Church Fathers & Medievals on the Immaculate Conception

An EXTENSIVE list of 150+ Patristic & Medieval quotes undermining the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception

Introduction

If you have Roman Catholic friends and you like having conversations with them about the areas of theological commonality and disagreement between your traditions, the Marian dogmas are bound to come up sooner or later. While our Roman Catholic friends hold certain Marian dogmas in common with Protestants and other Ecclesialist traditions,¹ there is one doctrine which is distinctively theirs: Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

By “Immaculate Conception,” we are not referring to the virgin birth nor to Christ being conceived without sin. The Immaculate Conception refers to the Roman Catholic idea that Mary, herself, was conceived without sin and remained sinless throughout her entire life.

Here is how the Catholic Catechism describes this dogma:

“To become the mother of the Savior, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace.’ In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace. Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

‘The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.’²

The ‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’ The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her ‘in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.’ The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God ‘the All-Holy’ (Panagia) and celebrate her as ‘free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.’ By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.”

- Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition), Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, 490-493, pg. 123-124, link: https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/125/#zoom=z

Our Roman Catholic friends are incredibly fond of making grand appeals to history and the consensus of the Church’s theologians down through the ages. But could they truly argue that the consensus of the theologians is on their side when it comes to Mary’s Immaculate Conception?

Over the last couple of months, I have gathered a broad range of quotes from across church history that undermine this particular Roman Catholic Dogma (a special thank you to everyone who has helped me in this lengthy endeavor!). So, I thought it might be useful to make this post and document a significant number of them.³ Now, before you read the rest of this article, please keep the following in mind: not every single quote undermines the Immaculate Conception in the same way. Some outright say that Mary was conceived in sin. Others ascribe fault and sin to Mary during the events of the New Testament. Others affirm Mary as becoming immaculate and sinless at a point after she was originally conceived in sin. Others yet speak of Christ as the only human being ever to be born without sin (without ever making room for a caveat about Mary). None of these positions are acceptable under the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.⁴ ⁵

*Note: Please make sure to check out the copious footnotes throughout this article! In them, you can find alternate citations, the original greek/latin text, the source the quote was pulled from, added notes and context, etc… To that end, the best way to read this article is on a computer, since the footnotes are hyperlinked there.

Patristic Quotes & Testimonies

AMBROSE OF MILAN (339-397 AD)

“For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty.”

- Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59. (Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A).

“Every man is a liar, and no one is without sin except the one God. It has therefore been held that from man and woman, that is, through the mingling of their bodies, no one is thought to be without defect. But he who is without defect is also without this conception.”

- Ambrose, On Isaiah, as quoted in Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, p. 378.

“Accept me in the flesh that fell in Adam. Accept me not from Sarah, but from Mary, so that [my flesh/nature] may be an unblemished virgin, but a virgin by grace free from all stain of sin.”

- Ambrose, Commentary on Psalm 118 22.30, CSEL 62: 503–504.⁶ ⁷

AMBROSIASTER (Late 4th Century AD)

“What is it that Simeon says to Mary, the mother of the Lord, among other things, ‘This child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and a sword will pierce your own soul too, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’ (Luke 2:34-35)? Simeon, a holy man, commended by divine oracles, spoke by the Holy Spirit about what would happen to people because of Christ: He would be the cause of ruin for those who, thinking they stood firm by observing and mastering the Law, would fall because of their lack of faith in Christ’s works. They would be broken off from the promises of the Fathers. However, for those who were almost entirely unworthy of the Law, who believed in Christ, He would be their resurrection in Israel. So that those who were once unworthy and useless might become worthy of God, and those who thought themselves something would be rejected. This is also what the Lord says elsewhere: ‘I came into this world for judgment, so that the blind will see, and those who see will become blind’ (John 9:39). Indeed, it was not the teachers of the Law, the Pharisees, or the scribes who followed Christ; but rather fishermen, unlearned and simple men. Hence, the Lord says: ‘I thank You, Father, that You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children’ (Matthew 11:25). As for what Simeon adds about Mary: ‘A sword will pierce your own soul also, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed’; he was clearly signifying that even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Savior’s incarnation took place, would doubt at the death of the Lord, but only in such a way that, through the honor and power of the resurrection, she would be strengthened. For all, in some sense, doubted in awe at the death of the Lord.”

- Ambrosiaster, "Zagadnienia Nowego Testamentu" 73(77), Migne PL 35: 2267-2268; CSEL 50: 130-131⁸ ⁹

AMMONIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (3rd Century AD)

[Commenting on John 2:4] “He reproaches His mother for insistently reminding the One who, being God, does not need to be reminded of anything. It is as if He said: “Do not treat Me only as a man, but also as God. The time of My revelation has not yet come. They still do not know who I am.”

- Ammonius of Alexandria, Fragment from the Gospel of John 57, Greek text: Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche 211¹⁰

AMPHILOCHUS OF ICONIUM (c. 340-? AD)

“Many unbelievers opposed the Lord through words and deeds during His crucifixion. They gave Him vinegar to drink (cf. Mt 27:48), offered Him bitterness when He thirsted (cf. Mt 27:34), placed a crown of thorns on His head (cf. Mt 27:29), pierced His side with a spear (cf. Mt 27:49, with the reading "ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν" as found in ℵ, B, C, L, U, Γ), struck Him with their hands, and mocked Him saying: 'He saved others; He cannot save Himself' (Mt 27:42). This was what He meant when He prophesied about 'a sign that will be opposed' (Lk 2:34). Many opposed Him when Peter, who had denied the Lord (cf. Lk 22:54-62; Mt 26:69-75), and the apostles, who scattered like lost sheep (cf. Mk 14:27), turned away. In the sign of the cross, the heart of the Virgin herself was also filled with sorrow, and she too said: 'Why did I not leave earlier? Why did I wait for this day? I remained a virgin, and yet I still feel greater pain in my maternal womb.' These countless thoughts, Symeon once called a sword, as the coming offenses would pierce her heart, just as the Lord had prophesied: 'This night you will all fall away because of me' (Mt 26:31). Therefore, Symeon also added these words: 'And a sword will pierce your soul also, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed' (Lk 2:35). Note that Symeon called these countless thoughts a sword, those that wounded her innermost being and those that pierced her heart. And into this, the Virgin Mary fell, for she did not yet know the power of the resurrection, nor that she would soon witness the resurrection. After the resurrection, however, there would no longer be a double-edged sword, but joy and rejoicing. Therefore, Symeon called the sign of the cross a sign of opposition when the sword of thoughts pierced the soul of the Virgin.”

- Amphilochus of Iconium, Homily for the Presentation of the Lord, 2.8, CCSG 3: 65,67,69¹¹ ¹² ¹³

ANTIPATER OF BOSTRA (5th Century AD)

“Hail, you [Mary] who, first and alone [ἡ πρώτη καὶ μόνη], bore a child free from curse.”

- Antipater of Bostra, PG 85:1772

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (4th Century AD)

“No man is free from sin, except for Him who became a Man for our sake. For it is written: 'No one is pure from uncleanness, even if his life lasted only one day' (Job 14:4-5). The lives of the ancient righteous and patriarchs, and their conduct, were written not for us to condemn them after reading, but so that we might repent and hope to receive forgiveness. Their failings are for our security and warning, because we, if we sin and repent, will receive forgiveness, as it is written: 'Who can boast that he has a pure heart, or declare openly that he has not been defiled by sin?' (Proverbs 20:9). Therefore, no one is without sin; strive to be blameless according to your strength (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:7; 6:14), care for everyone so that no one through you may be led into sin, stumble, or perish. A layman cares only for himself, but you care for everyone; a heavier burden rests on you, and you bear a heavier load; for it is written: 'And the Lord said to Moses: You and Aaron shall bear the sins of the priesthood' (Num. 18:1).”

- Apostolic Constitutions, Book 6, Chapter 16.¹⁴ ¹⁵

ARNOBIUS THE YOUNGER (5th Century AD)

“‘Lord, who will dwell in Your tabernacle? Who will rest on Your holy mountain? He who walks without blame and does what is righteous’ (Psalm 14:1-2) [...] Every defiled person enters the Lord's tabernacle and is made pure there. Jesus, however, as the only undefiled one, entering the virgin chamber [i.e.- Mary’s womb], freed the tabernacle from bodily defilements and gave sanctification rather than receiving it.”

- Arnobius the Younger, Commentary on Psalms 14(15), CCSL 25:16.¹⁶

ASTERIUS THE HOMILIST - A.K.A: ASTERIUS OF AMASEA (4th Century AD)

“There is no one who does good" (cf. Rom 3:12) – all the disciples fled and abandoned Him. John fled naked (cf. Mk 14:51-52). Peter denied Him, the disciples fled, and the spear of doubt pierced Mary's soul. There was no one who showed the fruit of love when He suffered.”

- Homilies on the Psalms, 25.23, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Psalms 1-50, red. Craig A. Blaising, Carmen S. Hardin, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove 2008, s. 110-111; tłumaczenie własne. Tekst grecki: “Asterii Sophistae Commentariorum in psalmos quae supersunt. Accedunt aliquot homiliae anonymae”, red. Marcel Richard, Symbolae Osloenses, Fasc. Supplet. XVI, Brøgger, Oslo 1956 [TLG 2061.001].¹⁷ ¹⁸

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 296-373 AD)

“When He put on a created nature, and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and ' First-born. ' For though it was after us that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the ' First-born ' of us ; because, all men being lost according to the transgression of Adam, His Flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Lord's Body, and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after His pattern.”

- Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Arianos, Oration (or Discourse) II, section 61, Oxford Translation, pp. 367-368.¹⁹ ²⁰

“He did the works of the Father through the body, but at the same time, He took on the sensations of the body without any harm. For example, He asked, but He raised Lazarus; He rebuked His mother, saying, 'My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4), but immediately He turned water into wine. Truly, God was in the flesh, and truly the flesh was in the Logos. Therefore, through His works, He revealed Himself as the Son of God and the Father, while through the sensations of the body, He showed that He truly bore a body, and that body was His own.”

- Speeches Against the Arians 3.41, Migne PG 26: 412²¹ ²²

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430 AD)

See this footnote for an article addressing a common RC prooftext for the Immaculate Conception in Augustine:²³

“There now remains our fourth point, after the explanation of which, as God shall help us, this lengthened treatise of ours may at last be brought to an end. It is this: Whether the man who never has had sin or is to have it, not merely is now living as one of the sons of men, but even could ever have existed at any time, or will yet in time to come exist? Now it is altogether most certain that such a man neither does now live, nor has lived, nor ever will live, except the one only Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

- Augustine of Hippo, NPNF (V1-05), A TREATISE ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, Book II, Chapter 34, pg. 184, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Peccatorum_Meritis_Et_Remissione_Et_De_Baptismo_Parvulorum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

“He, therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal²⁴ flesh of sin. For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it. His virgin mother, therefore, whose conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh (in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, He formed in order to choose her, and chose in order to be formed from her.”

- Augustine of Hippo, NPNF (V1-05), A TREATISE ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, Book II, Chapter 38, pg. 188, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Peccatorum_Meritis_Et_Remissione_Et_De_Baptismo_Parvulorum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

“Nevertheless, the nature of Christ's humanity was not unlike our nature, but it was unlike our corruption. For He was born a man without corruption, which is true of no one among humans. [...] For this reason, there is no human being apart from Him who has not sinned upon reaching maturity, because there is no human being apart from Him who has been free from sin from the very outset of infancy.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, 5.15.57, PL 44: 815.²⁵

“Since through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and in this way it passed to all people, until the end of this passing world, among the children conceived and born, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a human being in our world who could be said to have had no sin, except for the one Mediator, who reconciled us with the Creator through the forgiveness of sins.”

- Augustine of Hippo, “On merits, forgiveness of sins, and the baptism of children”, 2.47²⁶

“Let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. There is only one who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived sinlessly among the sins of others, and who died without sin because of our sins. "Do not turn to the right or to the left." For if you turn to the right, you deceive yourself, saying that you are without sin; but if you turn to the left, you surrender to sin, considering yourself blameless in your perversity and immoral recklessness. Indeed, God knows the paths to the right, because He Himself is without sin and is able to erase our sins. The paths to the left are perverse, aligned with sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, “On merits, forgiveness of sins, and the baptism of children”, 2.57²⁷

“Therefore, He alone, becoming man and yet remaining God, never committed sin and did not take on sinful flesh, although He took His flesh from the sinful flesh of His mother. Whatever He took from her body, He either purified it before taking it on or purified it by taking it on.”

- Augustine of Hippo, “On the punishments for sins and their forgiveness, and on the baptism of children”, 2.24.38, Migne PL 44: 174-175, w: Answer to the Pelagians, t. I/23, red. John E. Rotelle, New York 1997, s. 106.²⁸ ²⁹

“Do not be surprised, however, by the fact that in the written response I have attached to this letter, my friend mentions two books I sent, to which—he claims—he could not reply because he had no free time. Only one of them addresses this issue, not both; in the second, I discuss and ask for his opinion on another matter. When he encourages and urges that we rather make efforts to remove this harmful heresy from the churches, he is indeed referring to the Pelagian heresy, which you must wisely avoid. To this, as far as I can, I draw your attention, brother, so that when thinking about or discussing the origin of souls, you do not lose the conviction that it is necessary to believe that EVERY SOUL, EXCEPT THE ONE MEDIATOR, TAKES UPON ITSELF ORIGINAL SIN FROM ADAM. It is burdened by it through birth, and freed from it through rebirth.” [emphasis added]

- Augustine of Hippo, Letter 202/A.20, Migne, PL 33:937-938³⁰

“We do not hand Mary over to the Devil because of the state of her birth. We do not do this because this state is removed through the grace of rebirth.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Contra Julianum opus imperfectum, Migne PL45: 1418³¹ ³² ³³

“He said, “I became like a man without help, free among the dead” (Ps 88:5-6). In these words, the person of the Lord is most clearly revealed. For who else is free among the dead, if not He who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, was alone without sin among sinners? Therefore, to those who foolishly considered themselves free, He said: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” And since through Him who had no sin, it was necessary to be freed from sin, He said: “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:34-35).”

- Augustine of Hippo, Enarrationes in Psalmos 87.5, Migne, PL 37:1111³⁴

“Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: ‘It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.’”

– Augustine of Hippo, NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin.

“Accordingly, the body of Christ was truly assumed from the woman's flesh, which is from her sinful flesh propagated from her conception. Nevertheless, because his body does not follow her conception in this way, he is not her sinful flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh.”

- Augustine of Hippo, PL 34:422.

“Since then through the Death of Christ that debt of death is cancelled, which was contracted through propagation, not by one or some souls but by the soul universally , then, – if you can maintain that souls are in such wise foreign to the propagation, as yet, by rightest reason, to be shown to be bound by that debt, which is to be cancelled by the Death of Christ alone, and to appear justly bound, not by being themselves propagated but by this debt of the flesh, – not only maintain this, unhindered by any, but show us too how we may maintain it with you. [...] But that you, beloved, may hear from me too something defined on this question, it is to be estimated as of no slight moment, nay, it is of chief necessity and to be maintained, that whatsoever be the origin of souls, whether they be propagated from that one or from no other, it is not lawful to doubt that the Soul of the Mediator derived no sin from Adam. For if no soul is propagated from another, when all are held bound by the propagated flesh of sin, how much less is it to be believed that His Soul could come from the propagation of a sinful mother [ or soul, peccatricis], Whose Flesh came from a virgin, conceived not by passion but by faith, so that It should be in 'the likeness of flesh of sin, ' not in flesh of sin ! But if other souls are therefore held bound by the sin of the first soul, because they are propagated from it, That which the Only Begotten fitted for Himself, either did not contract sin thence, or was not derived from it at all. For He, Who loosed our sins, could not but be able to derive to Himself a soul without sin, or He, Who created a new soul for that flesh, which without a parent He made from the earth [Adam's ] , could not but be able to create a new soul for that Flesh, which, without aid of man, He took from a woman.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Epistula (Letter) 190, Addressed to Optatus, Section 24.³⁵ ³⁶ ³⁷

“The Word, Which was made Flesh, was in the beginning, and was God with God. But His very participation of our lower nature, in order that ours might participate of His Higher, held a sort of mediety even in the birth of the flesh, in that we were born in the flesh of sin , but He ' in the likeness of flesh of sin ;' we, not only of flesh and blood, but also of the will of man and the will of the flesh ; but He was born, only of flesh and blood, not of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.' And therefore we went to death for sin ; He went to death for us without sin. – He then Alone, even when made Man, abiding God, never had any sin, nor took flesh of sin, although from His mother's flesh of sin . For what of flesh He took from her, He cleansed it, either when He was about to take it, or by taking it [Aut suscipiendum mundavit, aut suscipiendo mundavit].”

- Augustine of Hippo, De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, Book II, Chapter 24, Section 38, Benedictine edition, Volume 10, pg. 60-61³⁸

“Levi was there [in the loins of Abraham] according to that ' ratio seminalis, ' whereby he was through concumbency to pass into his mother ; in which manner the Flesh of Christ was not there, although, according to it, the flesh of Mary was there. Wherefore neither Levi nor Christ were in the loins of Abraham according to the soul ; but according to the flesh both Levi and Christ ; yet Levi, according to carnal concupiscence, but Christ, according to the bodily substance alone. For since there is in the seed both visible corpulency and an invisible mode, both continued on from Abraham, nay, from Adam himself to the body of Mary, because it too was conceived and had its origin in that manner. But Christ took the visible substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin, yet the mode of His Conception was not from human seed, but it came far differently and from above.

- Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book 10, chapter 20, Section 35, Benedictine edition, Volume 3, pg. 270.³⁹

“And what more undefiled than that womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from the layer of sin, yet did not conceive from the layer of sin, so that that law, which, being in the members of the body of death, warreth against the law of the mind, should not have sowed even the Body of Christ Himself in the womb of Mary.-Accordingly the Body of Christ, although It was taken from the flesh of a woman who had been conceived from that layer of the flesh of sin, yet, because It was not so conceived in her as she had been conceived, neither was It flesh of sin, but ' likeness of flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book 10, chapter 18, Section 32, Benedictine edition, Volume 3, pg. 268-269.⁴⁰

“Perhaps he calls the mortality of His flesh sackcloth . Why sackcloth ? On account of ‘the likeness of the flesh of sin.’ For the Apostle says, ‘God sent His Son into the likeness of flesh of sin, that from sin He might condemn sin in the flesh .’ - Not that there was sin, I say not in the Word of God, but neither, I say, in that Holy Soul and Mind itself of that Man Whom the Word and Wisdom of God had co-aptated to unity of Person with Himself: but neither, again, in that Body Itself was there any sin; but the ‘likeness of the flesh of sin’ there was in the Lord; for death is not, save from sin, and that Body was in truth mortal. For unless It were mortal, It would not die; if It died not, It would not rise again; if It did not rise again, It would not show us an example of eternal life. So then death, which is caused by sin, is called sin, as, by ‘the Greek tongue,’ the Latin tongue, ‘we mean, not the member of the body, but what is done by the member of the body.’ So then, sin of the Lord is what is made from sin, because He took flesh thence, from that very mass which had deserved death for sin. For, to speak more concisely, Mary from Adam died on account of sin; Adam died on account of sin, and the Flesh of the Lord from Mary died for the effacing of sins.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Exposition on Psalm 34, Sermon 2, Section 3, Volume 4, pg. 239-240.⁴¹

“Lo, whence original sin is derived ( Gen. iii . 7) ; lo, whence no one is born without sin . Lo, why the Lord did not will so to be conceived, Whom a Virgin conceived. He loosed it, who came without it ; He loosed it, Who did not come from it.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 294, De Baptismo Parvulorum, Section 11, Volume 5, pg. 1188.⁴²

“Christ has no sin; he neither contracted original sin, nor added any of his own; he came quite apart from the pleasure of fleshly desire, there was there no marital embrace. From the body of the virgin he did not receive the wound, but the medicine; he did not receive something to be healed, but something to heal with; I'm saying this just as far as sin is concerned. So he alone is without sin; how then can those be his members, of whom none is without sin? How? Listen to the comparison that follows: ‘And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life’ (Jn 3: 14-15). Why were you supposing that sinful human beings cannot become members of Christ, of the one, that is, who had no sin whatsoever? You were moved by the bite of the serpent.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 294: “ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, AGAINST THE PELAGIANS,” Section 11, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for this 21st Century, Part III, Volume 8: Sermons 273-305A, NY: New City Press (1994), pg. 187, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-273-305.pdf⁴³ ⁴⁴

“Adam was the first to receive the bite of the serpent with its poison; so the one born in the flesh of sin is saved in Christ through the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3). God, you see, sent his Son, not in the flesh of sin, but, as the one who wrote this continues, in the likeness of the flesh ofsin; because born not of a marital embrace, but of a virginal womb. He sent him in the likeness of the flesh of sin—what for? In order thatfrom sin he might condemn sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3); from sin, sin, from the serpent, the serpent. Can there be any doubt, after all, that under the name of serpent sin is being referred to? So, from sin, sin, from the serpent, the serpent; but from the likeness of it, because in Christ there is no sin, but only the likeness of the flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 294: “ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, AGAINST THE PELAGIANS,” Section 13, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for this 21st Century, Part III, Volume 8: Sermons 273-305A, NY: New City Press (1994), pg. 188, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-273-305.pdf⁴⁵ ⁴⁶

“Don't promise them [babies] eternal life without this faith, and without that sacrament of this faith [i.e.- baptism]. But whoever lacks faith in the Son, and whoever does not believe in the Son, does not have life, but the wrath of God abides upon him. He didn't say, ‘will come upon him,’ but abides upon him. He was looking back at the origin when he said, the wrath of God abides upon him. The apostle too was looking back at it when he said, We too were once by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). We aren't accusing nature. God is the author of nature. Nature was set up by God as good; but through ill-will it was vitiated by the serpent. That's why what was in Adam a matter of fault, not of nature, has now become for us, his progeny, a matter of nature. From this vice of nature, with which human beings are born, only the one who was born without the vice can set them free. From this flesh of sin the only one who can set us free is the one who was born without sin through the likeness of the flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 294: “ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, AGAINST THE PELAGIANS,” Section 14, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for this 21st Century, Part III, Volume 8: Sermons 273-305A, NY: New City Press (1994), pg. 189, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-273-305.pdf⁴⁷ ⁴⁸

“This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins. Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin, unless, indeed, it be born again in Him whom the Virgin conceived without this concupiscence. Wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in the flesh, He alone was born without sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia (On Marriage and Concupiscence), Book I, chapter 27, section 27, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xvi.v.xxvii.html ⁴⁹

“There remains the Pelagian; not that it's the only heresy left, but out of the ones I mentioned a short while ago. As I said before, who could possibly count how many of these pests there are? ‘What do you say, Mr. Pelagian?’ Listen to what he says; he seems to confess that Christ has come in the flesh, but examine him carefully, and he’s found to deny it. Christ, you see, came in the flesh, which would be the likeness of the flesh of sin, but would not actually be the flesh of sin. They are the apostle’s words: God sent his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3). Not in the likeness of the flesh, as though his flesh wasn't flesh; but in the likeness of the flesh of sin, because it was flesh, but was not the flesh of sin. Now this Pelagian tries to equate all the other flesh of every infant with the flesh of Christ. It's not like that, dearly beloved. The likeness of the flesh of sin in Christ would not be emphasized as being so important, unless all other flesh were the flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 183: “AGAIN ON THE WORDS OF THE FIRST LETTER OF JOHN 4:2,” Section 12, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for this 21st Century, Part III, Volume 5: Sermons 148-183, NY: New City Press (1992), pg. 342, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-148-183.pdf⁵⁰ ⁵¹

“Why did you strive by elaborate arguments to arrive at the sea of ungodliness revealed in your words: 'The flesh of Christ, because He was born of Mary, whose flesh like that of all the rest came from propagation from Adam, will not differ from sinful flesh, and we should not find any distinction expressed in the Apostle's words 1 that He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh'? You dare insist: There is no sinful flesh, lest the flesh of Christ also be this.' Then what is the likeness of sinful flesh, if there is no sinful flesh? You say I have not understood the Apostle's meaning; but neither have I explained his words in such a way that we might believe, as you teach, that a thing resembles something non-existent. If these are the words of one demented, and it cannot be doubted that the flesh of Christ is not sinful flesh but like to sinful flesh, what remains but to hold that, excepting His flesh, all other human flesh is sinful flesh? We see, moreover, that the concupiscence through which Christ willed not to be conceived produced the propagation of evil in the the human race, for though the body of Mary was thence derived, it did not transmit concupiscence to the body it did not thence conceive. Moreover, whoever denies that the reason the body of Christ is said to be the likeness of sinful flesh is that all other flesh of men is sinful flesh, and so compares the flesh of Christ with the flesh of other men as to assert they are of equal purity, is a detestable heretic.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Contra Julianum Pelagianum (Against Julian the Pelagian), Book 5, Chapter 15, Section 52, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc. (1957), Volume 35, pg. 293, link: https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n316/mode/1up?view=theater⁵² ⁵³

“When we consider the passing of original sin to all men, we see that because it passes by means of the concupiscence of the flesh, it could not have passed to flesh that a virgin conceived, not through concupiscence.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Contra Julianum Pelagianum (Against Julian the Pelagian), Book 5, Chapter 15, Section 54, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc. (1957), Volume 35, pg. 295, link: https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n318/mode/1up?view=theater⁵⁴ ⁵⁵

“The Nature of the Man Christ was not unlike our nature, but was unlike our fault. For He was born Man without fault, which none of mankind was.”

- Augustine of Hippo in De pecc. mer. et rem. i . 9. n. 57. p. 656. ⁵⁶

“Some one will ask, If this nature is not pure, but corrupt from its origin, since Adam was not created thus, how is it that Christ, who is far more excellent, and was certainly born without any sin of a virgin, nevertheless appeared in this weakness, and came into the world in infancy? To this question our answer is as follows: Adam was not created in such a state, because, as no sin from a parent preceded him, he was not created in sinful flesh. We, however, are in such a condition, because by reason of his preceding sin we are born in sinful flesh.”

- Augustine of Hippo, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book I, Chapter 68, Translated by Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, and revised by Benjamin B. Warfield. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

“For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man, who fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state.”

- Augustine of Hippo, NPNF1-02, trans. Rev. Marcus Dods, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Book 13, Chapter 14, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/npnf102.iv.XIII.14.html ⁵⁷

“By the justice of God in some sense, the human race was delivered into the power of the devil; the sin of the first man passing over originally into all of both sexes in their birth through conjugal union, and the debt of our first parents binding their whole posterity.”

- Augustine of Hippo, NPNF1-03, trans. Arthur West Haddan, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Book 13, Chapter 12, Section 16, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103/npnf103.iv.i.xv.xii.html⁵⁸

“Christ did not want his flesh to come through such a coupling of man and woman. Rather, he who had no such concupiscence when he was conceived, took took the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3) from a virgin for our sake, in order to purify sinful flesh in us. The apostle says, As through the sin of one all entered into condemnation, so through the righteousness of one all come to the righteousness of life (Rom 5:18). For no one is born apart from the working of carnal concupiscence which is derived from the first man, who is Adam, and no one is reborn apart from the working of spiritual grace which is given through the second man, who is Christ. Hence, we belong to the first by being born, and we belong to the second by being reborn, and no one can be reborn before being born. He was certainly born in a singular way who had no need to be reborn, because he did not pass from sin, in which he never was, nor was he conceived in iniquity, nor did his mother nourish him in her womb amid sins. For the Holy Spirit came over her, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. Hence, the Holy One who was born of her is called the Son of God.”

- Augustine of Hippo, Letter 187: The Presence of God (Letter to Claudius Postumus Dardanus), Section 31, trans. Roland Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for this 21st Century, Part II, Volume 3: Letters 156-210, NY: New City Press (2004), pg. 244-245, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Letters-156-210.pdf⁵⁹

“[Adam] after his sin being made an exile, his own race also, which by sinning he had vitiated in himself, as in its root, he bound by the punishment of death and condemnation ; so that whatever progeny should be born of himself and his wife, through whom he had sinned and who was with him condemned, by carnal concupiscence, wherein was repaid a punishment like to the disobedience, should derive original sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Ep. 187 (lib . ad Dard. ), c. 26. Opp. vi . 206⁶⁰

“[Of our Lord,] It is not lawful to say that any thing of human nature was wanting in that assumption, but of nature every way free from every bond of sin ; not such as it is born from both sexes, through concupiscence of the flesh , with the bond of sin, the guilt whereof is washed away by regeneration, but such as it was fitting that He should be born of a virgin, Whom the faith of His mother, not passion, had conceived.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Ep. 187 (lib . ad Dard. ), c. 34. p . 209. See also on Psal. 1. n. 10. p.467.⁶¹

“But if it be asked, how Christ was not decimated, since He too, it is plain, according to the origin of His Flesh, was in the loins of Abraham, when that father was decimated to Melchisedek, nothing else occurs, save that Mary, His mother, of whom He took flesh, was born of the carnal concupiscence of parents, but not so did she conceive Christ, Whom she conceived not from human seed, but from the Holy Ghost. He then did not appertain to that relation of seed of man, through which they were in the loins of Abraham, whom Holy Scripture attests to have been decimated in him.. [...] Concupiscence of the flesh there either was not in Adam before he sinned, or it was vitiated in him through sin.–Either then it is itself fault, if there was none before sin, or itself was, without doubt, vitiated by sin ; and therefore original sin is derived from it . There was then in the body of Mary the fleshly matter, whence Christ took flesh, but carnal concupiscence did not sow Christ in her. Whence He was born of flesh, with flesh, yet in ‘the likeness of flesh of sin,’ not, as other men, in flesh of sin, wherefore He dissolved original sin in others by regeneration, He did not Himself contract it by generation. Therefore the one was the first Adam, Christ was the second ; for the first was made, the second was born, without concupiscence of the flesh ; but the first was only man, the second was both God and Man : and therefore the first could not- sin [i.e. could keep from sin], not, like the Second, could- not sin [i .e. was incapable of sinning].”

- Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book 6, Chapter 22, link: ⁶² ⁶³

“Why did you strive by elaborate arguments to arrive at the sea of ungodliness revealed in your words: ‘The flesh of Christ, because He was born of Mary, whose flesh like that of all the rest came from propagation from Adam, will not differ from sinful flesh, and we should not find any distinction expressed in the Apostle's words that He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh’? You dare insist: ‘There is no sinful flesh, lest the flesh of Christ also be this.’ Then what is the likeness of sinful flesh, if there is no sinful flesh? You say I have not understood the Apostle’s meaning; but neither have I explained his words in such a way that we might believe, as you teach, that a thing resembles something non-existent. If these are the words of one demented, and it cannot be doubted that the flesh of Christ is not sinful flesh but like to sinful flesh, what remains but to hold that, excepting His flesh, all other human flesh is sinful flesh? We see, moreover, that the concupiscence through which Christ willed not to be conceived produced the propagation of evil in the human race, for though the body of Mary was thence derived, it did not transmit concupiscence to the body it did not thence conceive.”

- Augustine of Hippo, The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, Against Julian, Book 5, Chapter 15, Section 52, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc. (1957), Volume 35, pg. 293, link: https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n316/mode/1up

“If you are not too obstinate, Julian, I believe you will see I have answered and refuted all the arguments you have brought forth in your four volumes to show that we should not believe in original sin and that we cannot regard the concupiscence of the flesh as evil without also condemning marriage. It has been shown that he alone is not bound by the ancient paternal debt who has changed inheritance and father; where he who is himself adopted through grace discovers the sole co-heir who is heir through nature; that carnal concupiscence does not inflict death after death on him alone who in the death of Christ has found the death by which he dies to sin and escapes the death by which he had been born in sin. ”

- Augustine of Hippo, The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, Against Julian, Book 6, Chapter 26, Section 83, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc. (1957), Volume 35, pg. 395, link: https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n418/mode/1up

CASSIODORUS (480-524 AD)

“For He [Christ] alone [Solus enim] is perceived to be without sin [absque peccato] who is also proven to have taken away the sins of mankind.”

- Cassiodorus, PL 70:992.

“‘There is no one who does good... there is not even one’ (Rom 3:12). And indeed, the only one is Christ, and without Him, human weakness has no power either to begin or complete any good thing. Thus, this statement is justified: no one can do good unless, through His mercy, we have gained Christ. When we come to Him and do not depart from Him, all good is undoubtedly accomplished.”

- Cassiodorus, Commentary on Psalms, 13(14).1, CCSL 97: 127⁶⁴ ⁶⁵

“For He alone is naturally immaculate, who had no sins. The saints are immaculate when they receive the gifts of forgiveness, as the prophet says in the fiftieth psalm: ‘You will wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.’”

- Cassiodorus, Commentary on Psalms, 118(119).1, CCSL 98: 1060⁶⁶ ⁶⁷

“‘Examine me, O God, and know my heart; test me, and know my thoughts. And see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting’ (Ps 139:23-24). No one can say this of themselves, except for the one who also says: ‘The prince of this world is coming, and he has nothing in me’ (Jn 14:30). For He alone is recognized as without sin who is also shown to have borne the sins of mankind.”

- Cassiodorus, Commentary on Psalms, 138(139).23-24, CCSL 98: 1253⁶⁸ ⁶⁹

“It is also held as an opinion by some that the most powerful Creator, just as He draws forth the seed of flesh from our body, can likewise generate a new soul from the nature of the soul itself, so that the guilt of that original sin — which the Catholic Church confesses — may be shown to be transmitted through descent, unless it is absolved by the gift of baptism. For how could an infant, who has no intention of sinning, be found guilty in any way unless some form of fault is seen to have been transmitted in the very origin of souls? Hence, the venerable Augustine, praiseworthy for his most reverent caution, says that nothing should be affirmed rashly but that it remains in God’s mystery, as there are many other things which our limited understanding cannot grasp. However, this must be firmly and truly believed: that God creates souls and, by a certain hidden and most just reason, imputes to them the guilt they bear on account of the sin of the first man. For it is better, in such hidden matters, to confess ignorance than to take on dangerous boldness — since the Apostle says: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?’ And again: ‘For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.’

But since the course of our discussion has led us to say that souls are generally guilty through the transmission of sin, it is fitting to bring forward the soul of Christ the Lord, lest anyone, perversely driven by a malicious intention, should think that He was bound by a similar condition.

Let us therefore hear how His origin was proclaimed in worthy terms to the Blessed Mary, ever virgin. The angel says: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy one who will be born from you will be called the Son of God.’

Who, I ask, could possibly believe that there was any guilt of original sin in such a majestic birth, or suspect any profane offense of the flesh? Without doubt, He came without sin, for He was the one destined to take away the sins of all. Conceived by a mystical inspiration, born of a virgin, He drew nothing from Adam, since He came to conquer the sin of Adam.

That long chain by which we were bound has been broken. The torrent that was sweeping us away has been dried up. Death has lost its power when our human condition was redeemed by the life of the Redeemer. For the first man transmitted ruin to his descendants; but Christ the Lord, by His coming, bestowed the kingdom of heaven upon those who believe.

Through Him, what was lost has been restored — He recovered the state that had been forfeited through the first man’s fault. Born in glory, living without stain, how could He possibly have inherited anything from him (Adam), whom He came by an opposing action to destroy? A holy life corresponded to a holy origin. He who was begotten without sin was not overcome by any stain of the world.”

- Cassiodorus, De Anima, Chapter IX: De Origine Animae, link: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cassiodorus/anima.shtml⁷⁰ ⁷¹

CHRYSIPPUS OF JERUSALEM (5th Century AD)

“Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: for your rest, he says, is the Virgin; whose womb is your rest, because it will become both your bed and dwelling. Arise, O Lord: for unless you rise from the Father's bosom, he says, our fallen race will not rise again. Arise, O Lord: because even if you rise, you will not be separated from the Father's glory, and coming down, you will not leave the heavens, and appearing in flesh, you will not diminish the power you have before all ages. You and the ark of your sanctification: for when you have risen from there, and sealed the ark of your sanctification, then the ark itself with all will rise from the fall, in which Eve's kinship placed it.”

