Replies

Here, for your enlightenment, are quotations from just a few of 'the Fathers' on key Roman Catholic dogmas, doctrines and Traditions. See for yourself that Rome is not telling the truth about the origins of things, and the
so-called 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' :

Rome's Declarations on 'the Fathers'

"I also admit the holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures: neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of The Fathers."

Pope Pius IV, Profession of the Tridentine Faith, Article 3

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (the Council of Trent) decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals. . . . presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. . ."

Augustine on Mary

Augustine declared that Mary's flesh was "flesh of sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).
"Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).

Augustine on Peter

First Citation: In his interpretation of Matthew 16:18, St. Augustine wrote, "Because thou hast said unto me, 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said,'But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, Volume VI, St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1-2, p. 340)

Second Citation: (Augustine, Volume VI, Sermon XXVI)

"Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Then He added, "and I say unto thee." As if He had said, "Because thou hast said unto Me, 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.'" For before he was called Simon.For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

Third Citation: Augustine, Tractates on John; Tractate 3, CXXIV

"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

St. Jerome on Confession

Circa. Fifth Century, St. Jerome wrote numerous letters to his peers and friends on living the Christian life. Those letters encompass five volumes! Nowhere in all of Jerome's letters, will you find support for the confession as now practiced by Rome. Rather will you find a condemnation of it, as in the following excerpt from a letter to a priest named Nepotianus, in Volume II, on Page 203, Jerome says:
"Never sit in secret, alone, in a retired place, with a female who is alone with you. If she has any particular thing to tell you, let her take the female attendant of the house, a young girl, a widow, or a married woman. She cannot be so ignorant of the rules of human life as to expect to have you as the only one whom she can trust those things."

St. Jerome on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written (in Scripture)" (Adv. Helvid).
"These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites." (In Aggari Proph. Cap. I, II).

St. Chrysostom on Confession

"We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellow-men, but only to God!" (Crhysostom, Homily on 50th Psalm)
"We do not ask you to go and confess your iniquities to a sinful man for pardon - but only to God." (Ibid.)
"You need no witness of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you." (Chrysostom, De Paenitentia, Volume IV, Col. 901)
"Therefore, I beseech you, always confess your sins to God! I, in no way, ask you to confess them to me. To God alone should you expose the wounds of your soul, and from him alone expect the cure. Go to Him, then, and you shall not be cast off, but healed. For, before you utter a single word, God knows your prayer." (Chrysostom, De Incomprehensibili, Volume I, Homily V)

St. Basil on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea, Letter CLXXXIX; A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), Page 229]

St. Cyprian on Peter

"I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume V, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Clement on Peter

'And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, " if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God. And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

[The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.]

'But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught.

But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it."'

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus on Peter

"Let us hear the words of the great Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for "On this rock," He says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. "I," he says, "as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation," [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

St. Gregory the Great on having one supreme pontiff

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled (Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14), I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offence by the appellation of a frivolous name. . . " [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume XII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Iraeneus on Peter

[Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3: "A Refutation of the heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up."]
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [St. Ingatius, Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Chapter IV; Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - NOT Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:

1. Linus
2. Anacletus
3. Clement
4. Evaristus
5. Alexander
6. Sixtus
7. Ignatius (Telephorus)
8. Huginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Sorer
12. Eleutherius

Cyril of Jerusalem on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"This seal have thou ever on they mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on its heads, and if the Lord grat, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Lecture 4.17; A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford, Parker, 1845]

Origin on Peter

FIRST CITATION: (Origin: Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XII, Para 10 Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume X, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.)
"And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, " if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God. And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God."

"Because thou hast said unto Me, 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.'" For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Origin on Worship: on Queen of Heaven

"As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in consequence of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us point them out to the best of our ability, and show that although Celsus considers it to be a Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and the angels in it, such a practice is not at all Jewish, but is in violation of Judaism, as it also is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and stars, as well as images. You will find at least in the book of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by the mouth of the prophet the Jewish people for doing obeisance to such objects, and for sacrificing to the queen of heaven, and to all the host of heaven. The writings of the Christians, moreover, show, in censuring the sins committed among the Jews, that when God abandoned that people on account of certain sins, these sins (of idol-worship) also were committed by them." [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume IV, Book V, Chapter VIII: Origin against the Heresy of Celsus [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.] 1997.]

