Church Fathers on Immaculate Conception

[Radiant1]

Which 'early church fathers' recorded this belief, Libby?

And when did this become a 'dogma' actually become truth, exactly?

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]).



It was the truth from the beginning; however, it didn't have to be formally proclaimed until 1854, which was done so by Pope Pius IX. Such things are done due to current unbelief, without which it never would have been necessary.

 

[Zguy28]

It was the truth from the beginning; however, it didn't have to be formally proclaimed until 1854, which was done so by Pope Pius IX. Such things are done due to current unbelief, without which it never would have been necessary.

I take issue with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. First, Justin says nothing in that about her being immaculate, just a virgin.

Second, with Irenaeus you have inserted [no sin] as the meaning of the word translated obedient. Irenaeus is just saying she was obedient to God in what God had called her to do.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think you are being intellectually dishonest with those two. But I can understand why, because without them you have nothing linking the dogma further back than about 244 AD.

The others, yes, it's pretty clear how they felt about the matter.

 

[Radiant1]

I take issue with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. First, Justin says nothing in that about her being immaculate, just a virgin.

Second, with Irenaeus you have inserted [no sin] as the meaning of the word translated obedient. Irenaeus is just saying she was obedient to God in what God had called her to do.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think you are being intellectually dishonest with those two. But I can understand why, because without them you have nothing linking the dogma further back than about 244 AD.

The others, yes, it's pretty clear how they felt about the matter.

It's the whole connection with Eve, whose, and I think you'd agree, disoedience was sin; hence, the contrasting train of thought in regards to Mary. Read Justin and Iraneus again with that thought in mind. The term "immaculate" need not be used for the concept to be present.

Regardless, baydoll asked for Early Church Fathers. She has more than enough quotes from them to satisfy the inquiry.

I'm heading to my brother's house for the weekend. Enjoy your day, Zguy!

 

[Starman3000m]

Article regarding the "immaculate conception" of Mary:

Question: "What is the immaculate conception?"

Answer: Many people mistakenly believe that the immaculate conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate…but the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus at all. The immaculate conception is a doctrine of the Romans Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. An official statement of the doctrine reads, “…the blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” Essentially the immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature, and was, in fact, sinless.

The problem with the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

The doctrine of the immaculate conception originated out of confusion over how Jesus Christ could be born sinless if He was conceived inside of a sinful human female. The thought was that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. In contrast to the immaculate conception, the Biblical solution to this problem is understanding that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary or Biblical.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that the immaculate conception is necessary because without it, Jesus would have been the object of His own grace. The thought goes like this – for Jesus to have been miraculously preserved from sin, which itself would be an act of grace, that would mean God essentially “graced Himself.” The word grace means “unmerited favor.” Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.” In no sense could Jesus possibly be infected with sin. He was perfect and sinless humanity joined with sinless divinity. God cannot be infected or affected by sin, as He is perfectly holy. This same truth applies to Jesus. It did not take “grace” to protect Jesus from sin. Being God incarnate, Jesus was in His essence “immune” from sin.

So, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is neither Biblical or necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the Biblical concept of the virgin birth. The Bible does not even hint that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

What is the immaculate conception?

(bold, mine)

 

[libby]

Article regarding the "immaculate conception" of Mary:



(bold, mine)

By the singular grace offered to her by God Almighty, in anticipation of her calling to be the mother of Jesus Christ.

So, R1 address the objection posted earlier about ECF's and some evidence that the IC was not made up in the 1800's, but believed (or at least considered) in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
What do you do, SM, instead of acknowledging the correctness of the Catholic version of history? (which is different from accepting the IC as Truth) You jump to your next objection.
Being a Catholic on here with you and Baydoll is like swatting black flies. You come fast and furious with your Scriptures and your extra Biblical assertations, not once addressing our challenges to your theology or your consistency.
You two are not having a conversation, which is why we Catholics get so frustrated.
We've defended our faith with the Bible, history and reason. There has been nothing that I can recall that we have not been able to address with evidence.
I repeat, that does not mean I expect you to agree with Catholic doctrine, but have the humility to admit that we're not making this up as we go along.

 

[Starman3000m]

...We've defended our faith with the Bible, history and reason. There has been nothing that I can recall that we have not been able to address with evidence.
I repeat, that does not mean I expect you to agree with Catholic doctrine, but have the humility to admit that we're not making this up as we go along.

libby, doesn't the RCC Catechism forbid parishioners from rejecting all the Vatican's teachings about Mary?

We realize that it isn't parishioners that made up things as you went along; it was the ECFs of the RCC that interjected non-Biblical assumptions, developed them as they went along and introduced them as "truths." Followers of the misguided teachings were expected to "believe it or else" just because "the church" said so.