- Chrysippus of Jerusalem, Patrologia Orientalis 19:338[220].⁷²

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150-215 AD)

“Our Teacher is, O children, like His God the Father, being His Son: sinless, flawless, and free from the sufferings of the soul. As the spotless God in human form, fulfilling the will of the Father, the Word, who is God, who sits at the right hand of the Father, is in the Father and is God in His own person, is for us a perfect example. He is completely free from human passions and, therefore, the only Judge, for only he is sinless. Let us therefore strive, as much as we can, to sin as little as possible. For nothing delights us more than, first of all, freeing ourselves from passions and ailments, and secondly, preventing the habit of committing the same sins. The best thing would be not to sin at all. However, we say that this belongs only to God. Furthermore, we should never commit evil deeds, which is the characteristic of the wise. Thirdly, we should not fall into numerous sins against our will, which is characteristic of well-educated people. Lastly, we should not remain in sin for long. A beneficial remedy for the contrite is to take up the fight once more.”

- Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.2.4, SC 70: 114,116, in: Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Published by the Nicolaus Copernicus University Scientific Publishing House, Toruń 2012, p. 21.⁷³ ⁷⁴ ⁷⁵

“For the Word Himself Alone is without sin ; for to sin is a thing innate ( upvrov) and common [to all]. - Clement of Alexandria in Pæd. iii. 12. T. i . p. 307. Pott.⁷⁶ ⁷⁷

“Let them tell when the child just born fornicated ; or how did it , who had worked nothing, fall under the curse of Adam. It is left to them, as it seems, to say consistently that the birth was evil, not of the body only, but of the soul also, for the sake of which is the body also. And when David says ' I was conceived in sins, and in transgressions was my mother pregnant of me,' he, as a prophet, calls Eve mother. But Eve was the mother of the living; and if he was conceived in sins, yet he was not himself in sin , nor was he himself sin. -He does not accuse Him Who said ' Increase and multiply ;' but the first impulses, from our birth according to which we know not God, he calls ungodliness.”

- Clement of Alexandria in Strom. iii . 16. T. i . pp. 556, 557. Pott.⁷⁸

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 376-444 AD)

“Christ was the first and the last man on earth who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22).”

- The Exposition of True Doctrine, 20, Migne PG 76: 1161D.⁷⁹ ⁸⁰ ⁸¹

“Undoubtedly, a chain of thoughts like this appeared in her mind: "I have conceived the One who is mocked on the cross. Indeed, He said that He is the true Son of the Almighty God, but perhaps He was deceived. Maybe He was mistaken when He said He is the Life. How did it come to pass that they crucified Him? How did He fall into the trap of murderers? Why did He not defeat the plot that His persecutors prepared against Him? Why does He not come down from the cross, although He commanded Lazarus to rise from the dead and amazed all of Judea with His miracles?" This woman, not fully understanding the mysteries, went astray by thinking in this way. We would do well to remember that the nature of those events was such that they terrified and overwhelmed even the most thoughtful minds. And it is no wonder that this woman fell into error – after all, even Peter, the chosen one of the holy disciples, when Christ plainly explained that He would be handed over to sinners, crucified, and killed, was scandalized, and then vehemently cried out: "Have mercy on Yourself, Lord! This will not happen to You" (Matt 16:22). It is no surprise then that the weak mind of this woman was overwhelmed with thoughts that revealed her frailty. By saying this, we are not speculating, as some might assume, but are guided by what has been written regarding the mother of our Lord. We recall the righteous Simeon, who, after taking the infant in his arms and blessing Him, said: "Now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation" (Luke 2:29-30), and to the holy Virgin, he said: "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign that will be opposed, and a sword will pierce your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35). By the sword, he meant the piercing pain and suffering that was to divide the woman’s mind, introducing strange thoughts – for temptations reveal the true nature of hearts, those who are tempted, so that the thoughts that filled their hearts are laid bare.”

- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 12.19.25, PG 74: 661,664.⁸² ⁸³ ⁸⁴

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (313-386 AD)

“Even if all the human languages were united, they would not be able to express even a part of God's love. What we speak of is only a fraction of what is written about God's love for mankind. We do not know how much God has forgiven the angels. For He forgave them too, BECAUSE ONLY ONE, JESUS, WHO CLEANS US FROM SIN, IS FREE FROM SIN (επειδή εις μόνος αναμάρτητος, ό τάς άμαρτίας ἡμῶν καθαριζων 'Ιησούς).”

- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 2.10, PG 33:396.⁸⁵

DIDYMUS THE BLIND (313-398 AD)

“What he [S. Paul in those words, ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’] says, is of this sort : The flesh of all men hath its being from fleshly union, except the Protoplast, and He whom the Saviour took. For otherwise it would not be the body of a man, except by union of male and female. Since then the Saviour took from the Virgin alone a Body, not having its origin from intercourse, he called the Flesh of the Lord, ‘the likeness of the flesh’ which is from intercourse. For he did not say simply that He had ‘the likeness of flesh,’ but ‘the likeness of flesh of sin. ‘But the likeness of flesh of sin’ is flesh, differing from other flesh in this alone, that It had Its being without man. But if He had taken a body through fleshly union, not having that which is different, He too would have been held to have been under sentence of that sin, to which we all, who are from Adam, have been subject through succession.”

- Didymus the Blind, C. Manich. n. 8. Gall. vi. 312.⁸⁶ ⁸⁷ ⁸⁸ ⁸⁹

EPHREM THE SYRIAN (c. 306-373)

“When His mother spoke to Him, He said to her, 'My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4). However, this [meant]: 'Yes, indeed, it has come!' She learned from Him that He was to perform a sign there. When He reproached her because she doubted Him, 'She said to the servants, 'Do whatever He tells you' (John 2:5).”

- Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on the Diatessaron 5.2, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 137: 60, Sources Chrétiennes (SC) 121: 107-108⁹⁰

“She said to Him, 'They have no more wine.' Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what does that have to do with me?' (John 2:3-4). What was wrong with what she said? She had serious doubts about His words because there was no wine there.”

- Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on the Diatessaron 5.4, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 137: 60, Sources Chrétiennes (SC) 121: 108⁹¹

“Mary hastened to be a servant of His will instead of the apostles, but because it was not for her to issue orders or anticipate His words, He rebuked her for being hasty. 'My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4), meaning they will ask for wine, and then everyone will understand that it is lacking, and only then will the miracle take place. Therefore, after His victory over Sheol, when [Mary] saw Him, she wished to express her motherly love for Him (cf. John 20:16-17).”

- Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on the Diatessaron 5.5, CSCO 137: 61, SC 121: 109⁹²

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (c. 260-339 AD)

“[On the words, ‘In sin did my mother conceive me’:] Like to these words are those in Job, ‘Cursed the day in which I was born, and the night wherein they said, Lo, a man child!’ For wherefore was it ‘cursed,’ but that he was conceived in iniquities ? For it was consequent, that curse should follow sin. Jeremiah used the like words, ‘Cursed the day in which I was born, and the night in which my mother conceived me’ For it had been blessed, that neither should the first woman, transgressing the commandment, have ministered to the corrupt birth, but should remain in paradise, likened to the angels. ‘But through envy of the devil death came into the world.’ But the birth through flesh and blood ministered to death for the abiding of the mortal race.”

- Eusebius of Caesarea in Comm. in Psalm 1. in Montf. Coll. Nova, i . 211.⁹³

EUSEBIUS OF EMESA (c. 300-359 AD)

“For no man is free from sin. Only of one man [i.e., Christ] is it testified that He did not commit sin (cf. Isaiah 53:9). Therefore, we will speak about repentance, both from the perspective of the Old and the New Testament — for these are the treasures of the Church.”

- Eusebius of Emesa, “Homily on Repentance” 1, PG 31:1475, 1476.⁹⁴ ⁹⁵ ⁹⁶

EUSEBIUS GALLICANUS (5th Century AD)

“For not even the mother of the Redeemer herself is immune from the bond of original sin; He alone, although born under obligation, is nevertheless not bound by the law of the ancient debt.”

- Eusebius Gallicanus, Second Homily on the Birth of Our Lord.⁹⁷ ⁹⁸ ⁹⁹ ¹⁰⁰ ¹⁰¹ ¹⁰²

“The Beginner of all things has His beginning from thee, and receives from thy body the Blood which was to be shed for the life of the world ; and took from thee what He should pay for thee also. For not even the Mother of the Redeemer was free from the bond of the primeval sin. He Alone, although born of an indebted [mother], is yet not held by the law of the primaeval debt.”

- Eusebius of Gaul in De Nativ. Dom. Hom. 2. Bibl. Patr. T. v. p. 1 f. 545 . Col. 1618. T. vi . p. 621. Lugd. 1677.¹⁰³

EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH (?-337 AD)

“And His mother, according to the flesh, when the wine had run out for those who were with Him, informed Him, immediately saying, 'They have no wine.' But He, having responded, said, 'What is that to you and to me, woman? My hour has not yet come.' But by the fact that He was moved to rebuke, He indicated that, as God, He knows all things and is within the divine foreknowledge, needing no one to teach Him what is happening.”

- Eustathius of Antioch, Fragment 69, "Second Prayer Before the Church", Michel Spanneut, "Research on the writings of Eustathius of Antioch with a new edition of the dogmatic and exegetical fragments," Facultés catholiques, Lille 1948, p. 117; personal translation.¹⁰⁴ ¹⁰⁵ ¹⁰⁶

EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH (?-337 AD)

“If Satan will rule over all his enemies, and all the righteous are his enemies, then Satan will rule over all the righteous. However, it is evident that he will not rule over everything, but only in some matters. For Christ alone did not sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth (cf. Ps 31:2; 1 Pet 2:22).”

- Evagrius Ponticus, "Scholia on the Psalms" 9.26, SC 614:328, in: Evagrius of Pontus, "Scholia on the Psalms," vol. 1, edited by Marie-Josèphe Rondeau, Paul Géhin, Matthieu Cassin, Éditions du Cerf, Paris 2021, p. 328.¹⁰⁷ ¹⁰⁸

FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS - a.k.a: FERRAND OF CARTHAGE (?-546 AD)

“Thus, the flesh of Christ is both similar to and dissimilar from the flesh of Mary: similar because it took its origin from her; dissimilar because it did not contract the contagion of corrupted origin from her; similar because, although voluntary, it truly experienced infirmities; dissimilar because it committed no iniquities, neither willingly nor through ignorance; similar because it was passible and mortal; dissimilar because it was incorruptible and even life-giving to the dead.”

- Fulgentius Ferrandus, Letter 3.4 Ad Antalium diaconum urbis Romae, Migne PL 67: 892¹⁰⁹ ¹¹⁰

“Therefore, the flesh of Christ taken from His mother is truly real; but it is entirely holy, because it was cleansed by union with divinity. In Christ's flesh, there is the nature of our flesh, but the fault of nature is not found. Thus, the flesh of Christ is both similar and dissimilar to Mary's flesh: similar, because it drew its origin from her; dissimilar, because it did not contract the contagion of a vitiated origin from her: similar, because, although voluntarily, it felt real weaknesses; dissimilar, because it committed no iniquities at all, neither through will nor through ignorance: similar, because it was passible and mortal; dissimilar, because it was undefiled and life-giving even to the dead: similar in kind, dissimilar in merit: similar in appearance, dissimilar in power: similar, because it is the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Apostle says: 'God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Romans 8:3).”

- Fulgentius Ferrandus, PL 67:892

FULGENTIUS OF RUSPE (c. 462-533 AD)

“That is the extent of grace that is God's achievement for all: that he came to endure sin for in Him there is no sin; conceived man and also born in the likeness of sinful flesh from sinful flesh. Indeed, from Mary's flesh (which humanity's iniquity she was necessarily conceived in, truly she was undoubtedly sinful flesh) was in whom God's son was given birth in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

- Fulgentius of Ruspe, PL 65:458

“That is the extent of grace that is God's achievement for all: that he came to endure sin for in Him there is no sin; conceived man and also born in the likeness of sinful flesh from sinful flesh. Indeed, from Mary's flesh (which humanity's iniquity she was necessarily conceived in, truly she was undoubtedly sinful flesh) was in whom God's son was given birth in the likeness of sinful flesh. […] The likeness of sinful flesh in the Son of God, or rather, when it is said that the Son of God was in the likeness of sinful flesh, must be understood as the Only-Begotten God not taking the stain of sin from the flesh of the Virgin, but receiving the entire truth of nature, so that the rise of truth might come forth from the earth, as the blessed David prophetically hints, saying: 'Truth sprang out of the earth.' Therefore, truly, the Word of God was conceived by Mary, who gave birth to Him incarnate in sinful flesh.”

- Fulgentius of Ruspe, First Letter to the Scythian Monks (Letter 17.13), CCSL 91A: 571-572¹¹¹ ¹¹² ¹¹³ ¹¹⁴

“Therefore, the Apostle also says: 'Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and in this way death passed to all men, because all sinned' (Romans 5:12). And again: 'Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam' (Romans 5:14). Therefore, this sinful man (i.e., Adam) himself subjected all his descendants to his own sin when he lost true freedom by doing evil: 'For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved' (2 Peter 2:19) and 'Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin' (John 8:34). Only the Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, was born free from this bondage, which holds children in servitude from birth. Although He was born as a true man (yet without the presence of the lust of the flesh and the union between a man and a woman, but was born of the Holy Spirit), He took true flesh from the body of His mother in such a way that, as the true God, He took human nature, without assuming the guilt of original sin of humanity.”

- Fulgentius of Ruspe, The Truth About Predestination and grace, 1.4-5, CCSL 91A: 460¹¹⁵

GELASIUS I (?-496 AD)

“Thus, being without sin is an exclusive attribute of the Immaculate Lamb. It would not be something solely His own if one were to believe that any other saint was free from sin.”

- Gelasius I, Letter 97: Against the Pelagian Heresy, Migne PL 59: 117-118; CSEL 35.1: 402.15-17.¹¹⁶

“Accordingly whatever those parents produced of their stock, is indeed the work of God, according to the institution of nature, but not without the contagion of that evil which they derived through their own transgression.”

- Gelasius I, Gelasius’ Seventh Letter (some attribute it as his Fifth Letter) to the Picenian Bishops, Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA128&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

“It belongs alone to the immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all.”

- Gelasius I, Dicta adv. Pelag. Haeresin (Sometimes cited from “Lib. contra Pelagium” as well.) Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=ARlFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA187&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

GREGORY OF NYSSA (335-395 AD)

“When, through His body, He dwelt in human nature, being in His childhood, He sanctioned submission for youth by His example, as is evident from the fact that when He grew up, He was no longer subject to His mother's authority. For when she encouraged Him at Cana in Galilee to manifest His power regarding what was lacking during the wedding and to meet the need for wine among the guests, He did not refuse to perform the kindness for those in need. However, He rejected His mother’s advice as given at an inappropriate time and said: ‘What is that to me and to you, woman? (John 2:4) Do you perhaps wish to govern my age? Has not my hour come, which grants age independence and freedom?’”

- Gregory of Nyssa, On the Words: “Then the Son Himself Will Also Be Subjected to the One Who Subjected Everything to Him” (1 Cor 15:28), Vox Patrum 38 (2018), vol. 69, p. 853; Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 3.2, ed. J.K. Downing, Brill, Leiden 1986, p. 8.¹¹⁷ ¹¹⁸

“It exceeds the capacity of human nature to have no contact with such things, but it is within its reach to rid itself of what has been acquired. Therefore, being free from all possession of the adversary is possible only for the Lord, who took on all our attributes except sin (Greek: διό τό μηδέν έσχηκέναι τών τοϋ αντικειμένου κτημάτων μόνου τοϋ κυρίου εστί τοϋ συμμετασχόντος ήμϊν τών αυτών παθημάτων χωρίς αμαρτίας). For He says: 'The ruler of this world is coming, but he has no power over me' (John 14:30). However, purification through careful repentance can also be seen in people shining with virtue. Paul rid himself of the evil possession of unbelief through prophecy (cf. Gal 2:9), which worked in him, and he became rich with the treasure he sought. Isaiah lost all impurity of word and thought through purification by God's coal and was filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. Isa 6:6f).”

- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 7 on Ecclesiastes, Homilies on Ecclesiastes, trans. Marta Przyszychowska, WAM Publishing House, Kraków 2009, p. 80. [Migne PG 44:721]¹¹⁹

GREGORY THE GREAT - BISHOP OF ROME (c. 540-604 AD)

“For we, though we are made holy, yet are: not born holy, because by the mere constitution of a corruptible nature we are tied and bound, that we should say with the Prophet, Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. But He only is truly born holy, Who in order that He might get the better of that same constitution of a corruptible nature, was not conceived by the combining of carnal conjunction.”

- Gregory the Great, Book of the Morals, an exposition of Job, Book 18, on Job 27, [Moralia 18.52.84, CCSL 143A: 948] link: http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book18.html¹²⁰ ¹²¹

“In this place, it can be understood that blessed Job, foreseeing the incarnation of the Redeemer, saw the One on earth who was not conceived from unclean seed, and who came into the world from the Virgin in such a way that He had nothing of the impure conception. For He did not come from a man and a woman, but from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Only He alone was truly pure in His Body, whom carnal pleasure could not affect, because He did not come here through carnal pleasure.”

- Gregory the Great, Moralia 11.52.70, CCSL 143A: 626-627¹²² ¹²³

“However, if we ask who among them can be without sin, we must say – no one. Who, then, is the man without sin, except He who was not conceived in sin? Therefore, the ark ends with one cubit, because only the Creator and Savior of the holy Church is without sin; He, to whom and through whom all make progress, who acknowledge that they are sinners.”

- Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel 2.4.17, CCSL 142: 271¹²⁴

“Moreover, since no one among men in this world is without sin (and what else is sinning but flying from GOD?), I say confidently that this my daughter also has some sins.”

- Gregory the Great, NPNF2: Vol. XII, Selected Epistles, Book VII, Epistle 30.¹²⁵

“The reading of the Holy Gospel is, my dearest brothers, short, but perhaps more than others, laden with the weight of mysteries. For Jesus, our Creator and Redeemer, hides the fact that He knows His mother; and He defines that His mother and relatives are those who are united to Him not through physical bonds, but through spiritual connection, saying: "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother." What else does He imply with these words, if not that He gathers many from the Gentiles who are obedient to His commands and that He does not recognize Judea, from which He was born according to the flesh? Hence, His mother—seemingly not recognized—is presented as standing outside, because, as we see, the Synagogue is no longer acknowledged by its Creator, precisely because, holding onto the outward observance of the Law, it has lost the spiritual understanding, and, in order to preserve the letter, it has permanently placed itself outside.”

