Church Fathers And Roman Bishops Who Believed That Mary Was A Sinner

[boswd]

That is hogwash, you do not provide balance. I mean overall I really don't care. What get's me with "groups" like yours. First of all if you ever really studied the way Orthodox and High Anglican's view of Mary is, you would find they have very similar views of her. You don't think the Orthodox don't kiss the Icon of Mary, have you never been in a high Anglican church that has kneelers in front of Mary? Did you know they celebrate the same feast's as Mary, did you know they both believe she remained sinless, did yku know that both also believe she was bodily Assumed into heaven, did you know they both refer to her as the Theotokos, Mother of God? Did you know that they both prayer to her for intercession? But somehow I don't think you would care. It's the Cahtolics or nothing. Now I'm not calling out the EO and the High Anglican's I have a lot of respect and love and admiration for them. And I have no problems with any of their views. So using verbage as "the Catholic's and other's" isnt exactly "spreading the wealth"
Now you can call the Catholic's a cult, which I find strange coming from a grassroots, online ministry. Somehow I'm sure that isn't goint to affect them.

You see I don't have a problem with your views on Mary. I really don't. And yes this is an online forum to have such debates. What I find is your "groups" don't come on here and say something along the lines as " The Cathlolics, EO some Anglicans views on Mary is such and such." Nope, it's straight out going after the Catholics. That is what gets me. The double standards and singling out. and yes you do single them out. I've seen your website in the past. You have a specific section attacking the Catholics. I mean what ministry's website has that? The founder sells six books and three of them are attacks on Catholics.
I find something really off that a Ministry dedicates so much time tearing down another Christian faith. I mean I can go to almost any Christian Church's websites and it they ususally don't have a specific section that goes after anyone. They usually dedicate that time and space telling how they worship Christ.
So before some online ministry who attacks other people's faith starts calling anyone a cult, take a look in the mirror.

 

[Jason Engwer]

boswd wrote:

"First of all if you ever really studied the way Orthodox and High Anglican's view of Mary is, you would find they have very similar views of her."

I said that groups like Eastern Orthodox and Copts don't have the same view as Roman Catholics. How is your response a refutation of what I said? It isn't. Even those Orthodox and Anglicans who agree with Catholics on an issue like the assumption of Mary do so as an option, not as something Orthodoxy or Anglicanism requires of them, which is a significant difference.

You write:

"You don't think the Orthodox don't kiss the Icon of Mary, have you never been in a high Anglican church that has kneelers in front of Mary?"

I didn't say "the Orthodox don't kiss the Icon of Mary".

You write:

"But somehow I don't think you would care. It's the Cahtolics or nothing."

That claim becomes even more ridiculous when you repeat it after having been corrected. See what I said on that subject in my last post, and see my many discussions with Eastern Orthodox at Triablogue, linked below. I've also had discussions with high church Anglicans, for example. How would you be in a position to know whether I "care" about the beliefs of such groups? I just discussed the assumption of Mary with some Eastern Orthodox posters in this forum, a fact I pointed out to you in my last post.

You write:

"Now I'm not calling out the EO and the High Anglican's I have a lot of respect and love and admiration for them. And I have no problems with any of their views."

That's an absurd position to take. If they're wrong in their beliefs, why wouldn't you have "a problem" with people accepting and promoting error? And if they're right in their beliefs, then why are you a Methodist?

You write:

"Now you can call the Catholic's a cult, which I find strange coming from a grassroots, online ministry."

I didn't call them a cult, and I wouldn't. You seem to be attributing my citation of the Second Vatican Council to me, as if I used the word "cult" and used it in the sense you're implying. But I didn't use the term. The Second Vatican Council used it, and not in the sense you're implying.

You write:

"You see I don't have a problem with your views on Mary."

You don't have a problem with an Eastern Orthodox view of Mary. And you don't have a problem with my view. But the two contradict each other. At least one of the two would have to be wrong. You don't have a problem with error?

You write:

"What I find is your 'groups' don't come on here and say something along the lines as ' The Cathlolics, EO some Anglicans views on Mary is such and such.' Nope, it's straight out going after the Catholics. That is what gets me."