There was never any basis from the foundational teachings of Jesus nor His disciples to support the RCC adaptations regarding Mary's "immaculate conception." There is also no mention in the early church writings that Mary had been "assumed, bodily, up to Heaven" where she is assisting Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Mediatrix," etc. nor was there any prophecy that she was specifically going to play that pivotal role in Heaven alongside Jesus.

These were NOT the teachings of any "Early Church Fathers" of True Christianity because there is only ONE FATHER that gave the Truth to mankind and that is God. Jesus proclaimed that all the rest were to be "disciples" who were to proclaim Repentance and the accepting of God's Plan of Salvation through Christ alone.

Yes, we can all agree that Mary had a very special role that God had for her as given in the Biblical accounts. However, that role was limited to being the chosen female through which the Christ (who pre-existed with God at the foundation of the world) would enter this world and be made flesh as stated in the Gospel of John 1:1-14, and fulfill God's Plan of Salvation for mankind.

To assign Mary any additional qualities as being born through an "immaculate conception," being "perpetual virgin" after Christ was born, and then being "assumed" up to Heaven to reign over all things and have the role of Advocate and Mediatrix is in great theological error. These teachings were NOT teachings by the Early Church Disciples but only by the Early Church Fathers who established the Roman Catholic religion. It was the ECFs of the RCC who proclaimed Peter as being the first pope, introduced papal authority followed by apostolic succession and exclusivity to preach and teach the Word of God, etc.

If you ever attend the worship services of Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, you will find that they have come to know Jesus as their True Moshiach. They are truly born-again Children of God as Christ stated one must be in order to see the Kingdom of God. They have no basis in scripture by which to place faith in the co-advocacy of Mary but in Jesus Christ alone. Judaic teachings speak of The Moshiach as being The Saviour of mankind ONLY; they do not teach that their Moshiach will be assisted by his mother.

 

[PsyOps]

I always learned that ‘immaculate’ meant born of God, not of a virgin without sin. :shrug:

 

[libby]

libby, doesn't the RCC Catechism forbid parishioners from rejecting all the Vatican's teachings about Mary?

We realize that it isn't parishioners that made up things as you went along; it was the ECFs of the RCC that interjected non-Biblical assumptions, developed them as they went along and introduced them as "truths." Followers of the misguided teachings were expected to "believe it or else" just because "the church" said so.

There was never any basis from the foundational teachings of Jesus nor His disciples to support the RCC adaptations regarding Mary's "immaculate conception." There is also no mention in the early church writings that Mary had been "assumed, bodily, up to Heaven" where she is assisting Jesus as "Queen over all things," "Advocate," "Mediatrix," etc. nor was there any prophecy that she was specifically going to play that pivotal role in Heaven alongside Jesus.

These were NOT the teachings of any "Early Church Fathers" of True Christianity because there is only ONE FATHER that gave the Truth to mankind and that is God. Jesus proclaimed that all the rest were to be "disciples" who were to proclaim Repentance and the accepting of God's Plan of Salvation through Christ alone.

Yes, we can all agree that Mary had a very special role that God had for her as given in the Biblical accounts. However, that role was limited to being the chosen female through which the Christ (who pre-existed with God at the foundation of the world) would enter this world and be made flesh as stated in the Gospel of John 1:1-14, and fulfill God's Plan of Salvation for mankind.

To assign Mary any additional qualities as being born through an "immaculate conception," being "perpetual virgin" after Christ was born, and then being "assumed" up to Heaven to reign over all things and have the role of Advocate and Mediatrix is in great theological error. These teachings were NOT teachings by the Early Church Disciples but only by the Early Church Fathers who established the Roman Catholic religion. It was the ECFs of the RCC who proclaimed Peter as being the first pope, introduced papal authority followed by apostolic succession and exclusivity to preach and teach the Word of God, etc.

If you ever attend the worship services of Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, you will find that they have come to know Jesus as their True Moshiach. They are truly born-again Children of God as Christ stated one must be in order to see the Kingdom of God. They have no basis in scripture by which to place faith in the co-advocacy of Mary but in Jesus Christ alone. Judaic teachings speak of The Moshiach as being The Saviour of mankind ONLY; they do not teach that their Moshiach will be assisted by his mother.

These teachings were NOT teachings by the Early Church Disciples but only by the Early Church Fathers who established the Roman Catholic religion. It was the ECFs of the RCC who proclaimed Peter as being the first pope, introduced papal authority followed by apostolic succession and exclusivity to preach and teach the Word of God, etc.

Please provide writing of the ECF's defending true Christianity from the heretical claims made by Rome.
Surely, as Rome's influence grew, the true Bible Christians needed to correct these erroneous teachings and they can be found...where?

 

[Starman3000m]

Please provide writing of the ECF's defending true Christianity from the heretical claims made by Rome.
Surely, as Rome's influence grew, the true Bible Christians needed to correct these erroneous teachings and they can be found...where?