- Gregory the Great, Homily 3.1 on the Gospel of Matthew, CCSL 141: 20-21¹²⁶ ¹²⁷ ¹²⁸

“And what a thing it would be, were we to neglect for the salvation of the soul what we carefully attend to in matters of earthly concern! And so, since, according to the words of the Apostle John, no one is without sin, let us call to mind enticements of thought, incontinence of tongue, deeds of transgression; and let us, while we may, with great knocking, do away with the stains of our iniquities, that our just and loving Redeemer may not execute vengeance according to our deservings, but according to His mercy be bent to pardon.”

- Gregory the Great, NPNF2: Vol. XIII, Selected Epistles, Book XII, Epistle 1.

HILARY OF POITIERS (310-367 AD):

“A sword will pierce the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. If the Blessed Virgin, capable of the severity of judgment, is to come in judgment, who would dare to desire to be judged by God?”

- Hilary of Poitiers, Treatise on Psalm 118, 3.12; CSEL 22: 384, in: Hilary of Poitiers, "Treatise on Psalm 118," Scientific Publishing House UKSW, Warsaw 2017, p. 64.¹²⁹ ¹³⁰ ¹³¹

“And because all of this was said with the authority of the Father, when He [Jesus] was told that His Mother and brothers were waiting outside, He extended His hand toward the disciples and replied that they were His brothers and mother, and that whoever does the will of the Father is His brother, sister, and mother. Thus, He sets Himself as an example for how to act and think, establishing that from now on, the right and name of kinship would not be based on blood relations but on communion with the Church. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that He thought disrespectfully of His Mother, as He showed great care for her during His Passion. The fact that His Mother and brothers stood outside, even though they had, like others, free access to Him, holds a deeper typological meaning. Since He came to His own, and His own did not recognize Him, His Mother and brothers represent a prophetic image of the Synagogue and the Israelites, who reject His coming and deny access to Him.”

- Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 12.24, Migne PL 9: 993¹³² ¹³³ ¹³⁴

JEROME OF STRIDON (347-420 AD):

“You are accustomed to saying that either the commandments are possible (to keep) and were rightly given by God, or they are impossible, and those who received the commandments are not to blame, but the one who gave what is impossible. Did God command me to be what God is? That there should be no difference between me and the Lord the Creator? That I should be greater than the glorious angels? That I should have what the angels do not have? It is written about this as something that belongs only to Him: 'Who did no iniquity, neither was deceit in His mouth' (Isaiah 53:9). If this is also common to me with Christ, then what will be only His? For otherwise, your argument collapses by itself.”

- Jerome of Stridon, Letter 133, 8, Migne PL22: 1156¹³⁵ ¹³⁶ ¹³⁷

“"And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said: Behold, my mother and my brothers" (Matt 12:49). Here are my mother and brothers, those who bear me daily in the hearts of the faithful, these are my brothers, who do the works of my Father. Therefore, He did not deny His Mother, as Marcion and Manichaeus wished, so that He might be regarded as born of a phantom, but He exalted the apostles above kinship, so that we too, in comparing love, would place spirit above flesh. 'Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking you.' Some suspect that the brothers of the Lord were the sons born of another wife of Joseph, claiming this based on absurdities in the apocryphal writings and concocting a woman, some named Escha. But we, as we have written in our work against Helvidius, understand the term 'brothers of the Lord' as referring to the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Savior, children of Mary, the aunt of the Lord, who is called the mother of James the Less, Joseph, and Judas, who, in another place in the Gospel, are called the brothers of the Lord. And the whole Scripture testifies that relatives are called brothers. Let us put it another way: The Savior speaks to the crowds, and in a deeper sense, teaches the nations. His mother and brothers, that is, the synagogue and the Jewish people, are standing outside and desire to enter, but they are unworthy to hear His teaching; and when they ask and seek, and send a messenger, they receive the response that they have free will. They may enter if they wish and believe. However, they will not be able to enter unless they ask others.”

- Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 2.12.49, Migne PL26: 84-85¹³⁸ ¹³⁹

JOHN IV, BISHOP OF ROME (240-320 AD)

“And, first, it is the foolish talking of blasphemy to say that man is without sin; which no one can any wise be, save the one Mediator between God and man, i.e. the Man Christ Jesus, Who was conceived and born without sin. For the rest of men, being born with original sin, are known, even if they be without actual sin, to bear the testimony of the transgression of Adam, according to the Prophet, who saith, ‘ For behold I was conceived in iniquities, an in sins did my mother conceive me.’”

- John IV, Epistola I, ad Episcopos et Presbyteros Scotiae, PL 80:602B-C; see John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, or Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church (Nashotah, WI: The Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888), p. 22., Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA145&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

“And first of all, it is a foolish blasphemy to say that there is a man without sin; this is only possible for one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who was conceived and born without sin. For other men, though they may be without actual sin, are born with original sin, bearing the testimony of Adam's transgression, as the prophet says: ‘Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.’”

- John IV (Bishop of Rome), Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum 2.19, Migne PL 95: 114¹⁴⁰ ¹⁴¹

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 347-407 AD)

“Today, however, we learn something else, something greater: that even carrying Christ in the womb and giving birth to such a marvelous child brings no benefit if one does not have virtue. This is primarily evident from the words of the Gospel. 'While He was still speaking to the crowds,' it says, 'someone said to Him, 'Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You'' (Mt 12:46,47). He responded, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?' (Mt 12:48). He did not say this out of shame for His mother or to disown her — for if He had been ashamed, He would not have come through her womb — but to show that no benefit comes to her from this, unless she fulfills all that is required. What she tried to do now was from excessive vanity. She wanted to show the crowd that she had authority and could command her son, not yet thinking of Him in a truly great way. Therefore, she came at the wrong time. Notice the madness of both them and her. She should have entered and listened with the crowds, or, if they would not allow it, waited until He had finished His speech and then approached. They called Him from outside the house, doing so in front of everyone, manifesting their excess of vanity to show that they commanded Him with great authority. The evangelist emphasizes this with reproach, for he subtly hints at this by saying, 'While He was still speaking to the crowds' (Mt 12:46), as though saying, 'Was there no time at another moment? Could you not have spoken to Him privately?' What did they want to talk about anyway? If it was about the truth of His teaching, it should have been brought up publicly and said before everyone, so that others could also benefit. If it was about other matters concerning themselves, they should not have been in such a hurry. Since He did not allow the burial of His father, so as not to interrupt following Him (cf. Mt 8:21-22), how much more should His speech to the crowd not have been interrupted for trivial matters? It follows from this that they acted out of vanity.”

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 44.1, Migne PG 57: 464-465¹⁴² ¹⁴³

“When they approached Him as if He were an ordinary man, filled with vanity, He healed their sickness without insulting them but by giving them instruction. Consider not only the words themselves, which contain a slight rebuke, but the absurd arrogance of His brothers, and the fact that the one who was rebuking was not an ordinary man but the Only-Begotten Son of God (cf. Jn 3:18; 1:18). Why did He rebuke them? Because He did not want to leave them in uncertainty, but to free them from the most dreadful passion and in a short time lead them to the right knowledge of Himself and convince them that He is not only her Son, but also her Lord.”

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew 44.1, Migne PG 57: 465¹⁴⁴

“Even the Virgin who bore Him in her womb did not know the ineffable mystery, nor did His brothers believe in Him, nor did the one who appeared to be His father have any understanding of His greatness.”

- John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 49(50).1, Migne PG 55: 242¹⁴⁵ ¹⁴⁶ ¹⁴⁷

“For these reasons, the Virgin says nothing, and the angel appears at the appropriate time. So why, you might ask, did He not do the same with the Virgin and announce this to her after the conception? To prevent her from feeling fear and great distress. For it was not permissible for her to make some dreadful decision regarding herself in ignorance of the situation, nor to resort to a sword or a rope, unable to bear the shame. The Virgin was admirable, and her virtue is portrayed by Luke, who says that upon hearing the greeting, she was not immediately filled with joy nor did she believe the words but was troubled, asking what this greeting could mean (cf. Lk 1:29). Therefore, if she was so prudent, despair would have overwhelmed her at the thought of the shame, since she could not have expected to convince anyone, by speaking of it, that what she had conceived was not conceived in adultery.”

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 4.5, Migne PG 57: 45¹⁴⁸ ¹⁴⁹ ¹⁵⁰

“How then did His mother become aware of the greatness of her Son? you may ask. Although it is known that He only recently began to appear and was just now announced by John (John 1:19-34), and also by His own words spoken to His disciples (John 1:35-51), even before all of this, the very conception and events surrounding the birth of Christ made her aware of the greatness of her Son. She heard all these things about her Son, the Evangelist says, "and kept them in her heart" (cf. Luke 2:51). So why, you may ask, did she not mention these things earlier? Because, as I have already said, at that time He had just begun His public ministry. Indeed, He lived earlier as though He were an ordinary man; therefore, His mother did not dare to mention anything like that to Him. But when she heard that John had come for His sake and had testified about Him, as he did, and that He had disciples, she was finally encouraged and called Him, and when the wine ran out, she said, "They have no wine" (John 2:3). She wanted to bless them and make herself more renowned through her Son (gr. ἑαυτὴν λαμπροτέραν ποιῆσαι διὰ τοῦ παιδός). Thus, perhaps she experienced something human (gr. ἀνθρώπινον ἔπασχε), for even His brothers, who said, "Show yourself to the world" (John 7:4), wanted to gain glory through His miracles. For this reason, He sharply replied to her (gr. αὐτὸς σφοδρότερον ἀπεκρίνατο), saying, "What does this have to do with me, woman? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4). However, to prove that He greatly honored His mother, listen to Luke, who tells us how He was obedient to His parents (cf. Luke 2:51), and to John the Evangelist, who showed how much He cared for her even during the crucifixion (cf. John 19:25-27). When parents in no way hinder the performance of God's will – nor forbid it – it is necessary and proper to be obedient to them, and failing to do so is very dangerous. But if ever they make an unreasonable request and stand in the way of spiritual good, obedience to them is not safe. And that is why He responded as He did. Also, elsewhere He said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" (Mark 3:33). They did not yet have the proper understanding of Him (gr. Οὐδέπω γὰρ ἣν ἐχρῆν περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαν εἶχον), and because she was His mother, like other mothers, she thought she had the right to command Him in everything, while her duty was rather to honor and worship the One who is her Lord. Therefore, He answered as He did. In fact, imagine how it must have looked when the whole crowd and the entire multitude stood around Him, absorbing every word He spoke, while His mother came and tried to pull Him away from His preaching (gr. ἀπαγαγεῖν μὲν αὐτὸν τῆς παραινέσεως), wanting to speak with Him privately—not to go in, but to bring Him out to her. That is why He said, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" (Mark 3:33). He said this not out of contempt for His mother—God forbid—but in order to help her the most and not allow her to think of Him beneath His dignity (gr. καὶ οὐκ ἀφιεὶς ταπεινὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ φρονεῖν). For since He cared for others and took every effort to ensure they had the proper understanding of His person, He would certainly do this even more for His mother. […] Therefore, He rebuked her (gr. ἐπετίμησε), saying, "What is this between me and you, woman?" (John 2:4) – to instruct her (gr. παιδεύων αὐτὴν), so that she would not do the same in the future. Although He certainly wanted both Himself and His mother to be respected, He cared much more for the salvation of her soul (gr. πολλῷ δὲ πλέον τῆς σωτηρίας τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν) and the benefit of humanity, for whom He took on flesh.”

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, 21.2-3, PG 59: 130.¹⁵¹ ¹⁵²

“John presents Christ here saying, 'My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4), in order to show that He was not yet known to the majority of people and that He did not yet have a full circle of disciples. Only Andrew and Philip followed Him, and no one else. Even they did not know Him as they should have, nor did His Mother or His brothers, for even after many miracles, the Evangelist said of His brothers: 'Even His brothers did not believe in Him' (John 7:5).”

- John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 22.1, PG 59: 134.¹⁵³ ¹⁵⁴

JUSTIN MARTYR (100-165 AD)

“He was born of a Virgin so that by the same path that the disobedience provoked by the serpent had begun, it might also end by the same path. For Eve, being an incorrupt virgin, by accepting the word of the serpent gave birth to disobedience and death, while the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the good news that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would cast his shadow over her, and therefore the holy one who would be born of her would be the Son of God. She answered: "Let it be done to me according to your word" (cf. Lk 1:38). From her was born He to whom, as I have already shown, the Scriptures referred, and through whom God will destroy the serpent and angels and men like him, and will also avert death from those who repent, turn from their evil deeds and believe in Him.”

- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100.4-6, Migne PG6: 709-712.¹⁵⁵ ¹⁵⁶

“For the other nations do not oppose themselves so unjustly as you do against us and Christ, and yet you are guilty of the fact that the other nations are prejudiced against the Righteous One and against us, his disciples. So after his crucifixion, the only innocent and just man, through whom the wounds of those who through him draw near to the Father were healed, and after you heard that he had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies had said he would come to be, not only did you not repent of the evil you had done, but you sent men chosen for this purpose from Jerusalem to preach throughout the world the ungodly heresy of the Christians, to accuse us of the charges brought against us by all who do not know us.”

- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 17.1, Migne PG6: 512-513¹⁵⁷ ¹⁵⁸

LEO THE GREAT (401-461 AD)

“Or as justice was everywhere failing and the whole world was given over to vanity and wickedness, if the Divine Power had not deferred its judgment, the whole of mankind would have received the sentence of damnation. But wrath was changed to forgiveness, and, that the greatness of the Grace to be displayed might be the more conspicuous, it pleased God, to apply the mystery of remission to the abolishing of men’s sins at a time when no one could boast of his own merits.”

- Leo the Great, Third Sermon on the Epiphany (Sermon 33), Chapter 1, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xviii.html

“And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succor the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’”

- Leo the Great, Eighth Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 28), Chapter 3, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360328.htm

“There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all. [...] And in this conflict undertaken for us, the fight was fought on great and wondrous principles of fairness; for the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, “no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.” Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered. A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body.”

- Leo the Great, First Sermon on Nativity (Sermon 21), Chapter 1, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.x.html

“And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception.”

- Leo the Great, Second Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 22), Chapter 3. Link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xi.html

“...when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.”

- Leo the Great, Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5. Link: http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2009/12/christmas-sermon-25-of-leo-the-great/

“And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succor the fallen, and that was thatone of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?’”

- Leo the Great, Eighth Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 28), Chapter 3, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360328.htm

“In this struggle undertaken for us, a great and marvelous contest of justice was fought, as the almighty Lord faced the fiercest enemy, not in His majesty, but in our humility, presenting to him the same form and the same nature—sharing in our mortality, but entirely free from sin. For it is alien to this unique birth what is written about all others: "No one is clean from defilement, not even an infant whose life is but one day on earth." Nothing of the desire of the flesh passed into this singular birth, nothing of the law of sin flowed from it.”

- Leo the Great, Sermon 21.1 on the Nativity of the Lord, Migne PL 54: 191¹⁵⁹ ¹⁶⁰

LEONTIUS OF BYZANTIUM (470-543 AD)

“Regarding the fact that the body of the Lord suffered for us, my friend, we speak in two ways. First, suffering occurred because the Word allowed it (for it could have prevented it, but it did not, as the great Athanasius notes). Secondly, because it was revealed that He is above all sin, He did not have to die for His own sake. Death entered the world primarily because of sin and penetrated all human nature, ‘for, as Paul writes, all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12). Indeed, there has never been, nor will there ever be, a human soul free from deliberate or inadvertent sin; even the souls of the saints – I must emphasize – certainly acknowledge some slight stain of sin, if not in actions, at least in thoughts. We can clearly see this in the teaching of our Lord, who says, ‘The prince of this world is coming, but he has no claim on me’ (John 14:30). By saying ‘in me’ and ‘nothing,’ He clearly demonstrated that only He remained free from all sin, even the sin committed in thought.”

- Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogue against those who profess the false doctrine of the Aphthartodoketists, PG 86: 1332¹⁶¹ ¹⁶² ¹⁶³

MARK THE ASCETIC - a.k.a.: MARK THE HERMIT, MARCUS EREMITA (360-430 AD)

“Let us suppose, therefore, that some were found free from these things, and from their birth, alien to all vice: (which indeed cannot happen, since Paul says: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace’) nevertheless, even if they were such, they still draw their origin from Adam, and all were subject to the sin of transgression, and therefore condemned by the capital sentence, so that they could not be saved without Christ. But when Christ was crucified, and redeemed all by His own blood; then they too are redeemed. Then, the Redeemer himself also sets one boundary for all, containing all things, and says to the Apostles: ‘Say to them, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”

- Mark the Ascetic, On Penitence.

MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR (579-662 AD)

“The breaking of the legs (cf. John 19:32; Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27) signifies that there is no one who dies without guilt and is not weighed down by sin—only the Lord died untouched and without any sin.”

- Maximus the Confessor, Quaestiones et Dubia, 118, CCSG 10: 86¹⁶⁴ ¹⁶⁵

“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! For the fruits of other women were under the curse from the original sin of Adam and Eve, and by carnal marriage and the corruption of sin they entered into the world. But the fruit of your womb alone is blessed, for he was conceived neither by the seed of a man nor by the corruption of sin, but without seed and in incorruption he put on flesh from you. And he committed no sin at all, and no guile was found in his mouth (1 Pet 2.22). And not only is he blessed and sinless, but by the grace of his divinity, he gave blessedness to the nature of humanity, which had been punished by the curse, and the most-blessed Lamb of God took away the sins of the world. Then the wonderful Mary, adorned with every grace, as she surpassed nature in every aspect, being a mother and a virgin, so also here, as she was a cause of prophecy for others, she herself thus spoke words full of prophecy, full of grace and prayer and theology, for she was full of the Holy Spirit, as the evangelist informs us: “Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden. Behold, from now on every generation will call me blessed’” (Luke 1.46–48). Her soul was filled with all humility, meekness, and fear of God, and that is why God her Savior had regard for her.”