You've acknowledged that I referred to others as well. And I've explained some of the reasons why Catholicism is prominent in this context, despite the fact that other groups believe some of the same things. I live in the United States. Catholics are a far larger percentage of the population than Orthodox or high church Anglicans. Do you expect people concerned about the deity of Christ to spend as much time addressing a church that denies Jesus' deity, which is attended by fifty people, as they spend addressing a much larger group, like the Jehovah's Witnesses? Even if Catholicism wasn't so much larger, some people know more about Catholicism than they know about other groups. Would you expect a former Mormon to spend as much time addressing Buddhism as he spends addressing Mormonism? Would you expect a scholar who has specialized in the study of Hinduism to spend as much time discussing Islam as he spends discussing Hinduism? People can have good reasons for discussing one group more than another. Do you discuss all belief systems equally, criticize the errors of all individuals equally, etc.? No, you don't. Nobody does.

You write:

"That is what gets me. The double standards and singling out."

I hope you'll someday be more concerned about the errors of belief systems like Roman Catholicism than you are about Catholicism being "singled out". If you were alive in Paul's day, perhaps you could have followed him around, interrupting his preaching, condemning him for not criticizing Buddhists as often as he criticized the Judaizers and unbelieving Jews.

You write:

"I've seen your website in the past and still nothing has changed. You have a specific section attacking the Catholics. I mean what ministry's website has that? The founder sells six books and three of them are attacks on Catholics."

I've been affiliated with three web sites. My old web site, a personal one, had a section on Roman Catholicism, but it wasn't only on Roman Catholicism. It was also about Eastern Orthodoxy. The web site I currently write for, Triablogue, covers a large variety of topics, as the links in my sig indicate. The web site you're referring to, which I haven't written for in a few years, is operated by a former Roman Catholic who did his doctoral dissertation on a subject related to Roman Catholicism. To criticize such a person for giving a lot of attention to Catholicism doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't he? He's experienced and educated in that field. And if his books on issues related to Catholicism are to be considered "attacks on Catholics", then are Catholic books critical of Protestantism to be considered "attacks on Protestants"? When Catholics in these forums argue against Protestant beliefs, do you consider those posts "attacks on Protestants"?

You write:

"I mean I can go to almost any Christian Church's websites and it they ususally don't have a specific section that goes after anyone. I find that very bizarre."

Whether a web site "goes after anyone" largely depends on the nature of the site. A prayer web site probably isn't going to have a section criticizing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's common for an apologetics web site to have such a section. There are many Roman Catholic web sites that criticize Protestant beliefs. Do you characterize them as "going after" people and "very bizarre"?

You write:

"So before some online ministry who attacks other people's faith starts calling anyone a cult, take a look in the mirror."

By "take a look in the mirror", are you suggesting that the ministries you're criticizing are cults? If so, then why is it unacceptable for them to call Catholicism a cult, but acceptable for you to call those ministries cults? And aren't you "attacking other people's faith" when you say that it's wrong to believe that a particular group is a cult? If their belief is that Catholicism is a cult, then why are you "attacking their faith"? Do you think Paul was wrong for "attacking the faith" of the Judaizers?

As I said above, I don't consider Catholicism a cult. But your criticism of those who do seems inconsistent with your own professed standards.

 

[Catholic_NE]

If people are soo obsessed with the Catholic Church maybe they need to go out pick up the game of golf or building ship models in a bottle. Something.

Eh, you Methodists have always been jealous of our popularity.

 

[shinbits]

Without going into some of these specifically, it is no secret that some of the Church Fathers thought Mary may have sinned, and that some of them believed her to be pure. But I think a misunderstanding of what Tradition is, is called for here, particularly doctrinal development as the theology is sorted out. Not that it doesn't matter what the ECFs had to say, but that if some can be found that do not hold to the doctrine that developed after their lifetimes does not change the truth of the matter, or that her Immaculate Conception has been divinely revealed. In fact, they all did their part in developing the theology whether they believed she may have sinned or not.