First: In the Holy Bible! It really didn't take long for erroneous teachings to begin setting in and perverting the Gospel Message of Jesus:

Galatians, Chapter 1, verses:
6: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10: For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:
3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4: For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
...
13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Next: Once Constantine began to usurp the faith of True Christianity and mix pagan beliefs with it, any true believers who even attempted to correct the erroneous teachings introduced by Rome were martyrd. Indeed, as Rome's influence grew, so did the power that she wielded over anyone speaking against her heresies.

Another good example is when the Bible was later being translated from Latin to the English language. The view that the Vatican took toward the translators and against those who prominently began to challenge the RCC teachings is telling in itself. Names such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. come to mind. Look 'em up.

 

[libby]

First: In the Holy Bible! It really didn't take long for erroneous teachings to begin setting in and perverting the Gospel Message of Jesus:



Next: Once Constantine began to usurp the faith of True Christianity and mix pagan beliefs with it, any true believers who even attempted to correct the erroneous teachings introduced by Rome were martyrd. Indeed, as Rome's influence grew, so did the power that she wielded over anyone speaking against her heresies.

Another good example is when the Bible was later being translated from Latin to the English language. The view that the Vatican took toward the translators and against those who prominently began to challenge the RCC teachings is telling in itself. Names such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. come to mind. Look 'em up.

You've got to be kidding! This is the best you can do authenticating the early Christian Church to be sola scriptura?? The RCC is the organization that sent Christians to the lions?
Wow! That's revisionist history if ever I heard it!

Perhaps the Vatican was challenging the errors that were being interpreted! Maybe the Vatican was challenging Luther's addition of "alone" to the text of Romans 3. I did a cursory search of the accusation that Luther added words to the Bible and I hit this as his response to "the papists",
"Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28
This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

[Bold mine]It's okay though, because it's Luther, right? Because he was trying to convey something as he translated.
Sorry, SM. Looks like Rome was upset that Luther was being "extra-Biblical".

 

[Starman3000m]

You've got to be kidding! This is the best you can do authenticating the early Christian Church to be sola scriptura?? The RCC is the organization that sent Christians to the lions?
Wow! That's revisionist history if ever I heard it!...

Sorry, SM. Looks like Rome was upset that Luther was being "extra-Biblical".

Remember, you asked me to give an example of Bible believing Christians who attempted to correct the heresies of the Vatican. The point I was making is that the Vatican's influence (Rome) was powerful enough to declare any dissenter to RCC teachings an heretic and thus "do away with them." The Inquisitions are another good example of "accept Roman Catholicism, or else."

Sorry, libby. It is not "revisionist history" to declare that people who disagreed with the Vatican were persecuted and killed if they did not convert.

As stated before, the Holy Bible contains all the foundational Truths needed for learning the Truth of God's Plan of Salvation as written by the first-century Disciples of Jesus. It is the Vatican that contradicted those teachings and added a mixed bag of pagan beliefs and traditions.

 

[libby]

Remember, you asked me to give an example of Bible believing Christians who attempted to correct the heresies of the Vatican. The point I was making is that the Vatican's influence (Rome) was powerful enough to declare any dissenter to RCC teachings an heretic and thus "do away with them." The Inquisitions are another good example of "accept Roman Catholicism, or else."

Sorry, libby. It is not "revisionist history" to declare that people who disagreed with the Vatican were persecuted and killed if they did not convert.

As stated before, the Holy Bible contains all the foundational Truths needed for learning the Truth of God's Plan of Salvation as written by the first-century Disciples of Jesus. It is the Vatican that contradicted those teachings and added a mixed bag of pagan beliefs and traditions.

The people you provided came along 1200+ years later. We differ on what the correct interpretation is. Catholics here have provided ECF's from the 200's to show that what we believe was believed and taught in the earliest years of Christianity. I expect the same from you, and you have no choice to go outside of the Bible to show how the Bible was interpreted in the early years.
Guess you can't do that.

 

[Bavarian]

Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, The Immaculate Conception. Why else, amoung many, would her cousin Elizabeth address her as full of grace when she came to visit her. Until God became Man and insituted the Sacrament of Baptism, no one was spared the stain of Original Sin.

 

[Zguy28]

Why else, amoung many, would her cousin Elizabeth address her as full of grace when she came to visit her.

Is that in Luke 1? I don't see it.

I see Elizabeth saying "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

The word translated as "blessed":

G2127
εὐλογέω
eulogeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to praise, celebrate with praises
2) to invoke blessings
3) to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers
3a) to ask God’s blessing on a thing
3b) pray God to bless it to one’s use
3c) pronounce a consecratory blessing on
4) of God
4a) to cause to prosper, to make happy, to bestow blessings on
4b) favoured of God, blessed


You very well might believe that Mary fits 4b, as do I, but that does not mean she was completely without sin. The context of this passage does not bear that out. Favored? definitely. Without sin? Not in this passage.