Gregory of Nyssa on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises "on the Soul and the Resurrection", P. 439. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume V.]

Marian enthusiasts, such as the current pope, have always pushed for Mary's sinlessness; dissenters have argued vociferously against it. The Dominicans were against; the Jesuits fiercely for. Thomas Aquinas felt that the immaculate conception violated accepted Christology. St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas both argued that Mary was tainted by original sin, and did commit sins. But in 1854, the debate about Mary's sinlessness finally ended in the Roman Catholic church by papal decree. Pius IX issued a Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, stating: "We declare, proclaim, and define that this dogma is revealed by God and therefore to be firmly and unremittingly believed by all the faithful: namely the dogma which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the very first moment of her conception, was kept free of sin.

In 1869 Pius IX went on to proclaim the doctrine of papal infallibility. He convened the First Vatican Council primarily for that purpose. Some saw his declaration of papal infallibility as a strategy for confirming his dogma of the immaculate conception. Others saw it the other way around: Pius exalting Mary in order to exalt his troubled, besieged, papacy.

Rome bases most of her dogmas, doctrines, and practices on her own, extra-biblical Tradition. She then demands that her Tradition has equal authority to Scripture. She further says that her teachings using her interpretation of Scripture have the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' which, by this point, you should recognize as completely false. Those same 'Fathers' contradict her over, and over, and over again.

How many white crows does it take to prove that not all crows are black? How many contradictions does it take to prove beyond any doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is caught in a bold, bald-faced lie when she claims support from 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers?!' Just one Father who contradicts one of Rome's doctrines is sufficient disprove Rome's claim.

I don't base my faith on "the Fathers" but on Scripture. But those who claim to be Roman Catholic because "all the church fathers" agree with their current doctrines are either dishonest or ignorant of what the Fathers really taught.

A study of the way in which the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supposed Immaculate Conception of Mary provides an instructive example of how a completely unscriptural doctrine makes its way through the RCC from initial speculation by a minority within the church, to dogma which all Catholics are required to believe and confess:

While the Papal Bull declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception [1854] may have finally determined the issue as a dogma within the Roman Catholic Church, the final promulgation of the doctrine as dogma "to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful" was actually a crowning of the medieval success of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans in gaining formal theological acceptance for a doctrine that finds it's roots not in the bible or even in the writings of the Church Fathers, but rather in the tidal wave of popular devotion to Mary. A careful analysis of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception reveals that far from being "constantly believed by all the faithful", the doctrine was uniformly denied by the vast majority of theologians in the early and medieval church.

As far as scriptural support is concerned, even the commission appointed by Pope Pius IX to investigate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception could find no scriptural support for it, and instead reported that no scriptural evidence was necessary. The commission went on to say that tradition alone would be sufficient to dogmatically declare the doctrine, and that even tradition need not be shown to extend in an unbroken line to the apostolic age.

Perhaps out of a feeling that it would be inappropriate to publish the bull without any supporting scripture the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 was eventually included as scriptural evidence for the doctrine. The Hebrew text, however, makes it clear that Christ and not His mother is being referred to in the passage. The scripture used for support is the faulty vulgate translation. Here the vulgate mis-translates the Hebrew word for "he or it" (hu') as "she" ("and she shall crush thy head").

To say that there is little or no evidence for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the early church would be a major understatement, for, on the contrary, the evidence present in the early church militates against the doctrine. There simply was no perceived theological need for the doctrine and no popular Cult of the virgin powering the drive for the development of extrabiblical teachings regarding her nature. This lack of excessive popular veneration is evident both in the written witness and, what is more important to indicating the condition of popular sentiment, in the artwork of the early church:

"The Catacombs witness to the freedom of the early Church from any idolatrous veneration of the Virgin Mary. There is no apparent attempt to exalt her above the place which would naturally and necessarily be assigned to her in a full list of biblical representations. 'In those earliest decorations of the Catacombs,' says Mariott, 'which De Rossi and other Roman antiquarians believe to be before the age of Constantine, representations of the Virgin Mary occur only in such connection as is directly suggested by Holy Scripture."

As one source put it "there was no tendency before the end of the fourth century to promote a regular cultus of the virgin, or even to address prayers to her."

It was the Christological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries that were to provide the catalyst for change in this situation. As the importance of the Virgin birth of Christ grew in the consciousness of the church, so too did the importance of Mary. "The more the awe and reverence of the early Church for the God-Man attempted to find adequate expression, the more natural it was that a portion of it should be transferred to his mother, the vehicle of his redeeming incarnation."