But it highlights just how unreliable Oral Tradition is. Many Catholics say that they follow the tradition of the early Roman Church, but if the ECF's spoke something different, they obviously do not. There's also the obvious problem of how you decide which Oral Tradition is correct.

 

[Catholic_NE]

Many Catholics say that they follow the tradition of the early Roman Church, but if the ECF's spoke something different, they obviously do not.

You misunderstand the situation. Some of the Fathers thought that Mary had sinned, but there was not a consensus that thought so.

 

[Jason Engwer]

Catholic NE wrote:

"You misunderstand the situation. Some of the Fathers thought that Mary had sinned, but there was not a consensus that thought so."

The church fathers lived over a timeframe of several centuries. A belief could be widely accepted in one generation, but widely rejected in another. It's not as though a fifth-century source's belief that Mary was sinless in some manner can be placed in the same category as a second-century source's belief that Mary wasn't sinless. We have to look at factors such as when the relevant sources lived and whether they expressed their belief in a way that suggests they expected their belief to be disputed.

None of the extant sources in the earliest centuries advocates the sinlessness of Mary. We find sources from a wide variety of backgrounds, theologies, personalities, locations, etc., in the West and East, referring to Mary as a sinner, and none of the earliest sources who do so suggest that they expected to be challenged on the point. Even as late as the fifth century, Augustine can refer to the belief that only Jesus was immaculately conceived as consistent with "the catholic faith", as I documented earlier. As I mentioned before, some of the sources who deny Mary's sinlessness over the centuries are Roman bishops. Such a scenario doesn't seem consistent with what Roman Catholicism has claimed about the history of its doctrines, including what Pope Pius IX said specifically about the sinlessness of Mary. See my documentation earlier in this thread.

Augustine denied that anybody other than Jesus was immaculately conceived. He did so in the context of a dispute over Pelagianism. The historian Philip Schaff noted, "The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." (section 81 here)

 

[shinbits]

You misunderstand the situation. Some of the Fathers thought that Mary had sinned, but there was not a consensus that thought so.

way to ignore the rest of my post. I acknowledged that, when I said that this discrepency (sp?) between the early ECF's, raises the issue of which oral tradition is the right one to follow. This, in addition to the rest of my post, is why oral tradition is a shaky thing to put faith in.

 

[Catholic_NE]

way to ignore the rest of my post. I acknowledged that, when I said that this discrepency (sp?) between the early ECF's, raises the issue of which oral tradition is the right one to follow.

Touche.

 

[MrPolo]

But it highlights just how unreliable Oral Tradition is.

No, it does not, because you'd have to also say Scripture is unreliable because of all the differing interpretations of it!

It actually highlights the necessity of an authoritative Church to interpret both...

 

[MrPolo]

You haven't explained how either concept, the New Eve concept or the ark as a type of Mary concept, logically leads one to the conclusion that Mary was sinless.

Well the information is not hard to find. I recommend you learn what your opponent teaches before arguing against it. If you want some book and Church doc recommendations, I'm ready to help. And then you can challenge that theology. Otherwise, you run the risk of setting up the straw man I would argue you have set up here.

 

[Jason Engwer]

MrPolo writes:

"It actually highlights the necessity of an authoritative Church to interpret both"

People disagree about whether Jesus is the Messiah, whether He founded a church, the identity of that church, etc. Even among those who agree that Roman Catholicism has the authority it claims to have, there are disagreements about which papal decrees and council rulings are infallible and what those documents mean.

If you're going to claim that "an authoritative Church to interpret both" is "necessary", then you should also think that it's necessary to have an infallible interpreter on other disputed matters, such as whether Jesus existed, whether He was the Messiah, and the meaning of Roman Catholicism's teachings. And you can't appeal to Roman Catholicism as that infallible interpreter, since you would first need to settle disputes like whether Jesus was the Messiah before being able to offer an argument that justifies Roman Catholicism. People also have uncertainty about and disagree on issues like who they should marry, where they should work, and how they should vote. Do we need an infallible guide on those matters as well?

