That is simply an asertion without a basis. The church was totally silent about any Marian doctrine for centuries. You could offer some proof for you assertion.
Well, we have St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons) who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St. John. In Against Heresies 3:22 written about the middle of the second century, we have this:
4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.
And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto you.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.
And in 5:19, we find:
1. That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled – was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former disobeyed God, the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
No Constantine and not centuries. The student of the student of John.
Yes, it did. It was obviously the source of the mischief that crept into the church and was anathemed by Popes. It certainly did not originate with the Church. It serves no purpose, other than giving glory to Mary which Christ went out of his way NOT to do.
Hardly. We do not glorify Mary. We think rather highly of her, though, as did the earliest Christians.
I was in Seminary in the early 70's. All the good 'critical' work was out there. Much of it was very plausible. And a great deal was very helpful
But when I got out into the trenches, this was my alleged thinking:
The Church gives me this collection of writings. The Church tells me it is unlike any other collection of writings.
It may be true, it may be interesting that the Apostle Peter did not write the Petrine Epistles, or not both of them. It may be true that this or that section of Mark and/or John is unattested in the earlier MSs.
But this is what the Church has given me. I cannot, without setting myself above the Church, say, "Well we don't have to pay attention to this," or "That is a later addition, so it doesn't count."
So in the exegesis part of my sermon or class prep I NOTED what the scholars said. I took it seriously. But I preached on the text as it was given to me to preach on, not on the Mad Dawg "improved" text.
I guess I was doomed to be Catholic. it seems to me the Bible comes to us as the Queen of traditions -- of things handed down. She is attended by other traditions which assist in making her known, as a queen might be attended by ladies, some competent, some not so much.Which adds up to: I don't care who wrote which bits. I mean, I'm interested, but I don't care.
Is that wrong? ;-)
Augustine … specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”
Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome). http://aristophrenium.com/fisher/was-mary-sinless/