This desire to venerate Mary was to lead to the formation of cult devoted to her veneration and exaltation. And it was this cult that has from its inception been one of the leading factors in the development of doctrine concerning her.

One of the most distressing tendencies in the growth of the Marian Cult which followed the declaration that she was rightly called theotokos (God-bearer) at the council of Ephesus (431) was the gradual adoption of elements of the apocryphal literature concerning Mary as traditions of the church. This happened in spite of the fact that Pope Galesius I had forbidden the use of this material. Many of the traditional beliefs regarding Mary such as the names of her parents, her education at the temple, the idea of her nominal marriage to Joseph - supposedly aged and with children from a previous marriage, and her assumption, are only to be found in documents that the Church had already condemned.

What seems clear however, is that while they might have already begun to develop other questionable doctrines regarding Mary, the early church did not speculate on the conception of Mary, because it did not feel the need to do so. Mary was indeed particularly blessed among women, because she was chosen to bear the Redeemer, but the early church fathers obviously did not see her as playing a vital role in the redemption outside of this. Neither did they feel that for Christ to be sinless, Mary would need to have been sinless as well. Tertullian in his De Carne Christi says that "Christ, by putting on the flesh, made it his, and made it sinless. Irenaeus notes that "Christ made human nature pure by taking it" and Athanasius notes in On the Incarnation of the Word that "Christ sanctified his own body." In the middle ages it became unthinkable to speak of the Virgin Mary as having actually sinned, such was the force of the Marian Cult, but the early Fathers felt none of the same inhibitions and did not hesitate to frankly speak of her as a sinner. John Chrysostom spoke of her "excessive ambition at the marriage festival at Cana", asserting that she "was possibly not immune to some feeling of human vanity, wishing to attract to herself recognition from the guests by the miracle requested of Jesus and the showing of her influence over Him." Chrysostom also thought Mary's interruption of Christ's discourse to have Him come meet with her and His Brothers "indiscreet". Basil believed that with the apostles she too "wavered at the time of the crucifixion".

Augustine, whose work was critical in defining the doctrine of the universality of original sin, went to great pains to ensure that Mary was not regarded as actually sinful in her lifetime. In this he was probably following his mentor Ambrose more closely than biblical doctrine. In his refutation of Pelagius in On Nature and Grace, Augustine makes clear that he disagrees violently with Pelagius' contention that there were some Old Testament Saints who did not sin, but agrees with his other statement that, concerning Mary "it is necessary to devotion to confess that she lived without sin" in the following manner "I make an exception for the Virgin Mary, about whom, for the honor due to the Lord, I do not want to have any discussion when it concerns sins, since we know that she who has been worthy to conceive and bear Him who was without sin has received a greater grace than to conquer sin completely." In other works, Augustine makes clear that Christ alone was without any sin (Remission of Sins, 2.24.38)

The followers of Augustine also assert that Mary was born with original sin. Eusebius Emissensus asserts that, "From the bond of the old sin [original sin] is not even the mother of the Redeemer free." While Fulgentius writes, "The Flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh."

By the beginning of the middle ages and following in the train of the thought of Western fathers such as Augustine, it was popularly accepted that Mary had been personally sinless in her life. The reasons for this had to do with both popular devotion - Mary had come to be seen as a standard for sinless perfection, an embodiment of ascetic virtues such as chastity, piety, and sacrifice - and also the critical question of Christ's sinlessness. It was thought that for Christ to have been preserved free from all stain of original sin, his mother had to be free from it in order to avoid transmitting it to her son. So while theologians had come to think that Mary had been freed from the stain of original sin, and had consequently lived a totally sinless life (against the thinking of their Greek forbears), the critical question became one of determining when she had been freed from original sin. In his Cur Deus Homo, no less a theologian than Anselm (1033-1109) both denied the Immaculate Conception and maintained that Mary had been born with the stain of original sin:

"For even though the conception of this man is pure and free from the sin of carnal delight, nevertheless the Virgin herself, from whom he was taken, was "conceived in iniquities" and her mother conceived her "in sins," and she was born with original sin, since she also sinned in Adam, "in whom all have sinned"

Anselm instead maintained that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin prior to the birth of Jesus on account of her faith in His future sacrifice, "But that Virgin from whom the Man we are speaking of was taken was among those who before his birth were purified from sins through him, and he was taken from her in this very state of purity"17 This purification being absolutely necessary if Christ was himself was to be pure.