A desire for further guidance from God doesn't prove that such further guidance is "necessary", nor does it prove that the guidance must come in the form of "an authoritative Church". If we're going to just assume that there must be an infallible guide wherever we want one, then why not assume that there's some infallible guide in existence who will tell us what to eat for each meal, who to be friends with, where to work, how to vote, etc.?

You write:

"Well the information is not hard to find."

I've seen attempts to derive the sinlessness of Mark from the Eve and ark parallels, and all of those attempts have been problematic. Telling me that "the information is not hard to find" doesn't tell me what argument you would offer. If you had an argument that you expected to hold up to scrutiny, I suspect that you would have posted it by now.

 

[shinbits]

No, it does not, because you'd have to also say Scripture is unreliable because of all the differing interpretations of it!

It actually highlights the necessity of an authoritative Church to interpret both...

wrong again. Even if the Bible is interpreted differently, at least we have something solid to interpret in the first place. With oral tradition, there's nothing solid at all. Just words that can't be confirmed as to who said it, or where it came from.

 

[polishbeast]

wrong again. Even if the Bible is interpreted differently, at least we have something solid to interpret in the first place. With oral tradition, there's nothing solid at all. Just words that can't be confirmed as to who said it, or where it came from.

Than why are there so many different protestant denominations that all hold to the Bible alone?

 

[simonthezealot]

Than why are there so many different protestant denominations that all hold to the Bible alone?

PB here is how we can be different and still sound in doctrine we have common ground on the essentials;
(below is borrowed from Albion on another thread)
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and possibly the priesthood of all believers and the two (only) sacraments of the Gospel--those principles which date back to the earliest days of the Reformation and which, with very few exceptions, are held today by all the churches that are rightly called Protestant, whether Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Non-denominational, Pentecostal, etc.

 

[MrPolo]

I've seen attempts to derive the sinlessness of Mark from the Eve and ark parallels, and all of those attempts have been problematic. Telling me that "the information is not hard to find" doesn't tell me what argument you would offer. If you had an argument that you expected to hold up to scrutiny, I suspect that you would have posted it by now.

No, not afraid the theology wouldn't stand to scrutiny...just skeptical that it would be properly analyzed and am totally disinterested in voluminous back and forth fisking. BUT! There are lurkers here, so...Here is my simple, super-brief, unofficial lay-person's summary:

First, a word on typology
Now the thing about OT types and their NT ante-types, is that the NT version is the superior, fulfilled, improved version. Jesus is the type of Adam (Rm 5:14). As Adam was the first of his kind, so Jesus is the first, better, of His. As Adam brought sin into the world, Jesus removed it. Take the Gospel of John on bread, regarding bread and how the OT type is inferior to the NT type. The manna in the OT gave physical, temporal life. In the NT, spiritual, eternal life. You can see the same regarding baptism in 1 Peter 3. And there are lots of other examples. So that's a super-quick primer on typology.

Mary as Ark of the Covenant
Now here's a Word doc on Mary as Ark compiling ECFs recognizing this parallel. Here is a tidy graph showing the obvious Scriptural parallels.

The Ark was to be made of extremely precise measurements and metal, specifically gold. It carried the Word of the Commandments, the rod of Aaron the priest, and the bread of manna. So too does Mary carry Jesus, the Word, the Priest, and the Bread of Life. Gold is not only a sign of great holiness in the OT, but it is the symbol of holiness in the order of Christ. Precious metals are a symbol of purity from sin. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul tells us how a man's work can either be of gold, silver, or precious metal or the fleeting substances of hay or straw. The non-good works, sin, will be purged away. Then only the pure gold and silver remains. This is a reference to smelting, known even in the OT as a means to purify (Ez 22:22). So anyway, the Ark is made of this pure metal, and thus, the Church recognized in Mary as the New Ark even greater purity. From the physical to the spiritual, from temporal purity to eternal purity. There are other analogs regarding Mary and the Ark demonstrating similar typology, and perhaps a good article or some books will help.