- Maximus the Confessor, The Life of the Virgin [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012], Chapter 2, pg. 57, link: https://ia902906.us.archive.org/7/items/symbolism-encyclopedia/The%20Life%20of%20the%20Virgin%2C%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor%20%20-Sephen%20J.%20Shomaker.pdf ¹⁶⁶

“And as other words and deeds of prophecy are hidden and unknown to many, so is this matter as well, for not every first-born child was holy to the Lord, as Cain and Reuben and Esau and many others both before and after bear witness. And moreover it is not the case that every firstborn child opens the womb, but the woman’s womb is opened by the man’s bed, and the virginity is corrupted, and only later is the child born, and it comes forth from an already open womb. Nevertheless, if every first-born is holy from birth, how is this saying of prophecy ordained, “Behold, I was conceived in lawlessness, and in sin my mother brought me forth” (Ps 50.7), for not only birth but also conception is accomplished according to the order and form of sin, even if since the Fall from Paradise the ordinance of the Law has made a pardon concerning this matter? Then again, even if we had observed the creator’s commandment, and the propagation of our race had been ordained in another manner and not in corruption and pain, it is still clear that it is not the case that every first-born child would be called holy before the Lord. But there is only one child that is first-born and holy before the Lord, the one whose conception took place not through desire and the male seed—certainly not!—but through grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and his birth took place not in corruption and pain but through the power and wisdom of the most high God. That is why the child was born holy, and the Holy of Holies according to the words of Isaiah. And not only was the holy womb opened by his birth, but it remained closed, as Ezekiel, the seer of invisible things, said, “This gate will be closed, and it will not be opened, and no one will go forth through it, but the Lord God of Israel alone will enter in and come out through it, and the gate will be closed” (Ezek 44.2). Truly, then, in both cases it remained closed and sealed, before the conception and at the conception, and after the conception and after the birth. But how was it both closed and open, inasmuch as it says, “every child that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”? According to the nature of virginity it was closed and unopened, but by the power of the one born, every closure of nature is open and obedient before him. Who else is there, then, who himself opened the mother’s womb and kept it closed except the very one whose conception and birth is ineffable, supernatural, and incomprehensible? Behold, then, the truth of the prophecy, for it said that he will be called not just holy, but holy to the Lord. About whom else was it said that he was from birth called holy to the Lord except the one whose primogeniture was described by the angel of the Lord: “the one who is born will be called holy and the son of the Most High” (cf. Luke 1.32, 35)? What was likewise said about him, however, that every child that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord, this was so that the power of the words would be partly hidden in the words that were spoken, for this mystery is truly the most hidden of all mysteries.”

- Maximus the Confessor, The Life of the Virgin [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012], Chapter 4, pg. 75-76, link: https://ia902906.us.archive.org/7/items/symbolism-encyclopedia/The%20Life%20of%20the%20Virgin%2C%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor%20%20-Sephen%20J.%20Shomaker.pdf ¹⁶⁷

NILUS OF ANCYRA - a.k.a: NILUS OF SINAI (4th Century AD)

“The Son of God, Jesus Christ, did not spare Himself in order to spare us. He, who alone was without sin, died for sinners.”

- Nilus of Ancyra, Letter 1.329, Migne PG 79: 201¹⁶⁸

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (185-253 AD)

“Whosoever cometh into this world is said to be made in a certain contamination. Wherefore also Scripture saith, ' No one is clean from defilement, not even if his life be of one day.' For from the very fact, that he was placed in his mother's womb, and takes the matter of his body from the origin of his father's seed, he may be said to be contaminated in father and in mother. Or know you not, that when the male child is forty days old, it is offered at the altar, to be purified there, as having been polluted in the conception itself, either of the paternal seed or the maternal womb ? Every man, then, was polluted in father and in mother, but Jesus, my Lord, Alone entered pure into this generation ; He was not defiled in His mother. For He entered a body undefiled [being a virgin]. For He it was, Who had said long before too through Solomon, But rather, being good, I came to a body undefiled. ' He was not then defiled in His mother, but neither was He in His father. For Joseph yielded no part in His generation, except ministry and love. Wherefore also , for his faithful ministry, Scripture granted him the name of father. For so Mary herself saith in the Gospel, Behold I and Thy father have sought Thee sorrowing.' So then He alone is the great High Priest, Who was defiled neither in father nor mother.”

- Origen of Alexandria, Lev. Hom. 8., n. 3, T. ii , p. 230, ed. De la Rue.

“Thereupon Simeon says, ‘a sword will pierce your very soul.’ Which sword is this that pierced not only others’ hearts, but even Mary’s? Scripture clearly records that, at the time of the Passion, all the apostles were scandalized. The Lord himself said, ‘This night you will all be scandalized.’ Thus, they were all so scandalized that Peter too, the leader of the apostles, denied him three times. Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,’ then Mary too was scandalized at that time.”

- Origen, Homilies on Luke and Fragments on Luke, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, vol. 94, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 73.

PAULUS OROSIUS (385-420 AD)

“Pelagius imagines that he has been honored with the spirit of the fear of God, through which—after a considerable amount of drunkenness—he was recently awakened, and now he adds: 'It is possible for a man to be without sin, but not without the help of God.' Under the influence of these 'spirits,' as I believe, he does not hesitate to elevate himself to such a height of arrogance, claiming that through his own perfect power, the fullness of the Holy Spirit descended upon him, in the same way it descended upon Christ and remained in Him. However, this privilege was granted by God the Father only to Him 'whom God has given a name above every name' (Philippians 2:9) and 'who alone is without sin and walks without blemish' (cf. Psalm 15:2), and in whom 'the anointing oil itself endures' (Exodus 37:29).”

- Orosius, Letter in Defense of the Faith Against the Pelagians, 16, CSEL 5:627-628¹⁶⁹ ¹⁷⁰

PETER CHRYSOLOGUS (406-450 AD)

“Thou sayest, ' If I owe to my kind that I am born, do I also to sin, that nature should make me guilty before [my own] fault?' This thy question, the words of the Apostle answer, ' In whom all have sinned.' Whether in which man ' or ' in which sin ;' through him and in it all have sinned. Sin then is not turned into nature, but while sin brings death in, it exacts the punishment due to it by nature. For God had made nature, so as to create man to life, which, however, while it generates to death, owns itself subject to that sin, to whose punishment it is sown in life. Dost thou embrace this, that thou art justified through Christ, and reject that, that thou art condemned through Adam ? And complainest thou, that the punishment of another was against thee, who seest that the righteousness of Another healeth thee? Is not the whole tree in the seed ? The fault then in the seed is the fault of the whole tree.”

- Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 111.¹⁷¹ ¹⁷²

PROSPER OF AQUITANE (390-455 AD)

“First objection: “Our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all mankind.” Response: Against the wound of original sin, by which the nature of all mankind was corrupted and mortified in Adam, and from which the disease of all desires took root, the true, powerful, and singular remedy is the death of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. He, free from the debt of death, and alone without sin, died for sinners and those in debt to death. Therefore, in terms of the magnitude and power of the price, and in relation to the cause of humankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But those who pass through this world without the faith of Christ and without the sacrament of regeneration are excluded from this redemption. Since, therefore, by the one nature of all, and by the one cause of all, truly received by our Lord, it is correct to say that all are redeemed, yet not all have been rescued from captivity; the ownership of redemption undoubtedly belongs to those from whom the prince of this world has been cast out, and who are no longer vessels of the devil but members of Christ.”

- Prosper of Aquitane, Defense of Augustine's Doctrine Against the Objections of Vincent's Followers, 1 (434), PL 51:177-179.¹⁷³ ¹⁷⁴

“‘In a heart that is broken to the point of death’ (Ps 108:17 LXX). The contrition of the heart, characteristic of those who have turned away from their sins, does not befit Christ, who alone lived without any sin.”

- Prosper of Aquitane, Explanation of the Psalms, 108.17, CCSL 68A:54.¹⁷⁵ ¹⁷⁶

“Against the wound of original sin, by which in Adam the nature of all humans was corrupted and mortified, and from which the disease of all concupiscence has grown, the true and powerful and singular remedy is the death of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who, free from the debt of death and alone without sin, died for sinners and debtors of death. Therefore, as far as the magnitude and power of the price is concerned, and as far as it pertains to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But those who pass through this age without faith in Christ and without the sacrament of regeneration are strangers to redemption.”

- Prosper of Aquitane, Responsiones pro Augustino ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum.

“That men should be born, is the benefit of the Creator ; that they should perish, is the merit of the transgressor. For in Adam, in whom the nature of all men was pre-formed , all sinned; and were bound by the same sentence, which he received. Nor, even if they are without sins of their own, are they freed from this bond, unless they be re-born through the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of the Death and Resurrection of Christ.”

- Prosper of Aquitane, Responsiones pro Augustino ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum, c. 3. p. 131.

PSEUDO CHRYSOSTOM (4th-5th Century AD)

“Thus, in accordance with the prophecy of the righteous Simeon, no one escaped temptation. Peter, the leader of the disciples, denied Him three times; the other disciples abandoned Him and fled... even Mary’s soul was pierced by a sword signifying trial and doubt: 'And a sword will pierce your own soul too, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed' (Luke 2:35).”

- Pseudo Chrysostom, Homily on the Presentation of the Lord, on the Mother of God and Simeon (De occursu Domini, de deipara et Symeone), PG 50:811.¹⁷⁷ ¹⁷⁸

PSEUDO JUSTIN MARTYR (4th-5th Century AD)

“For at the wedding, speaking to His mother, 'What have I to do with you, woman?' (John 2:4), He rebuked her, and when she wanted to see Him, He called those who do the will of God His mother and brothers (cf. Matthew 12:46-50). And again, when the womb that bore Him and the breasts He sucked were called blessed, He called blessed those who do the will of God (cf. Luke 11:27-28). All these things were said by Him to shame His mother, because when His mother was called blessed by others, in contrast to that, others were called blessed by Him.”

- Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, 136, 136, Migne PG 6: 1388¹⁷⁹ ¹⁸⁰ ¹⁸¹

QUODVULTDEUS OF CARTHAGE (?-450 AD)

“For only Christ the Lord, as the blessedly remembered Bishop Augustine said, 'brought forth the body of an infant through the inviolate virgin womb of His mother,' and after the resurrection, 'brought the body of a youth through closed doors.' He alone was without sin 'from the dawn of infantile age,' and had no sin 'upon attaining mature age,' as He Himself said: 'Behold, the ruler of this world is coming, and he will find nothing in Me.'“

- Quodvultdeus of Carthage, The Book of God's Promises and Prophecies, 36.82, CCSL 60: 147.¹⁸²

ROMANOS THE MELODIST (?-555 AD)

“Such a great mystery will be denied, so that in your mind, doubt will arise. For when you see your Son nailed to the cross, O Immaculate one, recalling the words the angel spoke to you, and the Divine conception, and the unspeakable miracles – at that moment you will doubt, and like a sword, the pain of uncertainty will pierce you. However, after this, as a swift remedy, He will send to your heart and to His disciples the invincible peace, [the one] who alone is the lover of mankind.”

- Romanos the Melodist, Hymn for the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord 13, SC 110, 190¹⁸³ ¹⁸⁴

RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA - a.k.a.: TYRANNIUS RUFINUS (c. 344-411 AD)

“In the Gospel, we further read that after the soldiers divided the garments of Jesus, they cast lots for them. The Holy Spirit ensured that even this was foretold by the Prophets, for David says: “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots” (Ps 22:19). The Prophets did not remain silent about the scarlet robe placed upon Him by mocking soldiers either. Listen then to Isaiah: “Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bozrah in garments stained red? Why is your apparel red, and your clothes like one who treads the winepress?” To which He Himself replies: “I alone have trodden the winepress, O daughter of Zion” (Is 63:1-3). For He alone is the One who never sinned and the One who takes away the sins of the world. If through one man death could enter the world, how much more could life be restored through one man who is also God!”

- Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Apostolic Creed 25, Migne PL21: 362-363, link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=onnYAAAAMAAJ&fbclid=IwY2xjawHHy-VleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHeENAuOMYb3dZUnN_E3oKoylvmA_NH_S1bAeTP8ecb0K-SyYh4cn48B7ZA_aem_sMFaHBqfnW0bY8EOBy4v_A¹⁸⁵

SEVERIAN OF GABALA (c. 351-408 AD)

“"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:14). What then? Was the entire female gender condemned and left in suffering without a means of breaking the bonds? [Certainly not.] Christ came and untied the knot. The Mother of the Lord appeared in defense of her gender—the holy virgin in place of Eve, who, being a virgin, sinned—and bore the pain and torment of the condemned. [...] Since a guilty woman could not bring forth the Innocent One, the one whose task was to remove Eve’s pain with joy came first. An angel appeared and said to the virgin, "Rejoice, full of grace" (Luke 1:28). At that moment, through "Rejoice," the knot of pain was untied. "Rejoice," for He who nullified pain has come. "Rejoice, full of grace," because until now, you were cursed (Gr. Χαῖρε Κεχαριτωμένη επειδή έως νυν κεκατηραμένῃ). Consider God’s grace: "Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you," because the serpent was with the other woman in her pain. "Rejoice," because God is with you. Notice the angel's statement, how fully he presents the mystery of Christ’s incarnation: "Rejoice, full of grace," for the other woman received a double curse—pains and the agony of childbirth. [Gabriel] presented a birth that would undo that birth. "Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you will call His name Jesus" (Luke 1:31), "for He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). The fruit that will come forth from you will erase the sins of your ancestors.”

- Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World 6.10, Migne PG 56: 497¹⁸⁶

“She who was His mother according to the flesh and His servant according to His divinity warned Him: 'They have no wine' (John 2:3). Though she was a servant in regard to His divine nature, she acted as a mother concerning [His] dispensation. Indeed, He was the God of Mary but also her Son—God according to His dominion, and Son according to [God's] ordinance (cf. Col. 1:25). 'They have no wine.' 'What is that to Me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4). Some have understood this as though Christ were making a promise regarding another occasion. However, He reproaches His mother for still considering Him merely a man—the One who is Lord of all humanity. He spoke to her in such a way not because she asked Him, but because she treated Him as if He were only human. Many have thought that the words 'My hour has not yet come' (John 2:4) were spoken in reference to the time of miracles, which had not yet arrived. If that time had not yet come, why perform miracles? Yet He rebukes His mother for an unnecessary and inappropriate suggestion, as God cannot be hastened. 'The time of My manifestation has not yet come, for no one knows who I am.' However, so that you may understand that He did not say these words out of fear that He would be unable to perform a miracle, but to demonstrate all His power, His mother, knowing it, said: 'Do whatever He tells you' (John 2:5).”

- Severian of Gabala, Homily in Honor of St. Martyr Acacius, CPG 4245: 316¹⁸⁷ ¹⁸⁸ ¹⁸⁹

TERTULLIAN (150-220 AD)

“Let Apelles hear from me what was the cause of the answer that Christ gave, at one point denying His mother and His brothers. 'For even His brothers did not believe in Him' (John 7:5), as we read in the Gospel, which was published before Marcion appeared. Although other Marthas and Marys were often in His company, His own Mother did not cling to Him. In this passage, their unbelief is revealed. While Jesus was teaching the way of life, proclaiming the Kingdom of God, actively involved in healing frail bodies and souls, and although strangers were completely absorbed in His person, His closest relatives were absent. Eventually, they came to Him, but they stood outside and did not enter, apparently not appreciating what was happening inside. They did not wait either, but as if bringing more important matters than those taking place inside, they went so far as to interrupt His work and wanted Him to stop His important mission. I ask you, Apelles, or if you prefer, Marcion, would you not, for example, if you were playing dice or betting on a race of foot-runners or chariots, upon hearing such news, ask, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' (Mt 12:48). Did Christ not do the same when, while preaching and bearing witness to God, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, dispelling the darkness of the old age, He used these words to strike at the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to reveal the lack of understanding in those who sought to distract Him from His work? Yet, if He had wished to deny His birth, He would certainly have found a time and place to express Himself in another way—not in the manner in which someone who has both a mother and brothers might speak. When one expresses indignation at their relatives, they do not deny their existence but rebuke their errors. Moreover, He gave priority to others, and in explaining the reason for doing so—that is, hearing the Word of God—He clarified in what sense He denied His mother and His brothers: in the sense that He accepted as His own those who clung to Him, and in the same way He distanced Himself from those who kept their distance. It was Christ’s custom to put into practice the teachings He imparted to others. How, then, when teaching people not to value their mothers, fathers, or brothers above the Word of God, could He Himself have abandoned that Word when He was told of His mother and brothers? Therefore, He denied His family for the same reason He taught us to do: for the sake of the work of God. In another sense, the mother who keeps her distance is a symbol of the synagogue, and the unbelieving brothers are a symbol of the Jews. Israel, in their person, remained outside, while the new disciples, united with Christ, were outlining the Church, which Christ—by weakening the bonds of blood—called a more perfect mother and more worthy brothers. In this sense, finally, Christ answered the voice of the woman, not denying the womb or the breast of His mother, but acknowledging as blessed those who hear the word of God (Luke 11:27-28).”

- Tertullian, On the Body of Christ 7, Migne PL2: 767-769¹⁹⁰ ¹⁹¹

“Thus, some people are very evil, while others are very good; however, all souls have one thing in common: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best, something bad. Indeed, God Himself is without sin; and the only person without sin is Christ, for Christ is God.”

- On the Soul, 41, Migne PL 2: 720¹⁹² ¹⁹³

“It followed that, having acknowledged God's generosity, we should also ask for His mercy: for what good are provisions if we are truly regarded as an ox ready for sacrifice? The Lord knew that He alone was without sin. Therefore, He teaches us to ask, 'Forgive us our debts.' It is an act of confession, a request for pardon, because one who asks for forgiveness confesses the offense. In this way, repentance is shown to be acceptable to God, for He desires it, just as He desires the death of the sinner.”

- Tertullian, On Prayer, 7, Migne PL 1:1162¹⁹⁴ ¹⁹⁵

“Saul, good above the rest, was later overthrown by envy. David, a good man according to the heart of the Lord, later became guilty of murder and adultery. Solomon, endowed with all grace and wisdom by the Lord, was led into idolatry by women. For only the Son of God was preserved from sin and remained without fault. So what if a bishop, a deacon, a widow, a virgin, a teacher, or even a martyr falls away from the rule? Does this mean that heresies will seem to hold the truth?”

- Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 3.4-5, Migne, PL 2:14-15, link: https://www.tertullian.org/latin/de_praescriptione_haereticorum.htm¹⁹⁶

THEODORET OF CYRUS (393-457 AD)

“For if the Word became flesh, it was not through a mixture, but through the assumption of the body. And if both these attributes pertain to the Word, as the incarnate God (as you have admitted), then these natures did not mix but remained unmixed. This is our understanding, which the Evangelists also presented in harmony. While one points to the divinity of the only-begotten Christ the Lord, the other proclaims His humanity. Christ Himself teaches this understanding, at one time calling Himself the Son of God, at another time, the Son of Man. At one time, He shows respect to His mother as the one who bore Him, while at another time, as her Lord, He rebukes her (Greek: και ποτέ μέν ώς γεγεννηκυΐαν την μητέρα τιμά, ποτέ δέ ώς Δεσπότης επιτιμά) [Jn 2:4]. On one occasion, He praises those who call Him the Son of David, while at another occasion, He points out that He is not only the Son of David but also His Lord. He calls both Nazareth and Capernaum His home, but also cries out, 'Before Abraham was, I am' [Jn 8:58]. In the divine Scriptures, you will find many similar examples, and all of them reveal two natures, not one.”

- Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, Dialogue 2, Migne PG83: 144-145, link: https://books.google.pl/books?id=JmDGmXJHWjsC&fbclid=IwY2xjawHIZlRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSJ2_NlZEpo6ORPOQsbmczG8GmQkZhgB3kQFyZmGQUEjy45tj1dGNg8QKg_aem_-q5swEbHZlD0Sx5UmftNRg

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (350-428 AD)

“When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine" (John 2:3). His mother, as mothers often do, wishing to immediately showcase the greatness of her son and thinking that the lack of wine was a good opportunity for a miracle, pressed Him. However, the Lord replied, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4). This should be interpreted in a different way: "My hour has not yet come?" This means: "Why do you press me and irritate me? Don't think that there are two different times for me: one for knowing, and another for acting, as it was with Moses, who once provided manna, another time meat, and then made water flow from a rock, according to the needs of the people." [...] But, as He says, it is different with Me. I have the power to act at any time, whenever and however I choose — even without the pressure from those in need, I can display my power. Therefore, your excuse about the lack of wine is an offense to Me.”

- Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John 2:3-4, CMP 2: 1310

THEONAS OF ALEXANDRIA (?-300 AD)

“We cannot deny that many are holy and just, but there is a great difference between being holy and being immaculate. For it is one thing to be holy, that is, consecrated to divine worship; this name is not only given to humans, but also to places, temple vessels, and basins, as the Scripture attests. However, it is another thing to be without sin, which uniquely belongs to the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning this, the Apostle declares it as something special and unique, saying: 'He who knew no sin' (2 Cor 5:21). Indeed, it is a low and unworthy praise to Him, as if assigning to Him something incomparable and divine, if we could even pass through life untouched by any sin. Again, the Apostle says to the Hebrews: 'For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.' (Heb 4:15). So if even in our earthly humility, we can have communion with that exalted and divine High Priest, so that we too might be tempted without any offense of sin, why does the Apostle, seeing this in Him as unique and singular, distinguish His merit from that of men with such a division? Therefore, He is distinguished by this sole exception from all of us—who are not without sin—that He was tempted without sin.”

- Theonas of Alexandria, Conversation 22.9.1-3, Migne PL 49: 1231-1232, CSEL 13: 627-628, in: John Cassian, Conversations with the Fathers, vol. 3, Tyniec Benedictine Publishing House, Kraków 2017, pp. 267-268.¹⁹⁷ ¹⁹⁸ ¹⁹⁹

Zeno of Verona (300-371 AD)

“And because the devil, creeping in through the ear, had wounded and killed Eve by persuasion, Christ, entering through the ear into Mary, cuts off all the vices of the heart: and heals the wound of the woman by being born of the Virgin.”

- Zeno of Verona, Treatise 13.10, On Circumcision, Migne PL 11: 352.²⁰⁰ ²⁰¹

Medieval Quotes & Testimonies

ALBERTUS MAGNUS (c. 1200 - 1280 AD)

“We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation: and to say the opposite is a heresy condemned by Blessed Bernard in his letter to the people of Lyon, and by all the Masters in Paris.”

- Albertus Magnus Opera 16 ii 26

ALEXANDER OF HALES (1185–1245 AD)

“The sanctification which is through baptism, and which is through present grace, is not a sanctification of nature but only a sanctification of person. But the tinder of sin still remains after baptism in nature. Because of this, there is no generation without sin, because nature is not sanctified, and through generation nature is transfused, therefore it is necessary that what is generated in its generation contracts sin; and for this reason the Blessed Virgin could not be sanctified in her parents, indeed it was necessary that in her generation she contracted sin from her parents.”

- Alexander of Hales, Summa, P3, link: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafgOqmOQUhVxXjAzOo-EbTFKrJcegk5MehF6mNKF6_MP-1kd0S-0LUUmCN3j69B7qqyxauMBxkUsjyu9-OTtYGxRR4GyYnROLMjYzHMrlcxo5fSSj7AAIxlC5HJHQwR5pXrUWoOPS0pJ6DHoTPLen2wIbufu1Mi4T_-cyxn-AaD1JaDJ_NWOlmsg8Lr8v3XximeuHFlCAl1muu_cT4_yGUB0bt5y-Cd2mWLmrUEnCVjcWjmGt6cIKtbiGUt-vF8M4bq-W9o1yp9svPC1D0wS9xoU2-1Lw²⁰²

ANSELM OF CANTERBURY (1033–1109 AD)

“Boso. ‘As, therefore, you have disclosed the reason of those things mentioned above, I beg you will also explain what I am now about to ask. First, then, how does God, from a sinful substance, that is, of human species, which was wholly tainted by sin, take, a man without sin, as an unleavened lump from that which is leavened? For, though the conception of this man be pure, and free from the sin of fleshly gratification, yet the virgin herself, from whom he sprang, was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did her mother bear her, since she herself sinned in Adam, in whom all men sinned.’

Anselm. ‘Since it is fitting for that man to be God, and also the restorer of sinners, we doubt not that he is wholly without sin; yet will this avail nothing, unless he be taken without sin and yet of a sinful substance. But if we cannot comprehend in what manner the wisdom of God effects this, we should be surprised, but with reverence should allow of a thing of so great magnitude to remain hidden from us. For the restoring of human nature by God is more wonderful than its creation.’”

- Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Chapter XVI, link: https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Medieval-EN/XCT.005.html&chunk.id=00000089

“Anselm. ‘Since, then, the will of God does nothing by any necessity, but of his own power, and the will of that man was the same as the will of God, he died not necessarily, but only of his own power.’

Boso. ‘To your arguments I cannot object; for neither your propositions nor your inferences can I invalidate in the least. But yet this thing which I have mentioned always recurs to my mind: that, if he wished to avoid death, he could no more do it than he could escape existence. For it must have been fixed that he was to die, for had it not been true that he was about to die, faith in his coming death would not have existed, by which the virgin who 78 gave him birth and many others also were cleansed from their sin. Wherefore, if he could avoid death, he could make untrue what was true.’”

- Anselm, Cur Deus homo, CHAPTER XVII, pg. 79, link: https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Anselm%20of%20Canterbury%20-%20Cur%20Deus%20Homo.pdf

“Anselm. ‘Moreover, the virgin, from whom that man was taken of whom we are speaking, was of the number of those who were cleansed from their sins before his birth, and he was born of her in her purity.’

Boso. ‘What you say would satisfy me, were it not that he ought to be pure of himself, whereas he appears to have his purity from his mother and not from himself. Anselm. Not so. But as the mother's purity, which he partakes, was only derived from him, he also was pure by and of himself.’”

- Anselm, Cur Deus homo, CHAPTER XVI, pg. 76, link: https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/St.%20Anselm%20of%20Canterbury%20-%20Cur%20Deus%20Homo.pdf

BEDE (673-735 AD)

“And in the first place, it is blasphemous folly to say that man is without sin, which none can be, but only the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who was conceived and born without sin; for all other men, being born in original sin, are known to bear the mark of Adam’s transgression, even whilst they are without actual sin, according to the saying of the prophet, ‘For behold, I was conceived in iniquity; and in sin did my mother give birth to me.’”

- Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 19.

BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX (1090-1153 AD)

“Especially in the Offices of the Church, that of Lyons has always shown itself opposed to attempts at sudden innovation, and it is a proof of her fulness of judgment that she has never suffered herself to be stained with the mark of rash and hasty levity. Wherefore I cannot but wonder that there should have been among you at this time some who wished to sully this splendid fame of your Church by introducing a new Festival, a rite which the Church knows nothing of, and which reason does not prove, nor ancient tradition hand down to us. Have we the pretension to be more learned or more devoted than the Fathers? It is a dangerous presumption to establish in such a matter what their prudence left unestablished. And the matter in question is of such a nature that it could not possibly have escaped the diligence of the Fathers if they had not thought that they ought not to occupy themselves with it.

The Mother of the Lord, you say, ought greatly to be honoured. You say well, but the honour of a queen loves justice. The royal Virgin does not need false honour, since she is amply supplied with true titles to honour and badges of her dignity. Honour indeed the purity of her flesh, the sanctity of her life, wonder at her motherhood as a virgin, adore her Divine offspring. Extol the prodigy by which she brought into the world without pain the Son, whom she had conceived without concupiscence. Proclaim her to be reverenced by the angels, to have been desired by the nations, to have been known beforehand by Patriarchs and Prophets, chosen by God out of all women and raised above them all. Magnify her as the medium by whom grace was displayed, the instrument of salvation, the restorer of the ages; and finally extol her as having been exalted above the choirs of angels to the celestial realms. These things the Church sings concerning her, and has taught me to repeat the same things in her praise, and what I have learnt from the Church I both hold securely myself and teach to others; what I have not received from the Church I confess I should with great difficulty admit. I have received then from the Church that day to be reverenced with the highest veneration, when being taken up from this sinful earth, she made entry into the heavens; a festival of most honoured joy. With no less clearness have I learned in the Church to celebrate the birth of the Virgin, and from the Church undoubtedly to hold it to have been holy and joyful; holding most firmly with the Church, that she received in the womb that she should come into the world holy. And indeed I read concerning Jeremiah, that before he came forth from the womb [ ventre : otherwise de vulva] he was sanctified, and I think no otherwise of John the Baptist, who, himself in the womb of his mother, felt the presence of his Lord in the womb (S. Luke i. 41). It is matter for consideration whether the same opinion may not be held of holy David, on account of what he said in addressing God: In Thee I have been strengthened from the womb: Thou art He who took me out of my mother’s bowels (Ps. lxxi. 6); and again: I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly (Ps. xxii. 10). And Jeremiah is thus addressed: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee (Jer. i. 5). How beautifully the Divine oracle has distinguished between conception in the womb and birth from the womb!

[…]

The gift, therefore, which has certainly been conferred upon some, though few, mortals, cannot for a moment be supposed to have been denied to that so highly favoured Virgin, through whom the whole human race came forth into life. Beyond doubt the mother of the Lord also was holy before birth; nor is holy Church at all in error in accounting the day of her nativity holy, and celebrating it each year with solemn and thankful joy. I consider that the blessing of a fuller sanctification descended upon her, so as not only to sanctify her birth, but also to keep her life pure from all sin; which gift is believed to have been bestowed upon none other born of women. This singular privilege of sanctity, to lead her life without any sin, entirely befitted the queen of virgins, who should bear the Destroyer of sin and death, who should obtain the gift of life and righteousness for all. Therefore, her birth was holy, since the abundant sanctity bestowed upon it made it holy even from the womb. What addition can possibly be made to these honours? That her conception, also, they say, which preceded her honourable birth, should be honoured, since if the one had not first taken place, neither would the other, which is honoured. But what if some one else, following a similar train of reasoning, should assert that the honours of a festival ought to be given to each of her parents, then to her grand-parents, and then to their parents, and so on ad infinitum? Thus we should have festivals without number. Such a frequency of joys befits Heaven, not this state of exile. It is the happy lot of those who dwell there, not of strangers and pilgrims. But a writing is brought forward, given, as they say, by revelation from on high, as if any one would not be able to bring forward another writing in which the Virgin should seem to demand the same honours to her parents also, saying, according to the commandment of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother (Exod. xx. 12). I easily persuade myself not to be influenced by such writings, which are supported neither by reason nor by any certain authority. For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it. Whence, then, was the holiness of that conception? Shall it be said that Mary was so prevented by grace that, being holy before being conceived, she was therefore conceived without sin; or that, being holy before being born, she has therefore communicated holiness to her birth? But in order to be holy it is necessary to exist, and a person does not exist before being conceived. Or perhaps, when her parents were united, holiness was mingled with the conception itself, so that she was at once conceived and sanctified. But this is not tenable in reason. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or the co-operation of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how could there not be sin where concupiscence was not wanting? Unless, perhaps, some one will say that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by man, which would be a thing hitherto unheard of. I say, then, that the Holy Spirit came upon her, not within her, as the Angel declared: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (S. Luke i. 35). And if it is permitted to say what the Church thinks, and the Church thinks that which is true, I say that she conceived by the Holy Spirit, but not that she was conceived by Him; that she was at once Mother and Virgin, but not that she was born of a virgin. Otherwise, where will be the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, to have united in her person the glory of maternity and that of virginity, if you give the same glory to her mother also? This is not to honour the Virgin, but to detract from her honour. If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception. Wherefore, although it has been given to some, though few, of the sons of men to be born with the gift of sanctity, yet to none has it been given to be conceived with it. So that to One alone should be reserved this privilege, to Him who should make all holy, and coming into the world, He alone, without sin should make an atonement for sinners. The Lord Jesus, then, alone was conceived by the Holy Ghost, because He alone was holy before He was conceived. He being excepted, all the children of Adam are in the same case as he who confessed of himself with great humility and truth, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me (Ps. li. 6).

And as this is so, what ground can there be for a Festival of the Conception of the Virgin? On what principle, I say, is either a conception asserted to be holy which is not by the Holy Ghost, not to say that it is by sin, or a festival be established which is in no wise holy? Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity. For if such a festival seemed advisable, the authority of the Apostolic See ought first to have been consulted, and the simplicity of inexperienced persons ought not to have been followed so thoughtlessly and precipitately. And, indeed, I had before noted that error in some persons; but I appeared not to take notice of it, dealing gently with a devotion which sprang from simplicity of heart and love of the Virgin. But now that the superstition has taken hold upon wise men, and upon a famous and noble Church, of which I am specially the son,101 I know not whether I could longer pass it over without gravely offending you all. But what I have said is in submission to the judgment of whosoever is wiser than myself; and especially I refer the whole of it, as of all matters of a similar kind, to the authority and decision of the See of Rome, and I am prepared to modify my opinion if in anything I think otherwise than that See.”

- Bernard of Clairvaux, LETTER XLV (circa A.D. 1140): To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary, "The Complete Works of S. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux", Translated Into English From the Edition of Dom. Joannes Mabillon and Edited by Samuel J. Eales, D.c.l., link: https://ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html

CLEMENT VI (1291-1352 AD)

“But before I divide the theme, it seems that that Conception ought not to be celebrated, first, on the authority of Bernard, who, in his Epistle to the Lyonnese [canons], gravely reprehends them, because they had received the feast and held it solemnly. Because no feast ought to be celebrated, except for reverence of the sanctity of the person as to whom it is celebrated, since such honor is shown to saints on account of the [relation] which they have to God above others; but this is on account of holiness; and not actual sin only, but original sin also [separates] from God. But the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, as many saints seem to say, and may be proved by many grounds. It seems that the Church ought not to hold a festival of her Conception. Here, being unwilling to dispute, I say briefly that one thing is clear, that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin in the cause. The cause and reason is this, that, as being conceived from the coming together of man and woman, she was conceived through passion, and therefore she had original sin in the cause, which her Son had not, because He was not conceived of seed of man, but through the mystic breathing (Luke i.), ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.’ And therefore not to have original sin is a singular privilege of Christ Alone. But whether she had ‘in form’ original sin, or was by Divine virtue preserved, there are different opinions among Doctors. But however it was, I say, that if, in form and not in cause only, she had original sin, we may still very reasonably keep festival of her Conception, supposing that, according to all most opposed, it was but a little hour that she was in original sin, because according to all she was sanctified as soon as she could be sanctified.”

- Clement VI, Sermon One of the Lord’s Advent (aka “Sigua erunt in sole”), link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA378&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

COUNCIL OF FRIULI (796 AD)

“For He alone was born without sin, because He alone, as the new man, was incarnated from the Holy Spirit and the Immaculate Virgin.”