Curiously, while Anselm himself denied any notion of any Immaculate Conception, it was his secretary and pupil the monk Eadmer who was one of the leading figures in the early propagation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Eadmer deduced that the doctrine, although it was expressly denied by Anselm in Cur Deus Homo, was none-the-less implicitly affirmed in his works of Marian devotion, particularly 'On the excellency of Mary.' and he consequently went on to affirm the doctrine in his own work, 'On the Conception of St. Mary,' Once again the power of the Cult of the Virgin proved to have the greater influence in determining the theology of the Church.

Later scholastic theologians after Anselm would generally agree that Mary had been purified from sin prior to her birth, but would disagree as to when this purification had taken place. Most of them were eager to avoid making Mary the "great exception", the one human being conceived without sin, so their formulations tended to have Mary conceived with sin but purged immediately, or even instantly afterwards.

Peter Abailard (1079-1142) also held that the virgin was purified of the stain of sin prior to the birth of Christ, "For man had not sinned except against his own Lord, whose obedience he had forsaken. If, then, his Lord wanted to remit the sin, as was done to the Virgin Mary and as Christ also did for many others before he underwent his passion..."

The overall witness of the theologians of the middle ages was against what was coming to be known as "The Great Exception", the idea that Mary alone in all humanity had been exempted from original sin. So how then did it come to be the majority testimony in the Roman Catholic Church? The answer lies both in the popular force of the Marian Cult, which from it's beginnings has never ceased to work towards the greater exaltation of the mother of Christ, and in the devotion of the Franciscans and their greatest theologian, John Duns Scotus, to the promulgation of the doctrine.

Whilst the scholastic theologians were busy arguing at what point Mary had been made sinless, the popular cult of the virgin amongst the laity and the clergy was once again advancing the argument to the next step with little attention to the theological niceties so important to the theologians. As was mentioned earlier, perhaps the most the most influential area in the popular arena regarding this issue were the feasts and festivals devoted to the celebration of events in the life of the Virgin.

In 1140 the church at Lyons instituted a festival to commemorate the immaculate conception of Mary. This produced the strongest possible reaction from Bernard of Clairvaux, a theologian whose reputation for devotion to Mary was unparalleled. Calling it a "novelty of which the rites of the Church know nothing, that reason does not approve, and ancient tradition does not commend" Bernard wrote to the canons of the church at Lyons expressing his shock and dismay at their action. Because of his immense stature as a medieval theologian and saint it is worthwhile to examine his letter in some detail in order to ascertain both his feelings regarding the doctrine and the reasons he gives for being unable to support it.

He goes on to list reasons that he feels she should be legitimately honored by the church and here he mentions several that one must conclude are equally without support in scripture or tradition, but which were generally assumed by the church at this point. Among them her sinlessness, ever-virgin status, her position as mediatrix, her assumption, and even the idea that she had no birth pains, as she was free from the effects of original sin prior to her birth. But Bernard goes on to maintain that the teaching of the church is that she was "certainly sanctified before her birth", but not prior to her conception. In fact, he makes a point of stressing that her sanctification simply could not have preceded her conception saying, "But there could not be sanctification before existence, nor was there existence before being conceived." He then goes on to utterly dismiss the spreading heresy that Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit, "Pity him who tells himself that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a man." Bernard maintains that her birth was Holy and is to be celebrated precisely because "already conceived and existing in her mother's womb she received sanctification." It is to Christ alone "that sanctified conception should be reserved." Christ "alone was sanctified before and after conception", Bernard tells them. He even goes so far as to state that even Mary must confess with all the sons of Adam "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) He finishes by telling the leaders of the church that the Virgin Mary will "gladly do without this honor with which sin seem to be honored" (for Bernard strongly felt her conception was in sin), but closes saying that as a son of the church, he remits the entire "question to the authority and example of the Roman Church."

