Immaculate Conception

[Thursday]

We are guided by them because they are divine revelation--and even your own church says this--not because of the process by which we came to recognize what they are.

We know it is divine revelation ONLY because the Catholic Church declared it so. Otherwise you would not know which books belong in the New Testament.

 

[Thursday]

I wouldn't have asked the questions if I didn't expect an answer.

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception







The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus



He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian



You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither 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]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen



He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).



Augustine



We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor 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 (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople



As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug



[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com

For Further Study

Essay on the Immaculate Conception (Free)
The Mother of Godby Steve Collison (Free)
Books - Meet Mary - Getting to Know the Mother of God

by Mark Miravalle and Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Fr. Luigi Gambero.
CD - Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of Godby Scott Hahn
DVD - Footprints of God: Mary with Stephen Ray

 

[Albion]

We know it is divine revelation ONLY because the Catholic Church declared it so.

Mmmmnnnnn, No. All of the books that are in the Bible were already in use in the various churches of the Roman world and were considered by them to be divine revelation.

The process of "canonizing" them was merely an administrative procedure.

 

[Albion]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception

I don't really consider 500 years or so after Christ to be "early" Christianity. Who would (don't answer that)?

As we see from your own list, the idea of the Immaculate Conception was not of Apostolic origin.

 

[Thursday]

Mmmmnnnnn, No. All of the books that are in the Bible were already in use in the various churches of the Roman world and were considered by them to be divine revelation.

The process of "canonizing" them was merely an administrative procedure.

Many other books were also in use. Why weren't they chosen?

 

[Albion]

Many other books were also in use. Why weren't they chosen?

That isn't the issue and it's not what you claimed. The issue is "Which books ARE God's word?"

 

[Thursday]

I don't really consider 500 years or so after Christ to be "early" Christianity. Who would (don't answer that)?

As we see from your own list, the idea of the Immaculate Conception was not of Apostolic origin.

Early Christians compared to say, 1517 AD, for example.

We don't see that at all. Please demonstrate a quote to support your assertion.

 

[Albion]

Early Christians compared to say, 1517 AD, for example.

No, early Christians as compared to, say, 70AD. Once we pass the age of the genuinely early church, all sorts of new ideas and corruptions have begun to creep into the church.

We don't see that at all.

"We?" What I said is that the Immaculate Conception was not an early church belief. You claimed it was but can't show any reason for thinking it so.

 

[Thursday]

That isn't the issue and it's not what you claimed. The issue is "Which books ARE God's word?"

That is the issue. The other books were rejected by the Church while the books of the New Testament were accepted as scripture. The Church, through tradition and the leading of the Holy Spirit, infallibly chose the books we call the New Testament.

Without the Church we would not know which books are scripture.

Without the Church we wouldn't have the doctrine of the Trinity.

Without the Church we wouldn't have an authoritative teaching authority to interpret scripture.

 

[Albion]

That is the issue. The other books were rejected by the Church while the books of the New Testament were accepted as scripture.

They were already accepted. That was your contention--that we'd have no idea what Scripture was except for a church council putting a stamp of approval on certain books--but, in fact, the books that we consider to be divine revelation were ALREADY accepted, known, recognized by the churches.

 

[Thursday]

They were already accepted. That was your contention--that we'd have no idea what Scripture was except for a church council putting a stamp of approval on certain books--but, in fact, the books that we consider to be divine revelation were ALREADY accepted, known, recognized by the churches.

Not true. There was much controversy on the issue.

You can read about how contentious and difficult this process was here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[Albion]

Not true. There was much controversy on the issue.

It is true.

There were disputes about books that are not God's word, but we were discussing how we'd recognize the ones that are. Besides, even the decision made by the 4th century councils didn't hold up; a number of churches around the world--in the Middle East and in Ethiopia, for instance--continue to use a different list up until our own time, and the Roman Catholic Church expelled some of the Bible itself during the "Counter-Reformation" of the 1500s, so we know for a certainty that the argument "You wouldn't know the Bible books except for the decision of the Catholic Church" isn't correct.

 

[Thursday]

It is true.

There were disputes about books that are not God's word, but we were discussing how we'd recognize the ones that are. Besides, even the decision made by the 4th century councils didn't hold up; a number of churches around the world--in the Middle East and in Ethiopia, for instance--continue to use a different list up until our own time, and the Roman Catholic Church expelled some of the Bible itself during the "Counter-Reformation" of the 1500s, so we know for a certainty that the argument "You wouldn't know the Bible books except for the decision of the Catholic Church" isn't correct.

I can't make you read history. The truth is out there if you are interested.

 

[Albion]

I can't make you read history. The truth is out there if you are interested.

Well, that's your problem. I actually DO know history. At least, I'd think that a PhD in History would count. What's your own academic background in this area?

 

[Standing Up]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception







The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

The two earliest references from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus simply couch the so-called new Eve (Mary) as sinless in regards to her consent to bear Christ. There's nothing of a much later concept that extends Mary's singular moment in time consent to her whole life, let alone her conception.

 

[Thursday]

Well, that's your problem. I actually DO know history. At least, I'd think that a PhD in History would count. What's your own academic background in this area?

You don't know the history of the early Church. History from a protestant perspective is less than half the story. You just stated several inaccurate things about the canon of the New Testament.

Learn something here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolictimes, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certainobscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

 

[Albion]

You don't know the history of the early Church. History from a protestant perspective is less than half the story. You just stated several inaccurate things about the canon of the New Testament.

And you are supposed to be an expert on this...why?

 

[Thursday]

And you are supposed to be an expert on this...why?

I can read a history book.

Please read the link I provided. It proves that you are wrong in a very detailed description of how we came to our current New Testament.

 

[Albion]

I can read a history book.

I can write a history book.

What you mean to say is that you have a computer and can access the "Catholic Answers" website entitled "New Advent." That's it.

 

[Thursday]

I can write a history book.

What you mean to say is that you have a computer and can access the "Catholic Answers" website entitled "New Advent." That's it.

What I mean to say is that you have a biased, revisionist education in history and you refuse accept that you are not well informed about the formation of the New Testament. You make statements that are not accurate.