The Dogma's of Mary, part of the Sacred Tradition handed down?

They cannot prove its not in tradition, they can only prove there’s not evidence its in tradition if even that.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

Write the years they was said in next to the quotes - eg… 123 A.D.

  1. Which Fathers taught Mary had Original Sin?

  2. Which Fathers taught Mary had Personal Sin?

  3. Which Fathers denied the Immaculate Conception?

Doctrinal Development doesn’t mean the truth develops but that our understanding of it does.

The Ressurection and Immaculate Conception should have been believed by the Fathers, “those” who didn’t were wrong.

Then again our understanding of the Ressurection may actually develop :slight_smile:

Planted seeds can grow, the plant is not a new plant after its grown even though it appears that way.

Paul Edwards,

Could you explain to me the “seed” form of the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary?

Understandably, there is a “seed” form to to the Canon, or to the question of how the God head members are related to one another. But the bodily assumption of Mary, as well as the Immaculate Conception are both one time facts. They are not something which can carry from a seed form to a more developed form. Our understanding of this must be full and complete in the beginning, otherwise, we are speculating as whether Mary was bodily assumed.

Jesus appeared to the disciples in order that they might bear witness to His resurrection. Being an eye witness was a precondition to being an apostle (Acts 1).

The bodily assumption of mary also requires eye witness testimony.

The Church is a mystery, we do not understand everything properly :slight_smile:

The Church is the mystical body of Christ and her Magisterium and Pope will have infallibly worked this out.

A possibility is the seed was her being blessed among women and full of Grace, which could have led to us understanding she’s blessed among woman in the sense that she sinned less than other women and next that she never sinned and the full of Grace as meaning she received the Grace at Conception.

The above paragraph is a guess so there is no point replying to it.

Then you have this same eyewitness to prove your point? :rolleyes:

Mary was guilty of nothing, its documented by THE EAST “She was the First resurrected by Jesus Christ” Maximus the Confessor - Constantinople, you seem confused about the Dormition. The West added “body and soul” did the EAST find the body recently? Anything? Nothing? I’d say you have no case. :shrug: By the words of East and West Saints, “What is Assumed is Saved”.

Maybe Psalm 132:8 is the seed for the assumption and we learnt to fully understand it’s meaning :slight_smile:

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Also in the early Church bones were collected, all 12 apostles bones are in Catholic Churches. They would certainly keep Marys if the assumption was false and she would have a Church bigger than St Peters Basillica above her body

“Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11), “Enoch was translated that he should not see death” (Hebrews 11:5), and “God took him” (Genesis 5:24), and Moses appeared in the transfiguration with Jesus (Matthew 17:3). :thumbsup:

And why would he not do the same for His Father?

The doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption is a beautiful doctrine. The question has never been related to that. The issue here is where is that in the original Tradition.

I am sorry, it is beyond comprehension how we can go from hearing that Mary is “full of grace” to the fact that she is “born without sin”. The early Fathers believed that you could not add to the Tradition that was handed by the apostles, and that to add to it would be heresy. If one is going to argue that there are many "seeds’ from which can sprout believes that were never there in the first place, there is no way to falsify this.

I can say that Joseph was assumed just by the fact that he is the Father of Jesus, and I could call this my “seed form” doctrine for the full flowering of his own bodily assumption. It just doesn’t follow, reasonably anyway.

Tradition has been covered you have no response remember, a quick view of the last few pages clearly puts that fairy tale to rest. This “is” the Tradition, the most Holy Catholic Church.

Your evidence was ONE heretic. :shrug:

I’ll wait while the evidence is gathered. You stated “explicitly” We Have the Evidence. The WE is YOU and who?

None has arrived yet

A protestant wrote the following:

The belief that Mary was a sinner, by means of original sin and/or sinful behavior, was widespread in early Christianity. It predates the view that Mary was sinless. The following are some examples of early denials, either directly or indirectly, that Mary was sinless.

Justin Martyr refers to Jesus as the only sinless person, and he denies that a Jewish opponent he was debating, Trypho, could cite a single other person who obeyed all of God’s commandments (Dialogue With Trypho, 17, 88, 95). Irenaeus asks “who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of God” (Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching, 72). Clement of Alexandria writes of Jesus, “He alone is sinless…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) Tertullian refers to Mary’s “unbelief” and other sins in the process of discussing Matthew 12:46-50 (On The Flesh Of Christ, 7). J.N.D. Kelly wrote, “Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493) Origen suggested that he was speaking for all Christians when he wrote:

“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)