In this letter in particular, Bernard strongly expresses what was then the majority position of the scholastics concerning the issue. But the ground swell of popular devotion to Mary was so strong that a popular myth arose that after Bernard's death a black mark appeared on his breast as punishment for saying "what ought not to have been said of the Virgin." Bernard for his part, while eager to render all honor possible to the Virgin Mary was determined that the central Christian concepts of the universality of sin and uniqueness of Christ should not be obscured or destroyed by that devotion. In this Bernard was at odds with the almost unstoppable growth of devotionally motivated mythology that had surrounded Mary since the 4th century. Curiously Bernard, who had done much to accelerate the cult of her veneration, suddenly found himself confronted by and compelled to oppose yet another example of the fruit of that cult.

But it was to be Thomas Aquinas, the Thomists who followed him, and the Dominican order who were to form the strongest bulwark against the doctrine of the Immaculate conception during the middle ages. With the other scholastic theologians of his age, Aquinas was eager to affirm doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary and her sanctification in the womb, but he is forthright in his Summa Theologica in declaring that proof for this doctrine is not to be found in the bible, "Concerning the sanctification of Mary, that is that she was sanctified in utero, nothing has been handed down to us in the canonical Scriptures which do not mention her birth at all." Instead Thomas argues rationally (rationabiliter argumentari) for two propositions, the first being that Mary was conceived in sin;

"The Sanctification of the Virgin cannot be meant to have happened before her animation, - that is before her soul was united to her body, - for two reasons:

First, because the sanctification of which we speak is none other that purification from original sin ... But guilt cannot be cleansed except by grace whose object is the rational creature only. Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul the Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because only the rational creature is susceptible to guilt, the offspring conceived is not capable of guilt before the infusion of the rational soul. And if the blessed Virgin had been sanctified in any way before her animation she would never have incurred any stain of original sin and therefore would have had no need of redemption and salvation which are through Christ, of whom it is said in Matthew 1:21, "He will save his people from their sins." It is not fitting, then, that Christ should not be the Saviour of all men, as is said in 1 Timothy 4. It stands, then, that the sanctification of the blessed Virgin took place after animation."

The second proposition is that she was sanctified in the womb, which he deduces from the angelic greeting in Luke 1:28, and the example of Jeremiah (1:5), and John The Baptist (Luke 1:15) both of whom were also supposedly sanctified in the womb (although this interpretation contradicts that of many church fathers including Augustine). Thomas is careful to note that these are theological propositions and not revealed truth.

Thomas' formulation regarding the conception of Mary was also the one favored by the majority of theologians during the thirteenth century. Even though the Franciscans were to become the most strident advocates of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the founder of Franciscan theology, Bonaventura also wrote that the virgin Mary could not have been sanctified "before her animation", he elsewhere states (Locus Theol., VII, i) : "All the saints who have made mention of this matter, with one mouth have asserted that the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin." And yet again "We must therefore believe, in conformity with the general belief that the Virgin's sanctification took place after she had contracted original sin."

At this point it is valid to ask why the scholastics, while they were willing to attribute qualities not supported in the bible or the early church to Mary, would not be willing to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as well? The answer lies not in the rational formulations that the scholastics created to explain why she could not have been sanctified prior to her conception, but in the fact that they perceived a "disquieting closeness between an immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus." The were aware that while the miraculous honors they accorded her set her above her fellow men, they did not violate the universal laws of sin and redemption, and they did not seriously impinge upon the personal uniqueness of Christ. The Immaculate conception did however, and made Mary the "great exception," thus according her an honor shared only with her son. It would be tempting to speculate how the scholastics would have reacted had they known how much further Mary was to be exalted after the medieval period.

While the cult of the Virgin may have supported the adoption of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception as yet another honor to be accorded her, the theological and philosophical groundwork to support its adoption did not exist, as yet. In fact, all of the serious scholastic treatises written on the subject up to that point had militated against the doctrine. It was not until the 14th century and the work of the philosopher/theologian John Duns Scotus that serious groundwork was to be laid for the later adoption of the doctrine, and once this foundational material was in place the Franciscan order began to work diligently to drum up support at all levels for the enactment of the doctrine as a dogma.

The formulation that Duns Scotus developed can be described more properly as a philosophical or logical construction than a theological one, for it relied not at all on either the tradition of the Church or Scripture. He delivered this argument in 1301 whilst commenting on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the standard theological "text-book" during the middle ages. Lombard's work did not support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, saying instead that the Holy Spirit had cleansed her from sin after it had been contracted. In response Dun Scotus postulated that it was possible for God to have done one of three things to insure the sinlessness of Mary (which was by now regarded as beyond question within the church). God could have:

1) Preserved Mary from any possibility of contracting Original Sin

2) Delivered her from the stain of original sin prior to her birth

3) Purified her from it at the end of some period of time prior to the birth of Christ.