- Council of Friuli, Symbol of Faith, 13, Migne PL 99: 294D²⁰³ ²⁰⁴

GABRIEL BIEL (1420-1495 AD)

“The second conclusion according to that opinion, ‘The Virgin Mary was not preserved from the contagion of original sin in the first moment of her animation.’ They endeavour to prove this by authority and reason. By authority of the Apostle, Eom. v. [12], ‘In Adam all sinned.’ For he says, ‘As through one man sin came into this world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom (quo) all sinned,’ all who were in him according to the ‘ratio seminalis.’ Also Eom. iii. [23], ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’ The Interlineary Gloss says, ‘sinned in themselves or in Adam.’ Also, I Cor. xv. [22], ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ Also, Eph. ii. [3], ‘We were all children of wrath.’ In all these places, the Apostle speaks universally without exception ; therefore under that universality the Virgin is comprised, being a daughter of Adam, and having been born in Adam ‘secundem rationem seminalem.’ Gregory of Ariminum says here (in ii. dist. 30. q. 2), ‘Since by human reason certainty cannot be had on this matter, that seems to me rather to be held which is most consonant to sacred scripture, which, wherever it speaks hereon, delivers an universal sentence as to all, without any exception.’ This same is proved by authority of the saints. For the blessed Augustine in the ‘de fide ad Petrum,’ c. 23 [S. Fulgentius, Bened. in S. Aug. 0pp. vi. p. 18. App.], Hold most firmly and no wise doubt, that every man who is conceived by intercourse of man and woman is born with original sin, subject to ungodliness and liable to death, and therefore is by nature born a child of wrath. Of whom the Apostle says, "We too were children of wrath even as others." ' Also on that of John i., ' " Behold the Lamb of God." He alone was innocent AVho did not so come, i.e. by propagation [Tract, iv. n. 10. p. 316. Ben.]. Also de perfect, just. [c. ult. T. x. p. 1881, ‘Whoever then thinks that there was or is in this life any man or any men, except the One Mediator of God and man, to whom remission of sins was not necessary, contradicts Divine Scripture,’ quoting Eom. v. as above. Also de Nupt. et Cone. [i. n. 13], ‘Christ willed not to be born of cohabitation ; that thence too He might teach, that every one who is born of cohabitation is flesh of sin, since That alone which was not born therefrom, was not flesh of sin,’ and consequently the flesh of the Virgin, which was born of cohabitation, was flesh of sin. Also against Julian (ii. 30), who denied that children contracted original sin, he says the same, ‘If beyond doubt the Flesh of Christ is not flesh of sin, but like unto flesh of sin, what remains but that we understand that. It excepted, all other human flesh is flesh of sin?’ and shortly after [c. 15. n. 52], ‘The Body of Christ is thence said to be "in the likeness of flesh of sin," because whosoever denies that all other flesh of man is flesh of sin, and so compares the flesh of Christ with the flesh of other men who are born, so as to assert that both are of the like purity, is found to be a detestable heretic’ And de Gen. ad lit. x. c. 23 [x. 18. n. 32. Ben.], ‘Accordingly the Body of Christ, although it was taken from the flesh of woman who had been conceived from that stock of sin, yet, because It was not so conceived in her, as she had been conceived, neither was He flesh of sin, but likeness of flesh of sin.’ Where it clearly appears that he thought that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was flesh of sin. Also in the de fide ad Pet. [n. 16], ‘Because the cohabitation of parents is not without passion, therefore the conception of the children born of their flesh cannot be without sin, when not propagation, but passion, transmits sin to the little ones.’ But it is known that neither the Blessed Virgin nor any other human being, besides Christ, was conceived without cohabitation of parents. Also Ambrose on Luke [Ji- ii- n. 36, quoted by S. Aug. c. Julian, i. n. 10], ‘The Lord Jesus Alone, of all born of woman, was throughout holy, "Who, by the newness of His Immaculate Birth, did not feel the contagion of earthly corruption, and by His Heavenly Majesty dispelled it.’ If then ‘Christ Alone,’ then no others, and so neither His virgin Mother. And on Isaiah [quoted by S. Aug. de Nupt. et Concup. i. fin.], ‘Therefore He was, as Man, tempted in all things, and in the likeness of man endured all things. For all men are liars, and no one is without sin, but God only. That then is maintained, that from man and woman, i.e. through that corporeal union, no one should seem free from sin. For He Who is free from sin, is free also from this mode of conception.’ Also Dama, ‘The Holy Ghost cleansed her with one word.’ But cleansing is only from sin; therefore she had sin; not actual ; therefore original. And Leo, in a sermon on the Lord's Nativity, ‘As He found none free from guilt, so He came to free all.’ Also Anselm (Cur Deus homo, ii, 16) says, ‘Because by His Death which was to be, that Virgin too of whom He was born and many others were cleansed from sin ;’ if then they were cleansed from sin, then she had sin before her cleansing. And P. Lombard, iii. L. 3 : ‘It may be said and believed, according to the agreement of the attestation of the saints, that the very Flesh of the Word was Itself before subject to sin, like the rest of the flesh of the Virgin, but was cleansed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, so that, free from all contagion, it should be united to the Word.’ Lo, he says, ‘that the flesh of the Virgin was subject to sin, and was cleansed by the operation of the Holy Ghost.’ Very many other like things may be alleged out of the sayings of the saints." Then, after quoting S. Bernard, he adds, from the Decretals, de Consecr. dist. iii. c. i. [where the Assumption and Nativity of the Blessed Virgin are enumerated among the festivals, not the Conception], "It is said in the gloss : ‘Of the Feast of the Conception nothing is said, because it is not to be celebrated as it is in many countries, and chiefly in England. And this is the reason, because she was conceived in sin, as also the other saints, except the One Person of Christ.’”

- Gabriel Biel, Sent. 3. 3. q. 1.²⁰⁵

GUILLAUME DURAND - a.k.a: WILLIAM DURANDUS (c. 1230-1296 AD)

“All the festivities of the glorious Virgin are solemn. I do not speak of the feast of her conception, because she was conceived in sin, although it is celebrated in many places, nor do I disapprove of such devotion.”

- Guillaume Durand, Speculum P2 Titulus de feriis.

HENRY OF GHENT - a.k.a: HENRICUS DE MUDA (1217-1293 AD)

“Speaking therefore of the conception of the Virgin which was a birth in the womb, then in the very instant in which she was conceived, she was infected with original sin.”

- Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet XV q.13.²⁰⁶ ²⁰⁷

HUGH OF OSTIA (?-1158 AD)

“The Blessed Virgin was purged in the womb from the corruption of original sin, as far as infection and guilt are concerned, because she would still have descended into limbo if she had died before conceiving the Son of God, due to the debt of original sin; which was never fully purged before the coming of Christ. Hence, at His coming, she was filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was entirely purged from this corruption, and thus she was sanctified twice.”

- Hugh of Ostia, Sententiae 3, distinctio 3.

ISHODAD OF MERV (9th Century AD)

“To show that He who was born was incomparably greater than His mother, he addresses Mary with the words: "And a sword will pierce your own soul too, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (cf. Luke 2:35), meaning: You will also come to know exactly that you are too weak to fully comprehend the greatness of this [man] and truly understand who He is and how great His glory is. For if this were to be a test and examination of your soul and the thoughts you have about Him in your mind, you, even you, along with many others, will not be able to remain in faith in Him, nor will you understand the Divine nature that is in Him. Mar Ephrem (i.e., Ephrem the Syrian) says that "a sword will pierce your own soul too, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:35) refers to those who doubted, meaning, even you will doubt in Him.

- Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2:34-35, „The commentaries of Ishodad of Merv, bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) in Syriac and English”, t. 1, red. Margaret D. Gibson, James R. Harris, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1911, s. 159 (tekst angielski); „The commentaries of Ishodad of Merv, bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) in Syriac and English”, t. 3, red. Margaret D. Gibson, James R. Harris, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1911, s. 20-21 (tekst syryjski).²⁰⁸

JACOBUS DE VORAGINE (c. 1230 - 1298 AD)

“Christ, however, was conceived without original sin, and born without original sin. But the Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin, and born without original sin. And Job 3 seems to touch on this difference, where it is said of the day of original sin which began when the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened, ‘Let the stars be darkened by its shadow: let it expect light and not see it, nor the rising of the dawning of the day.’”

- Jacobus de Voragine, De Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis, Sermon 4.

JOHN OF POLIACO – a.k.a: JOHN OF POUILLY (14TH CENTURY AD):

“It seems to me that it could not be held by any one as an opinion, but should rather be accounted as a heresy, that the B. V., did not contract original sin, since it is against Holy Scripture and the sayings of the saints.' And, after many allegations of H. Scripture and Doctors, as Rom. 3, 'All have sinned,' with the gloss of Augustine, and Rom. 5, ' As through one man sin entered into the world,' with the gloss, and Eph. 2, adding many sayings of Augustine and S. Thomas in 3, he subjoins, — Since then that which is against all Scripture cannot be held probably as an opinion, nay, as far as it is against Holy Scripture, ought to be held as heretical, who is of such presumption and boldness, as to presume to assert the contrary of the aforesaid testimonies, which are grounded for ever ? But if any one were to presume, he must be proceeded with, not by argument, but in some other way.”

- John of Poliaco, Quodlibet 3, Q3, as quoted in Turrecremata, P. 6, c. 28, p. 112.²⁰⁹

JEAN BELETH – a.k.a: JOHN VALLETI (12TH CENTURY AD)

“The feast of the Conception some have sometimes celebrated, and perhaps some still do, but this feast is not authentic, indeed it seems to be prohibited. For she was conceived in sin.”

- Jean Beleth, De divinis officiis C146 de Assumptione Beatae Virginis.

JOHN BACONTHORPE (C. 1290-1346 AD)

“The authorities of Augustine against Pelagius prove that all contracted original sin, except the Son of the King Alone, i. e. Christ ; and it is certain that, in that whole process, he argues about actual contracting or not contracting, which follows on the union of the soul, because he speaks of the contracting of the person, but the person includes the soul ; therefore, &c. 2. Also, Augustine, arguing against the Pelagians, who simply denied original sin, and that it was not formally iu any one, proves against them, that original sin passes to posterity, by means of authorities, which denote the generation of the person by propagation. ' Behold I was conceived in iniquities,' &c., ' Man born of a woman.' But it is certain that the Person of Christ Alone was conceived without propagation ; therefore Christ Alone was He who did not formally contract it. 3. The error of the Pelagians was, that little ones are baptized, not because they contracted original fault, but because they would be able to sin, when they should come to the use of free will. Against these he argues, ' That then Christ did not come to save all, but only adults.' Then I argue, * Aug. means, that if there were only some necessity or pronenesa to sin in the persons of infants, and not original sin formally, then Christ was not the Saviour of all. But these mean this as to the B. V. ; therefore Christ was not her Saviour, i.e. not the Saviour of all, which is an error.' Then, too, a mode of arguing is not to be allowed as to the B. v., whereby, with the like or greater probability, the Pelagians could maintain their error against Aug. But the Pelagians would say, that as in her there was a necessity of contracting it, but on account of preventing grace she did not contract it, so in infants ; and it follows, ' But on ground of preventing and perpetual righteousness, they did not contract it, until they should come to the use of free-will, because then first they could be just or unjust.' 4. On the ' authority of Fulgentius ' [and the same applies to other places], ' are born with original sin,' he observes, * He speaks of the birth of the person, not of the conception of seeds only,' and so ' all have sinned, and all need the grace of God.' * Observe,' he says, ‘that every man is subject to wickedness.' He speaks of a fact, not of a necessity of contracting original sin ; and this is clear by the authority which he cites, which is of fact. ‘All have sinned ;' he speaks of a fact.”

- John Baconthorpe, In 3. d. 30, q. 1, art. 2.²¹⁰

“It is an abuse, yea a peril to faith, to adopt a mode of arguing which might, if applied to cases ex simili, be the occasion of great heresies ; but if, when Scripture spoke absolutely, it was to be explained of something potential only, then it might be said of our Saviour, that He did not suffer in fact those penalties of sin, hunger, thirst, weariness, but the Scripture only said this, on account of the necessity of suffering, i. e. that He had our unhappy nature, which of necessity suffers these things. In like way, as to His being ‘very heavy and sorrowful, even unto death,' or of the Passion and Death itself, that He did not in fact suffer. Also of the Baptism of infants, with the Pelagians, that in fact they do not contract [original sin], but that the Scriptures, which prove this, only say that they contracted them, on account of the necessity of contracting them ; and countless absurdities might be adduced. Also, as P. Lombard proved that Christ did not contract original [sin], because, although that nature which He took of the B. V. was first subject to original sin, and so that there was a necessity of contracting it, but that it was therefore sanctified, that He should not contract it ; so, in order that the authorities of the saints might not be to us a cause of error, they ought to have made the distinction as to the B. v., that there was in her first a necessity of contracting it, but that she did not, in fact, contract it, because she was sanctified in the first instant ; but this neither the Master (Peter Lombard) nor the authorities alleged above hint, and that is much.”

- John Baconthorpe, In Aureolus²¹¹ ²¹²

JOHN XXII (1244-1334 AD)

“She (the virgin) passed, first, from a state of original sin, second, from a state of childhood to maternal honor, third, from misery to glory.”

- John XXII, Sermon 1 on the Assumption.

POPE CLEMENT VI (1291-1352 AD)

“But the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, as many saints seem to say, and may be proved by many grounds. It seems that the Church ought not to hold a festival of her Conception. Here, being unwilling to dispute, I say briefly that one thing is clear, that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin in the cause. The cause and reason is this, that, as being conceived from the coming together of man and woman, she was conceived through passion, and therefore she had original sin in the cause, which her Son had not, because He was not conceived of seed of man, but through the mystic breathing (Luke i.), ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.’ And therefore not to have original sin is a singular privilege of Christ Alone.”

- Pope Clement VI, Sermon One on the Lord’s Advent

POPE INNOCENT III (1161-1216 AD)

“The Creator of all things chose you as His mother He who purified the sinful Mary from guilt. May he by virtue of your prayer Cleanse me from all sins.”

- Pope Innocent III, “Hymn to Christ and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, His Most Worthy Mother,” PL 217:919²¹³

“Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin; Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.”

- Pope Innocent III, Sermon on the Assumption (aka Second Discourse on the Assumption), Sermon 2 (Serrao. II. Defesto Assum Marirc. Colo., 1552).

“Of John the Angel does not speak of the conception but of the birth. But of Jesus he predicts alike the Birth and the Conception. For to Zechariah the father it is predicted, ‘Thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John,’ but to Mary the mother it is predicted, ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a Son, and shalt call His Name Jesus.’ For John was conceived in fault, but Christ Alone was conceived without fault. But each was born in grace, and therefore the Nativity of each is celebrated, but the Conception of Christ Alone is celebrated.”

- Pope Innocent III, On the Feast of John the Baptist, i (Sermon 16 on Feast Days), link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA196&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

“But forthwith [upon the Angel’s words, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee’] the Holy Ghost came upon her. He had before come into her, when, in her mother’s womb, He cleansed her soul from original sin; but now too He came upon her to cleanse her flesh from the ‘fomes’ of sin, that she might be altogether without spot or wrinkle. That tyrant then of the flesh, the sickness of nature, the ‘fomes’ of sin, as I think, He altogether extinguished, that henceforth any motion from the law of sin should not be able to arise in her members.”

- Pope Innocent III, Sermon on the Purification of the Virgin, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA195&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

POPE INNOCENT V (1225-1276 AD)

“The nearer any one approaches to the Holy of Holies, so much the greater degree of sanctification ought he to have, for there is no approach to Him, except through sanctification. But the mother approaches more than all to the Son, Who is the Holy of Holies; therefore she ought to have a greater degree of sanctification after her Son. The degree of sanctification may be understood as fourfold: either that one have sanctity (1) before conception and birth; (2) after conception and birth; (3) in the conception itself and birth; (4) in birth, not in conception. For, ‘in conception and not in birth’ is impossible. The first degree is not possible, both because personal perfection (like knowledge or virtue) is not transfused from the parents; and also because in children the being of grace cannot take place, before the actual being of nature, upon which it is founded. The second degree is common to all, according to the common law of sanctification through sacraments. The third is peculiar to the Holy of Holies, in Whom Alone all sanctification took place at once, conception, sanctification, assumption. There remains then the fourth. But this has four degrees; because the foetus, when conceived in the womb, may be understood to be sanctified either before animation, or in the animation, or soon after the animation, or long after the animation. The first degree is impossible, because according to Dionysius (de div. nom. c. 12) ‘Holiness is cleanness free from all defilement, and perfect and immaculate;’ but the uncleanness of fault is not expelled except through ‘grace making gracious’ [acceptable], as darkness by light, of which grace the reasonable creature only is the subject. The second degree was not suitable to the Virgin, because either she would not have contracted original sin, and so would not have needed the universal sanctification and redemption of Christ, or if she had contracted it, grace and fault could not have been in her at once. The fourth degree also was not suitable to the Virgin, because it did suit John and Jeremiah, and because it did not suit so great holiness that she should have lingered long in sin, as others; but John was sanctified in the sixth month (Luke i.). But the third seems suitable and piously credible, although it be not derived from Scripture, that she should have been sanctified, soon after her animation, either on the very day or hour, although not at the same moment.”

- Pope Innocent IV, Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Book 3, Distinction 3, Question 1, Article 1, link: https://books.google.com/books?id=o4IWZWtgs4MC&pg=PA230&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

RAYMOND OF PEÑAFORT - a.k.a: RAMON DE PENYAFORT (1175-1275 AD)

“No mention is made of the conception of the Virgin, because it should not be celebrated, since she was conceived in sin like the other saints, with the exception of the unique person of Christ, who was conceived not from man's seed, but by the mystical breath of the Spirit.”

- Raymond of Peñafort, Summa P1 Titulus de feriis.

THEŌDŪRUS ABŪ QURRAH (750-825 AD)

“[QUESTION:] ‘Were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Enoch, and Noah obedient to God and pleasing to Him (cf. Heb 11) before Christ?’

[ANSWER:] Although it is said that they were pleasing to God, this was in comparison to other people, for there is no one except Christ Himself who was perfect and completely free from sin. Every sin, whatever it may be, brings death.”

- Theōdūrus Abū Qurrah, Against the Heretics, the Jews, and the Muslims, Migne PG 97: 1464²¹⁴ ²¹⁵

THEOPHYLACT OF OCHRID (c. 1050-1109 AD)

“‘And a sword will pierce your own soul too, O Virgin’ (Luke 2:35). On one hand, the sword may symbolize the suffering that was to fall upon her; on the other hand, the sword could also represent scandal, as she, seeing the crucified Lord, was scandalized. She might have thought: ‘How is it that He, who was born without seed, performed miracles and raised the dead, is now being crucified, spat upon, and killed?’ ‘That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’ (Luke 2:35) means that the thoughts of many who were scandalized will be uncovered and revealed, and after being rebuked, they will quickly find healing. The same will happen to you, Virgin: your thoughts about Christ will be uncovered and revealed, and then your faith in Him will be strengthened. In a similar way, Peter's denial was revealed – and then God's power will be shown when He restores him through repentance.”

- Theophylact of Ochrid, Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, 2:35, PG 123: 732²¹⁶ ²¹⁷ ²¹⁸

“"While He was still talking to the people, His mother and His brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to Him" (Matthew 12:46). Subject to certain human weaknesses, His Mother wanted to demonstrate that she had authority over her child, for she did not yet understand His greatness. Therefore, as He continued speaking, she sought to call Him to herself, trying to draw attention to the fact that the Son was showing obedience to her. What did Christ do? He knew her intentions. Listen to what He said: "Someone told Him, 'Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.' But He answered the one who told Him, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?' And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers. For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother'" (Matthew 12:47-50). He did not say this to insult His mother, but to correct her vain and human thoughts. He did not say, "She is not My mother," but rather, "If she does not fulfill the will of God, it will avail her nothing that she bore Me." He does not deny the kinship by birth, but adds to it the kinship by virtue. No unworthy person gains anything from birth. After correcting her vanity, He again obeyed His calling mother.”

- Theophylact of Ochrid, Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, 12:46-50, PG 123: 276²¹⁹ ²²⁰ ²²¹

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225–c.1274 AD)

“The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified. Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.”

- Summa Theologia, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Question 27. The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, Article 3, Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa/summa.TP_Q27_A2.html

WILLIAM OF AUXERRE (c. 1140–1231 AD)

“It is proved, that Christ was, in two ways, in the loins of Abraham, because the Blessed Virgin, who was His flesh, was, in two ways, in the loins of Abraham ; for she was conceived by the act of concupiscence, not by the Holy Ghost, and therefore she contracted original sin ; and therefore Maurice, Bishop of Paris, forbade the Feast of her Conception to be celebrated in the Church of Paris.”