Mary as New Eve
First, some of the ECFs on this (Cardinal Newman lists some under "Second Eve" heading) (And some more). And here's some of their Scriptural parallels on Mary as Eve organized by my friend on this forum Athanasius.

The typology explained by these many ECFs essentially recognizes both of them as mothers of their respective ages, and Eve is the disobedient mother, and Mary the obedient one. What is important to know about Eve, is that she was created without sin! Just as Adam was. They were without original sin and purity if not for the Fall. But Mary is the superior ante-type of Eve, and thus created without sin in an even greater way. And when she is faced with her choice of yes or no to God, Mary, unlike Eve, says yes.

These ideas are largely why many of the Reformers held Mary to have been Immaculately conceived, or at least that the notion was not contrary to Scripture, and certainly not heretical.

So that is an extremely basic crash course on some of the roots of Mary having been Immaculately conceived. The theology is far, far more exhaustive than this, and includes analyses of the woman in Revelation, the wedding at Cana scene, the foot of the Cross scene, and even the very important theology of Mary as figure of the Church and as Mother of God, and a whole lot more!

 

[MrPolo]

Even if the Bible is interpreted differently, at least we have something solid to interpret in the first place.

If the Holy Spirit weren't involved, I might agree with you. But Tradition is not from man. Your criteria that the Word of God must come, and can only come, in a written format, is, ironically, in itself, a man-made criteria imposed by modern man on God, and this criteria is especially ironically, unbiblical.

 

[shinbits]

Than why are there so many different protestant denominations that all hold to the Bible alone?

because Protestants disagree on some Biblical texts, while Catholics don't bother checking. If the word of man is more important than Biblical texts, then no reason to argue now, is there?

 

[polishbeast]

because Protestants disagree on some Biblical texts, while Catholics don't bother checking. If the word of man is more important than Biblical texts, then no reason to argue now, is there?

The is an awfully broad statement about Catholicism.

 

[Jason Engwer]

MrPolo wrote:

"Now the thing about OT types and their NT ante-types, is that the NT version is the superior, fulfilled, improved version."

Improved in what sense? There's nothing in the ark or Mary that would select for sinlessness as the form of improvement that would be involved. Would John the Baptist and every other figure sometimes paralleled with some entity in the Old Testament have to be sinless from conception onward as well?

You write:

"Now here's a Word doc on Mary as Ark compiling ECFs recognizing this parallel."

The sources cited in that file by Steve Ray postdate the sources I cited. And he repeatedly cites spurious works and relies on a book that acknowledges its use of some works that are questioned. He sometimes cites anonymous works, not just the works of church fathers, and he includes passages that don't refer to Mary as the ark. For a discussion of the many problems with that file, see here. The fact that you would recommend such a problematic article doesn't speak well for your knowledge of the subject.

You write:

"Here is a tidy graph showing the obvious Scriptural parallels."

And the large majority of that chart consists of alleged parallels in the gospel of Luke. I've already cited the rejection of that interpretation in a book about Mary written by some of the leading Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars of our day.

As I explained before, the parallel between Jesus and a portion of the written word of God is dubious. Jesus is the word of God in a different sense. The chart cites Exodus 40:34-35, but that passage is about the tabernacle, not the ark. And Luke 1:35 doesn't say that the Holy Spirit filled Mary at that point in time. Overshadowing isn't the same as filling. In one place, the chart parallels John the Baptist with David. In another place, Elizabeth is paralleled with David. A passage in which David is in fear (2 Samuel 6:9) is paralleled with Elizabeth's response of joy (Luke 1:43), based on vague similarities in wording, despite the significantly different meaning behind those words. The blessing on the house of Obed-edom (2 Samuel 6 :11) is compared to the fact that "The word 'blessed' is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45 concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house." But the word "blessed" isn't applied to Elizabeth's house. It's applied to Mary and Jesus.

As I explained previously, there are many things that occurred with the ark that can't be paralleled with anything we know of in Mary's life. Notice that the chart you've cited takes the passages in 2 Samuel out of chronological order, ignores some of the details, and compares those selected passages to events in Luke 1 in their chronological order. In other words, the alleged parallels are chronologically inconsistent, in addition to the inconsistencies mentioned above.

