Posted on 05/31/2011 11:53:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
The Protoevangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).
“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).
“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).
Origen
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
Leporius
“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
I see this guy keeps good company.
Is that why he pings you to his every post?
Good, Biblical points, imho.
Thanks Quix!
Nice to see you. :)
Y’all pick and choose amongst the early church folks outrageously.
And then y’all have the unmitigated gall to pretend that they all seamlessly, homogeneously and unanimously believed the same things . . . .
FURTHER outrageously—that whatever that pile of stinking deception needs to be at the moment for your current biases and assumptions—y’all pretend that
the previous pretend unaninimity of the early church folks just happens to agree with the current vogue out of the political power mongers otherwise known as the Vatican Cult’s magicsterical.
What an outrageous pile of brazen farce!
May we all grow closer to The Lord in the time remaining.
Time is growing short.
Thanks for your kind reply.
Unless something is in the canon of Scripture, nobody is under any obligation to recognize or accept said documents as truth.
They may contain some things that are true, but those things must be compared to Scripture, the final authority in spiritual matters, to determine if they line up and are true.
The Catholic church can obligate those who willingly place themselves under its authority to believe any manner of extra-Biblical teaching because that's their choice.
But unless something is Truth, as in the Word of God, there is simply no way to legitimately demand that people recognize or accept it. And Catholic's recognition and acceptance of extra-biblical teaching does not constitute *superior* knowledge. Nothing is more superior than Scripture.
Nothing is unclean in itself. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Are you saying the writings of the Church Fathers are lies? Are you claiming that many of them did not learn the faith either from the Apostles or those who had been taught by the Apostles? Are you saying that the later Fathers did not learn their faith from those who passed on the teachings of the Apostles?
Are the writings of the Fathers somehow suspect because the Church they write about in no way resembles the innovation of contemporary American Protestantism with its emphasis on self interpretation of Scripture? Are you claiming that you have the Holy Spirit on retainer but these men were in serious error?
I do not get the mindset of contemporary Protestants. I have never read of any traditional Reformed Christian claiming that the Fathers wrote lies. Yes they do disagree with what the Father’s believed in some instances. But to claim they lied is just mind boggling.
It is a concept unique to contemporary Protestant sects that the Bible is to be interpreted (except for obvious plain meaning) outside of the community of faith and the confessions of that faith. The Reformers sure did not see understanding the Bible as a do it yourself endeavor. They gave it primacy but they knew wrong understanding could and would lead to heresy.
The fragmented contradictory and hostility to history that marks certain Protestant sects is no surprise.
“And then y’all have the unmitigated gall to pretend that they all seamlessly, homogeneously and unanimously believed the same things .” Never claimed that. If everyone agreed it never would have been necessary to call Councils to settle questions of doctrine and to challenge heresy.
But the Early Church was Catholic/Orthodox. It was not in any way some budding Protestant sect that was driven underground.
Such a fine understanding of what Catholicism teaches gives me the courage to head up to the Cape so I can explain physics to the space engineers there. For now I know lack of knowledge is no impediment to instruction.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Yes. The Catholic Church has deviated from the teachings of the early church fathers. It's kind of silly to see them quoting them.
No. Don't put words in my mouth.
As we've been told numerous times here on the RF, accusation of lies means intent to deceive. Now, it's possible that some of what they wrote was lies and they knew it. We don't know for sure.
OTOH, they could sincerely believe that what they wrote was true, but that doesn't mean it was true.
Truth is independent of sincerity. Just because someone is sincere, doesn't mean they are right.
Are you saying that the later Fathers did not learn their faith from those who passed on the teachings of the Apostles?
I didn't say that either. Some of them may have. Depends some on whether they were alive at the same time as the apostles and in the same location.
Somebody claiming something doesn't always make it so. The claims could be made just to try to give validity to what they wrote. In which case they would be a lie. But since all we have are historical writings, motive is indeterminate. Nobody alive today was there to determine motive, it can only be inferred.
All I said is that if historical writings are not part of canon of Scripture, then nobody is obligated to accept them as truth. The only thing we can be sure of is truth is the Word of God, Scripture itself. Anything else, not inspired by the Holy Spirit as Scripture, is suspect by default, being a work of man.
Nothing is unclean in itself. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.