Similarly, an anonymous writer of the third century repeats what seems to have been the popular view of the ante-Nicene era: “He [Jesus] alone did no sin at all” (A Treatise On Re-Baptism By An Anonymous Writer, 17). Basil of Caesarea thought that Luke 2:34-35 refers to sinful doubt on Mary’s part at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, and that she would need to be restored after Jesus’ resurrection, just as Peter was restored (Letter 260:6-9). He considers his interpretation of the passage so popular that he claims there’s “no obscurity or variety of interpretation” (Letter 260:6). Michael O’Carroll writes the following about Hilary of Poitiers:

“On the incident of Mary and the brothers waiting outside for Jesus [Matthew 12:46-50], H. [Hilary of Poitiers] proposes a novel exegesis: ‘But since he came unto his own and his own did not receive him, in his mother and brothers the Synagogue and the Israelites are foreshadowed, refraining from entry and approach to him.’” (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 171)

And 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.” (p. 113)

Cyril of Jerusalem taught that only Jesus has been sinless, and he believed that Mary needed sanctified:

“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.” (Catechetical Lectures, 2:10, 12:32, 17:6)

And he also wrote:

John Chrysostom accuses Mary of “self-confidence” and other sins (Homilies On Matthew, 44; Homilies On John, 21). Regarding Augustine, J.N.D. Kelly notes:

“he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine’s rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects ‘by the grace of rebirth’.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

After quoting Ambrose, who said that only Jesus has been conceived without original sin, Augustine comments that Ambrose’s view is consistent with “the catholic faith” (On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin, 2:47-48).

Philip Schaff counted seven Roman bishops who denied the sinlessness of Mary (The Creeds Of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123). Michael O’Carroll comments that the Roman bishop Leo I viewed sin as being communicated by means of sexual intercourse, which is how Mary was conceived (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 217). O’Carroll writes of another Roman bishop, “On Mt 12:48-50, [Gregory the Great] thinks that Mary momentarily represented the Synagogue, which Christ no longer recognized.” (p. 159) Even as late as the second millennium we see the sinlessness of Mary rejected by the Roman bishop Innocent III and other Western sources. O’Carroll cites the Pope saying that Mary was “begotten in guilt”, that she needed “cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin” (p. 185).

That’s not much evidence, you said WE have the evidence. That’s it?

The Seven Bishops and St John were corrected when they stood before the Throne of God.

What tradition is that, the seven Bishops and one Saint proposal based on the nonexisting- Ancestral Sin?

Listen, I offered YOU these quotes pages ago. Rather odd your showing me what I already offered to you? Those are “rare” voices in the 2000 year history of Ever-Virgin, Queen of Heaven who also according to the East intercedes for ALL mankind. St Athanasius and St Maximus.

That Mary is Queen of Heaven, all holy, and ever virgin are all concepts which are consistent and compatible with Mary being at one time a sinner sanctified above all others for her role as Mother of God, and that her body was permanently buried until the resurrection is also consistent with these concepts.

The evidence is amounting to the fact that these church fathers whom I’ve provided quotes from did not receive this tradition of mary being Immaculately conceived. How can we go from, no one really knows to we all know now??

The theology of the Magesterium demands that the teaching of Mary’s immaculate conception be taught and handed on from the beginning. And yet, not only do we have silence (which does not disprove anything), but we have great theologians who flat out ignorant of the whole thing.

Your speaking as if you have this large existing preponderance of evidence, lets be perfectly clear and honest, you don’t. You have a theory based on disobedience and a non existing theory of ancestral sin is all I’m seeing. And frankly I don’t even know what the theory is but as usual the suggesting the one Rome “does” have is wrong. That’s that polemical conversation which really makes no sense to me.

Perhaps I shall let you speak to others.

Peace

Its a very simple question.

Where is the Immaculate Conception and the bodily assumption of mary in Catholic tradition?

If there was no written record how the Church viewed mary, this would favor the Catholic position, for there doesn’t need to be a written record. However, the PROBLEM is that we have more than one church father assuming that she had sinned…that is evidence that a universal tradition was not passed on concerning her immaculate conception.

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
Father Clifford Stevens
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the “Tomb of Mary,” close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived. On the hill itself was the “Place of Dormition,” the spot of Mary’s “falling asleep,” where she had died. The “Tomb of Mary” was where she was buried.

At this time, the “Memory of Mary” was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the “Memory of Mary” was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the “Falling Asleep” (“Dormitio”) of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the “Assumption of Mary,” since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior.

The Assumption completes God’s work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God’s crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity.

The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.

The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

The prayer for the feast reads: “All-powerful and ever-living God: You raised the sinless Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul, to the glory of heaven. May we see heaven as our final goal and come to share her glory.”

In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution , Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven.”

With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.