After giving these three possibilities he states "Which of these three... it was that was done, God knows," since neither scripture or tradition provide any definitive answers, "But, if it does not contradict the authority of Scripture or the authority of the church, it seems preferable to attribute greater rather than lesser excellence to Mary." In this formulation Dun Scotus was keeping to the popular adage of the period "Whatever was both possible and eminently fitting for God to do, that he did", which was to go on to become a foundational concept in another Marian doctrine lacking support in Scripture or tradition - the doctrine of the Assumption.

Put simply Scotus' formulation was:

1) It was possible for God to preserve Mary from original sin

2) It was most "suitable" for Him to do so

3) Therefore He did

Critics of the formulation immediately pointed out that the central issue of concern regarding the doctrine was not whether it was possible for Mary to be conceived without sin, but whether she was in fact conceived without it. Ultimately this argument was to no avail, for it was this formulation that prevailed.

Scotus argued other points related to the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception based on this same formula, stating that it would not have been "fitting" for the Mother of the Redeemer to have been an enemy of God for even an instant: "She is there the blessed Virgin, mother of God, who was never actually an enemy (of God) by reason of actual sin or original sin, yet would have been an enemy if she had not been preserved."

Just prior to his death, Duns Scotus was to inject a note of uncertainty into his own formulations adding the word "perhaps" in respect to the preservation of Mary from original sin. But by then his formulations in their original form were already being widely used by Franciscans, who were not likely to express the same reservations on the matter.

Even after the Scotist formulation, the Dominicans struggled on continuing to produce evidence against the doctrine such as De Singulari Puritate et Perogativa Conceptionis Christi written in 1470 which contains some four hundred testimonies against the dogma from the fathers of the church and the issue of the Doctrine became a full blown battle within the church between the Franciscans and the Scotists on one side, and the Dominicans and Thomists on the other.

The council of Basel which met in 1438 went so far as to officially sanction the Doctrine, but because Pope Eugenius IV condemned the council itself for other reasons, its doctrines had no authority. Nevertheless the decision of the council had a far-reaching impact amongst those who read its decrees.

In 1477 Pope Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, officially sanctioned a feast of the Immaculate, but the response was from the Dominican opposition was sharp and immediate. Later, in response to bitter feuding between the Dominicans and his own party regarding this issue, Sixtus was to issue a decree threatening both Franciscans and Dominicans with excommunication if they should accuse each other of heresy regarding this Doctrine.

At the Council of Trent the Franciscans saw an opportunity to at last ensure that debate on the subject of the Immaculate conception be ended in favor of the doctrine. Aided by the Jesuits they demanded that Mary be excepted from the decree stating the universality of original sin. While this would not have established the doctrine of the Immaculate conception in and of itself, it would have made it the only viable explanation for her generally accepted sinlessness. Predictably the Dominicans strongly protested such an exception, and the matter was referred to Rome, who answered that an attempt had to be made to satisfy both parties.

by the end of the 15th century, while the doctrine had not yet been officially defined as a dogma of the church, it was believed and taught by the majority of the clergy and laity. From this point on the Scotist view was increasingly embraced by the church, while support for the Thomist position dwindled and official pressure was brought against those who still maintained it. Why then did support for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception go from being a tiny minority of the church in the 12th century to the majority position in the 15th? As we have seen, while the weight of theological reasoning was against the doctrine, it was viewed with favor within the Marian cult, and this is was to be the deciding factor. To date, history has shown that every conceivable doctrine that further exalts the status of Mary that is not specifically declared heretical has eventually been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church as a dogma. This has been the case regardless of the paucity of scriptural or even traditional support for the doctrines themselves.

The popular cult of Mary has been an unstoppable juggernaut in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. It has propelled her from the simple handmaiden of the Lord, the humble mother of Christ we find in scripture to the verge of being anointed co-redemptrix and exalted to a position on par with her Divine Son. Ultimately, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was simply another step in the ongoing campaign to lift Mary as high as possible above her fellow humans. At what point the Roman Catholic church will conclude that she has been lifted high enough is impossible to say.

[AN EXCEPTIONAL MISCONCEPTION: The Development of the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, by Andrew J. Webb]