As James White notes:

"While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example, must Mary have been stolen by God's enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David's action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion."

Keep in mind that the ark is an object discussed widely in the Old Testament, in many contexts. The fact that some passages related to the ark have some similarities with passages related to Mary isn't of much significance.


Even if we accepted this dubious parallel between Mary and the ark, her sinlessness from conception onward wouldn't follow. She would only need to be paralleled with the ark during a briefer time surrounding the pregnancy, not over her entire lifetime. And just as passages like John 13:10 and Hebrews 3:1 refer to individuals as "clean", "holy", etc. without suggesting that they're sinless throughout their lives, Mary could be pure in some sense without having been sinless at all times.

But why think there is any parallel to the ark? And if there is to be one, why not conclude that the parallel to the ark is Jesus, as the earlier church fathers did?

You write:

"Precious metals are a symbol of purity from sin."

They can be, but don't have to be. Paul refers to some Christians as vessels of silver and gold in 2 Timothy 2:20-21. Should we conclude that those Christians have been sinless from conception onward? Paul is referring to people who have purified themselves (2 Timothy 2:21). Just as they could be pure in some sense without having been sinless at all times, the same is true of Mary.

You write:

"First, some of the ECFs on this [Mary as New Eve]"

As I explained before, the earliest fathers who refer to Mary as a second Eve also deny that Mary was sinless. They didn't think the parallel had the implications you claim it has.

You write:

"The typology explained by these many ECFs essentially recognizes both of them as mothers of their respective ages, and Eve is the disobedient mother, and Mary the obedient one. What is important to know about Eve, is that she was created without sin! Just as Adam was. They were without original sin and purity if not for the Fall. But Mary is the superior ante-type of Eve, and thus created without sin in an even greater way. And when she is faced with her choice of yes or no to God, Mary, unlike Eve, says yes."

That's not the parallel made by the earliest fathers who comment on the subject. Rather, they contrast Eve and Mary at a significant time in their lives. They don't compare their entire lives. Again, how do you allegedly know what to parallel and what not to parallel, and how do you know what form the parallels will take?

You write:

"The theology is far, far more exhaustive than this, and includes analyses of the woman in Revelation, the wedding at Cana scene, the foot of the Cross scene, and even the very important theology of Mary as figure of the Church and as Mother of God, and a whole lot more!"

And such arguments have already been answered. See Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). Regarding the woman of Revelation 12:

"Even Oecumenius, the first true proponent of the full-orbed Marian interpretation, is not considered a canonized father of the church....The number of patristic writers in the first six centuries who subscribe to the people of God view of Revelation 12 (at least sixteen known to us, counting Quodvultdeus, nine of whom are canonized saints) far exceeds the number of those who see Mary as the primary or secondary referent (only two, none of whom are canonized fathers of the Roman church)....It is not until the fifth century (in Quodvultdeus) and the sixth century (in Oecumenius) that we find positive evidence for seeing, respectively, Mary as a secondary referent unintended by the author of the Revelation and Mary as the primary referent in the interpretation of this text. In any case, the Marian interpretation was never the majority opinion in the early church. The majority viewed the 'woman' as the people of God, both the ancient church and the New Covenant church." (Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? [Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001], pp. 231-232)

See, for example, Hippolytus (Treatise On Christ And Antichrist, 61), Methodius (The Banquet Of The Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:5-7), and Victorinus (Commentary On The Apocalypse Of The Blessed John, 12:1-2). These fathers often make the same observations about the passage that are made by modern critics of the Marian interpretation. They sometimes argue against elements of the Marian view, and they don't advocate the Marian view anywhere else, so it seems unlikely that they were merely proposing other interpretations in addition to the Marian interpretation. Rather, it seems that the earliest interpreters didn't see Mary in Revelation 12. They identified the woman as some other entity and repeatedly contradicted the Marian interpretations that are popular today.

 

[Catholic_NE]

because Protestants disagree on some Biblical texts, while Catholics don't bother checking.

Interesting. Do you have an example in mind?