father actually denied the sinlessness of Mary, not one so far, Gary.
Gregory Nazianzen
The church fathers sometimes refer to Mary being purified by God. Do such passages suggest that Mary was cleansed from sin? We know that a person can be purified without being a sinner. For example, Gregory Nazianzen writes the following about the baptism of Jesus:
"A little later on you will see Jesus submitting to be purified in the River Jordan for my Purification, or rather, sanctifying the waters by His Purification (for indeed He had no need of purification Who taketh away the sin of the world)" (Orations, 38:16)
Jesus wasn't a sinner, yet He's referred to as being purified. But notice that Gregory Nazianzen *qualifies* his comments about Jesus. He explains that Jesus was purified only in one manner of speaking, not in the sense of the removal of sin.
Yet, in this same Oration, Gregory refers to Mary being purified without any such qualifications:
"took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul's sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man. Conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost" (Orations, 38:13)
And today, we believe that this "purification" took place at the moment of her conception. In fact, we have dissertations that from the beginning of time, when God certainly know of us, He also know of the extraordinary act he would perform for Mary at her conception.
Again, like we have some variation of a belief before it is defined as dogma. Most of the fathers, so far as I can see, were emphatic that she was "conceived without sin" in so many words, emphatic words. We don't see emphatic words that deny the sinlessness of Mary, not yet so far, gary.
Not only does Gregory not qualify his comments on Mary the way he qualified his comments on Jesus, but look at the *context* of his comments on Mary. He's discussing sin. Gregory refers to Jesus "purifying" sinners in general, then he refers to Mary being purified. So, while it's true that a reference to Mary being purified doesn't necessarily *in itself* lead to the conclusion that she was a sinner, the context of such passages can lead to that conclusion. And the context of Gregory Nazianzen's comments suggests that he viewed Mary as a sinner.
And pardon me that I would suggest that this "suggestion" (pun intended!
)is a spin in a weak implication that does not have the weight of an outright denial of the sinlessness of Mary!
Jerome
Jerome apparently didn't believe in the sinlessness of Mary. What I'm about to quote is from a treatise he wrote against Pelagianism. I'm not suggesting that Roman Catholicism agrees with all of the arguments used by Pelagians. Rather, I'm saying that *some* of what Jerome said against the Pelagians is relevant to the RCC's claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He's God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn't think they'd be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It's important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be *relatively* righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I've included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary *among other people*. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she's only *relatively* righteous. She, too, is a sinner.
"Medical skill, craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always without sin is a characteristic of the Divine power only. Therefore, either give me an instance of those who were for ever without sin; or, if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and do not mock the ears of fools with this being and possibility of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man was ever able to do?...For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says, 'For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiator.'...For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from another, and that one man's righteousness is not the same as another's, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when compared with others....Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord's Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, 'Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.' Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents....And again, he in comparison with whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue, relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior in some other particular....We are not told that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you ever read of....And although he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to Quirinus, he does not perceive that he has said just the opposite in the work under discussion. Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs" (Against the Pelagians, 1:9, 1:14, 1:16, 1:23-24, 1:32)
If I may not practice a bit of implied proof myself, Gary, the very fact that St. Jerome says that "...but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish" suggests to me that St. Jerome would apply that to Mary! So there!
But the emphasis of St. Jerome is on the heresy he is fighting here, Gary, not really on the sinful/sinless state of Mary, and to come to the implied suggestion that St. Jerome believed Mary was a sinner is pure speculation out of whole cloth! Sorry!
John Chrysostom
Compare the following claims of Pope Pius IX to what John Chrysostom wrote:
"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.... Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin....And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner -- this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine....this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures" - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)
This reminds me of the argument that since Mary submitted herself to the purification rites after the birth of Christ, this proved that she was with sin. The problem is, she was simply obeying the laws of Judiasm out of her own total humility, surely a evidential sign of her sinless state, else had she refused partake in the ceremony, she would have sinned in her disobedience!
Mary had to prove nothing to anyone, even if she was totally and completely aware of her own sinless state (which is an interesting subject to ponder)
But back to the statement above, not one whit to suggest that Mary was sinful! Not one!
"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
[/quote:4f313]
Now I do have comments concerning this little exchange St. John Chrysostom speaks of, but it is not appropriate here. In any case, there is again, nothing to suggest, even in the slightest implication, that St. John chrysostom thinks Mary is sinful is simply not there.
Gary, nice try but "no cigar."
And now I am going to post this message after I finish it, but not before I give the following link that I encourage you to read. It is a bit long but has me wondering where in the world has Protestantism gone in regards to Mary, from the time of Luther to the present day.
I think it is a worthwhile read for all Protestants in this forum.
And when I post this, I'm going to bed........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