When you break it down, the IC really is about one way of explaining how a sinless babe could be contained in a normal person. So we logically say "well, she must have been sinless too." I'm not doubting its a valid argument, I'm doubting it soundness.

Here is your argument, correct?

Premise: Jesus was sinless fully God/fully man
Premise: sinful vessel could not contain sinless God-man
Conclusion: Mary was sinless from birth

Why not the following conclusion?

Luke 1:35
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God."

The power of God through the Holy Spirit's overshadowing shielded Jesus the man from Mary's sin while in the womb.

Also, why should we accept Premise 2 as true?

 

[Zguy28]

What about the argument that sin comes through headship, that is the man, and that Mary had no need to be sinless in order for Jesus to not inherit original sin?

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Federal headship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mary has no need to be immaculately conceived.

 

[baydoll]

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.

SO on and so forth....

It was the truth from the beginning; however, it didn't have to be formally proclaimed until 1854, which was done so by Pope Pius IX. Such things are done due to current unbelief, without which it never would have been necessary.

If it was the truth from the beginning, why didn't any of the original Apostles (or at least Jesus) teach it? The quotes you listed (which are laughable in themselves) are all far FAR removed from apostolic church of the NT.

And as for the quote from Augustine, it says nothing of Mary being born without sin but that her SON was born without sin "bear HIM who undoubtedly had no sin".

Read out of context, this bare quotation seems to prove that Augustine believed in the immaculate conception of Mary. In fact, it was Pelagius, the great heretic, who taught such a thing, not Augustine. Augustine believed that all humans, all the descendants of Adam, are conceived in sin, with the singular exception of Jesus Christ, who was born of the virgin mother, Mary.

In this particular writing, he is answering the Pelagian argument that there were many saints who lived a perfectly moral life. The question is about their conduct and not their conception. Augustine answers, in part:

He then enumerates those ‘who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives, -- Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.’ And he adds the names of some women, -- ‘Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,’ he says, ‘we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.’ 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, On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius).

Augustine argues that none of the saints mentioned by Pelagius, except Mary, “lived without sin.” He believed that Mary was given grace to overcome sin and lead a sinless life. But please note that he is speaking about Mary's conduct in life, and not about her conception!

Following Augustine, several scholastics also believed that Mary led a perfect life; and yet they denied the idea of her immaculate conception. Thomas Aquinas would be a good example. He believed that Mary was sinless throughout her life, “We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial.” Yet he also affirmed that she contracted original sin at her conception: “For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: ‘The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb” (Summa III: 27).

Elsewhere Augustine speaks directly about original 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 (Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin).

Augustine taught that no person born of natural procreation ("of a man and a woman") is free from sin. With the exception of Christ, everyone since Adam and Eve were born in this way, including Mary. Therefore it is implied that Mary too was not free from original sin since she was conceived by a man and woman. Jesus is the exceptional case because of His unique conception by the Holy Spirit. Augustine emphasizes that the Lord Jesus alone did not experience the contact of the earthly corruption.

 

[baydoll]

It's the whole connection with Eve, whose, and I think you'd agree, disoedience was sin; hence, the contrasting train of thought in regards to Mary. Read Justin and Iraneus again with that thought in mind. The term "immaculate" need not be used for the concept to be present.

Regardless, baydoll asked for Early Church Fathers. She has more than enough quotes from them to satisfy the inquiry.

I'm heading to my brother's house for the weekend. Enjoy your day, Zguy!

Actually no but very nice try. Your list doesn't even go back to the original Apostles or their immediate successors. They are far removed from the apostolic church.

What does your Church teach about the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, Radiant?

 

[baydoll]

By the singular grace offered to her by God Almighty, in anticipation of her calling to be the mother of Jesus Christ.

So, R1 address the objection posted earlier about ECF's and some evidence that the IC was not made up in the 1800's, but believed (or at least considered) in the earliest centuries of Christianity.

No, please go back and read what Radiant actually said. She said this was the truth from the beginning. Now if this is the case then why didn't the Apostles (or Jesus) teach it?

 

[baydoll]

By the singular grace offered to her by God Almighty, in anticipation of her calling to be the mother of Jesus Christ.

Being a Catholic on here with you and Baydoll is like swatting black flies.

Aww!! Thanks for comparing us to black flies, libby. That was so not rude of you.

 

[Zguy28]

No, please go back and read what Radiant actually said. She said this was the truth from the beginning. Now if this is the case then why didn't the Apostles (or Jesus) teach it?

I believe what they were saying was that "the truth from the beginning" means something similar to how we got the doictrine of the Trinity. It was always there, but not fully developed theologically until later.

I happen to disagree with that conclusion that it was always there, but that's a different argument for another post.