- William of Auxerre, Summa, L. iii.Tr. i. c. 3. f. 115, 115 v., Paris, 1500, written between 1220 — 1230, abridged by Ardego, Bishop of Florence, and by Herbert, or Aubert, Dean of Auxerre, a.d. 1247. Fabr.²²² ²²³

Conclusion

I hope these quotes and their citations are helpful to you. The truth is that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception is yet another point where the “consensus of the Fathers” is not clearly in Rome’s favor — in fact, it’s anything but.

That being said… don’t treat this article as a quote mine! Instead, please utilize it as a jumping-off point for further study. And, if there are any quotes which you feel need added context, please feel free to let me know in the comments. I’ll gladly fix any mistakes or oversights which may have been unintentionally included in the original article.

I hope to keep updating this list as I come across more quotes. If time permits, I may also add a short bio for each Patristic/Medieval author for added context.

Until then,

May the Lord bless you and keep you all in His good graces.

Romans 3:9-28 NKJV “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.’ ‘Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit’; ‘The poison of asps is under their lips’; ‘Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.’' ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

*Updates/edits: ²²⁴ ²²⁵ ²²⁶

1. Note: Minimally, this would include the Virgin Birth as well as Mary being the Mother of God (Theotokos).

2. Note: The citation provided by the Catechism for this Papal encyclical quote is: Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: DS 2803.

3. Note: There are WAY MORE quotes that I could’ve included from the various works cited, but I didn’t do so due to their length or their confusing layout (looking at you, E.B. Pusey!); feel free to check the works out and you’ll see what I mean.

4. Note: An important thing to note here is that, in opposing the Immaculate Conception, Protestants are not in any way trying to besmirch the Virgin Mary’s reputation as a holy saint who is truly blessed among women. It is out of love and respect toward both Mary and the Lord that we seek to be faithful to the Scriptures and accurately speak of the Blessed Virgin described therein.

5. Note: If you would like to see an example of Roman Catholic interaction with / response to a few of the quotes listed in this article, see John Henry Newman’s response:

“Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered: In a Letter addressed to the Rev. E.B. Pusey”, NOTE III, PAGE 50, link: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/notes.html

6. Note:

There is a significant number of translations circulating online of a passage from Commentary on Psalm 118 22.30 that are not entirely faithful to the original Latin text. These translations emphasize Mary’s exceptional status as being free from “any stain of sin.” Apologists for Rome—including Catholic apologetics—often cite Ambrose's words in the following way: "Raise me bodily, in the flesh that fell in Adam. Raise me not from Sarah, but from Mary, a virgin not only unblemished but a virgin made inviolate by grace, free from any stain of sin." The issue with this translation is that it ignores the “ut … sit” construction found in the complementary clause, which indicates the purpose of the request, namely the “acceptance/raising” of the subject (Latin Suscipe me), not from Sarah, but from Mary. The conjunction “ut,” used by Ambrose to mean “so that,” expresses the implicit subject’s (in this case, Ambrose or, more precisely, his personified human nature) request that God accept him as an “unblemished virgin” and “by grace free from any stain of sin.” Thus, it is not Mary (although she is clearly the example here, contrasted with Sarah) but Ambrose and his human nature that are described as “unblemished and free from all stain of sin.” A faithful translation into Polish, as provided by Catholic theologian and patrologist Fr. Stanisław Longosz, reads: “Przyjmij mnie w ciele, które w Adamie upadło. Przyjmij mnie nie z Sary, lecz z Maryi; aby [moje ciało/natura] było nieskalaną dziewicą, ale dziewicą przez łaskę wolną od wszelkiej zmazy grzechowej” [As has been translated into in English above]. This text does not assert that Mary never sinned or was free from all stain of sin from the beginning of her existence. Instead, it speaks about God liberating from sin through grace. Daniel Wihlborg and Hilda C. Graef point out that Ambrose, in this passage, alludes to Roman Law, where *suscipio* was a technical term used in the context of *patria potestas* (fatherly authority), which could either reject or accept a newborn child as its own—hence, "accept me in the flesh" (*suscipe me in carne*). Thus, the human nature personified by Ambrose petitions Christ to accept it into God’s family, so that although our flesh fell in Adam, it might be accepted by Him as born not from Sarah (the mother of the Old Covenant) but from Mary (the mother of the New Covenant) and free from all sin. This text, therefore, cannot serve as evidence for Mary’s exceptional sinlessness or for her being the second person after Christ free from all sin. According to Ambrose—and, as we will see shortly, consistently in early Christian thought—all Christians are received in this way, as children of God freed from every sin. …

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1059115198552236?ref=embed_post

7. Latin Text:

Suscipe me in carne, quae in Adam lapsa est. Suscipe me non ex Sarra, sed ex Maria, ut incorrupta sit uirgo, sed uirgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati.

8. Latin Text:

Quid est quod Simeon dicit ad Mariam matrem Domini inter caetera, Hic positus est in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum in Israel: et tuam, inquit, ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes (Luc. II, 34 - 35)? Simeon vir sanctus, et divinis oraculis commendatus, per Spiritum sanctum locutus quid futurum esset hominibus ex causa Christi, ut ruina his esset, qui cum sibi viderentur stare per observantiam et peritiam Legis, diffidentia tamen operum Christi caderent, dissoluti a promissione Patrum: illis autem qui nullius prope dignitatis essent in Lege, credentibus vero in Christum, resurrectio in Israel. [Ut digni Deo fierent qui prius indigni et inutiles erant, et reprobarentur qui aliquid esse putabantur.] Hoc est quod alio loco dicit Dominus, In judicium ego veni in hunc mundum, ut qui non vident, videant; et qui vident, caeci fiant (Joan. IX, 39). Denique non Legis doctores, non Pharisaei, non Scribae secuti sunt Christum; sed piscatores, homines imperiti et rusticani. Hinc est unde dicit Dominus: Pater, gratias ago tibi, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis (Matth. XI, 25). Quod autem adjecit, dicens, Et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes; hoc utique significavit, quia etiam Maria, per quam gestum est mysterium incarnationis Salvatoris, in morte Domini dubitaret; ita tamen, ut resurrectionis honore et virtute Domini firmaretur. Omnes enim stupore quodam in morte Domini dubitarunt.

- Migne PL 35: 2267-2268; CSEL 50: 130-131

9. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/697875060614357?ref=embed_post

10. Greek Text:

Τῇ δὲ μητρὶ ἐπιμέμφεται ὡς ἀκαίρως ὑπομνησάσῃ θεὸν ὑπομνήσεως μὴ δεόμενον, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν μὴ νόμιζέ με μόνον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεόν. οὔπω δὲ ἦλθεν ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς φανερώσεως, οὐδέπω ἐγνωρίσθη τίς εἰμι.

11. Greek Text:

Ἐπειδὴ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σταυρῷ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀπίστων ἀντιλογίας ῥήματα προσήνεγκαν τῷ κυρίῳ λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις κωμῳδοῦντες, καλάμῳ τύπτοντες, ὄξος ποτίζοντες, χολὴν προσάγοντες, ἀκάνθινον στέφανον περιτιθέντες, λόγχῃ τὴν πλευρὰν νύττοντες, χερσὶ ῥαπίζοντες, ὀνειδιστικοῖς λόγοις βοῶντες· Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι. Τοῦτο οὖν ἑρμηνεύων ἔλεγε· Καὶ εἰς σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον. Πολλοὶ ἀντεῖπον ὅτε Πέτρος ἠρνεῖτο καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀπόστολοι ὡς ἀποίμαντα πρόβατα διεσκορπίζοντο. Ἐν τῷ οὖν σταυρικῷ σημείῳ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς παρθένου ἐπεπλήρωτο ἡ καρδία λύπης· διὸ καὶ ἔλεγε· Διὰ τί μὴ προετελεύτησα; Διὰ τί δὲ τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην κατέλαβον; Παρθένος μεμένηκα καὶ μείζονα μητέρων τοῖς σπλάγχνοις δάκνομαι. Τούτους τοὺς ἀπείρους διαλογισμοὺς τῆς παρθένου ῥομφαίαν ὁ Συμεὼν προσηγόρευσεν ὡς νύττοντας τὰ ἐνδόσθια, ὡς σκάνδαλα προσοίσοντας, καθὼς ὁ κύριος προεῖπε· Πάντες ἐν ἐμοὶ σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ. Ὅθεν καὶ ἐπήγαγεν ὁ Συμεὼν φάσκων· Καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία, ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί. Ὁρᾷς πῶς τοὺς ἀπείρους διαλογισμοὺς ῥομφαίαν προσηγόρευσεν ὡς νύττοντας τὰ ἐνδόσθια, ὡς ἁπτομένους νεφρῶν καὶ μυελῶν; Τούτοις δὲ περιέπεσεν ἡ παρθένος μηδέπω τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως εἰδυῖα καὶ ὅτι ἐκ γειτόνων ἡ ἀνάστασις οὐδέπω ἐγίνωσκεν. Ὅθεν μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι ῥομφαία δίστομος, ἀλλ' εὐφροσύνη καὶ ἀγαλλίασις. Σημεῖον τοίνυν ἀντιλογίας τὸ σταυρικὸν σημεῖον ὁ Συμεὼν προσηγόρευσεν, ἐν ᾧ καιρῷ ῥομφαία λογισμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν τῆς παρθένου διῆλθεν.

12. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/836153497515075?ref=embed_post

13. *Note:

Like Origen of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, Basil the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Ephrem the Syrian, Cyril of Alexandria, Romanos Melodos, or Maximus the Confessor, so Amphilochus, interpreting Simeon's prophecy regarding the sword (Luke 2:35), attributes to Mary the doubt that accompanied her under the cross. Even though Jesus repeatedly mentioned and announced his death and resurrection, his mother did not believe that it would actually happen. Regarding the views of the Bishop of Iconium, the Catholic Mariologist Luigi Gambero notes that "Amphilochus, like Basil [the Great], believed that during the drama of the Lord's passion and death, the Holy Virgin was tormented by doubts" (Source: Luigi Gambero, “Mary and the Fathers of the Church,” Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1999, s. 168.). Stanisław Longosz adds: "Also the third Cappadocian, Amphilochus of Iconium (†396), also attributes to Mary, like Basil, the doubt under the cross, allegedly announced by Simeon, as well as the ignorance about the resurrection of her Son" (Source: Stanisław Longosz, „Niepokalane poczęcie w kontekście nauczania Ojców Kościoła o świętości Maryi (II-IV wiek)”, w: „Tota pulchra es Maria. Materiały z ogólnopolskiego sympozjum mariologicznego w Licheniu”, red. J. Kumala, Licheń 2004, s. 77.).

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/836153497515075?ref=embed_post

14. Greek Text:

4. αναμάρτητος μέν γάρ ανθρώπων ούδείς παρέξ τον γενομένον δι' ήμάς άνθρώπον, έπεί γέγραπται «Ουδείς καθαρός άπό ρύπου, ούδ' άν μία ήμέρα ή ζωή αύτού». 5. διά τούτο καί τών προγεγενημένων δικαίων τε και πατριαρχών οι βίοι και αι αναστροφαι ανεγραφησαν, ουχ ινα εκεινονς όνειδίζωμεν άναγινώσκοντες, άλλ' ινα ήμείς μετανοώμεν καί εύέλπιδες γινώμεθα ώς αφέσεως τευξόμενοι. τά γάρ έκείνων ρύπη ήμετέρα άσφάλεια καί παραίνεσις, οτι καί ημεις αμαρτησαντες, εαν μετανοήσωμεν, συγγνωμεη έξομεν, έπεί γέγραπται «Τίς καυχήσεται άγνήν έχειν ήν καρδίαν, ή τις παρρησιάσεται καθαρός είναι άπό άμαρτίας;» 6. ούδείς ουν αναμάρτητος. σύ ουν κατά δύναμιν σπούδαζε άνεπίληπτος είναι, καί περί πάντων μερίμνα, μη διά σε τις σκανδαλισθείς άπόληται. ό γάρ λαϊκόςπερί έαντού μόνον μεριμνα, σύ δέ περί πάντων, ώς πλείον έχων βάρος καί μείζον βαστάζων φορτίον. γέγραπται γάρ. «Καί είπεν κύριος πρός Μωύσήν σύ καί 'Ααρών λήψεσθε τάς αμαρτίας τής ίερατείας». - Migne 1: 629C-D,632A

15. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/761677454234117?ref=embed_post

16. Latin Text:

Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo, aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo? Qui ingreditur sine macula et operatur justitiam (Ps. 14:1-2) [...] Omnis maculatus ingreditur tabernaculum domini, et ibi inmaculatus efficitur. Iesus autem immaculatus solus uirgineam aulam ingressus ipsum tabernaculum a maculis carnalibus liberauit, et dedit sanctificationem potius quam accepit.

- CCSL 25:16

17. Greek Text:

ὅτε καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον. Ἰωάννης γυμνὸς ἀναχωρεῖ. Πέτρος ἀρνεῖται. Οἱ μαθηταὶ φεύγουσι.Τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τὴν ψυχὴν ἡ ῥομφαία τῆς ἀμφιβολίας διέρχεται. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τῷ πάθει οὐδεὶς ἔδειξε τὸν τῆς ἀγάπης καρπόν

18. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1224757557926102/1205136736554851/?type=3&ref=embed_post

19. Context:

S. Athanasius seems to me to explain S. Paul's words, " First-born of many brethren," to mean this, that our Lord's Flesh was first exempted from the effects of Adam's transgression, and, being united with the Word, became a principle of life and holiness. In a writer so accurate as S. Athanasius, I cannot but think that the words that " our Lord's Flesh was saved and liberated " must mean, that It was " saved " from that which he had just spoken of, the evil inherited from Adam's transgression, and was first "liberated " from that condition to which it had hitherto been subject, and so in her too from whom It was taken.

- E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 110.

20. Note: Quote was cited in Page 110 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Athanasius of Alexandria, C. Arian, Orat, ii. § 61. pp. 367, 368. Oxf. Tr.

21. Note:

The Bishop of Alexandria, like many before and after him, in interpreting the passage from the Gospel of John 2:4, points to some form of inappropriate behavior on Mary's part, for which she was subsequently reprimanded by Jesus. It is sometimes argued that Athanasius the Great believed in the sinlessness of Mary, and references are made to passages where he calls Mary "immaculate, without stain." However, these statements are made in the context of Mary's purity in terms of being untouched by a man, which she, as a virgin, did not experience, and thus this is not an argument for her sinlessness, but rather for her virginity. Athanasius speaks of Jesus as a sinless man. He emphasizes that the coming of Jesus for the first time freed human nature from sin, enabling us to fulfill God's holy Law (if Mary had been sinless and immaculately conceived before His coming, Athanasius' argument would fall apart). Interestingly, when Athanasius speaks about holy people purified from sin, he refers to Jeremiah and John the Baptist, who were purified in the womb, but he does not mention Mary and only recalls her as the one at whose voice "the holy and purified from all sin John" leaped for joy. Combining this with his interpretation of John 2:4, we can confidently conclude that the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1104095679992291?ref=embed_post

22. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1104095679992291?ref=embed_post

23. Note: Make sure to hit “translate to English” on your webpage, since the article is not originally in English: http://nalezecdojezusa.pl/historia-kosciola/czy-augustyn-z-hippony-wierzyl-w-bezgrzesznosc-maryi/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0koAFEc1RANvB2AWM3_ulLVTwgmUlPtQg4Pt0w1-whonHkNzPYUR2tH6g_aem_7czMgIMyUNA8BnQ0410shg

24. Note: Here is the original footnote from Schaff on the word “maternal” from this passage:

“De maternâ carne peccati, which is the reading of the best and oldest Mss. Another reading has, De naturâ carnis peccati (‘of the nature of sinful flesh’); and a third, De materiâ carnis peccati (‘of the matter of sinful flesh’). Compare Contr. Julianum, v. 9, and De Gen. ad. Lit. x. 18–20”

- Footnote 601, NPNF (V1-05), A TREATISE ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, Book II, Chapter 38, pg. 188, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Peccatorum_Meritis_Et_Remissione_Et_De_Baptismo_Parvulorum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

25. Latin Text:

Verumtamen natura hominis Christi nostrae naturae dissimilis non fuit, sed vitio nostro dissimilis fuit. Ille quippe sine vitio natus est homo, quod hominum nemo. […] Nam propterea nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non fecerit grandioris aetatis accessu, quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu. - PL 44: 815

26. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.617429185325612/530837740651424/?type=3&ref=embed_post

27. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.617429185325612/530837740651424/?type=3&ref=embed_post

28. Latin Text:

Solus ergo ille etiam homo factus manens Deus peccatum nullum umquam habuit nec sumpsit carnem peccati quamvis de materna carne peccati. Quod enim carnis inde suscepit, id profecto aut suscipiendum mundavit aut suscipiendo mundavit.

29. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.617429185325612/1231781290557062/?type=3&ref=embed_post

30. Latin Text:

Sane in rescripto amici, quod huic epistolae inserui, ne te forte moveat quod duos libros a me missos commemoravit, quibus respondere vacuum sibi tempus non fuisse respondit: unus est de hac quaestione, non ambo; in alio autem illud ab illo consulendo et pertractando quaesivi. Quod vero admonet et hortatur, "ut magis demus operam, ut perniciosissima haeresis de Ecclesiis auferatur"; illam ipsam Pelagianam haeresim dicit, quam cautissime ut devites, quantum possum, frater, admoneo, cum de animarum origine sive cogitas, sive iam disputas; ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum.

- Migne, PL 33:937-938

31. Latin Text:

Non trascribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi.

- Migne PL45: 1418.

32. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.617429185325612/706106809791182/?type=3&ref=embed_post

33. Context:

Responding to the accusation of Julian of Eclanum, who claimed that his opponent treated Mary worse than Jovinian and handed Mary over to Satan, because he taught that due to the way she was born (that is, just like all of us), original sin had power over her, Augustine writes [the cited quote above]. [...] In Augustine's thought, Mary, like all other people, inherited sin from Adam when she was born. The only exception was Jesus, over whom sin had no power because He was born of the Virgin. Mary, like all of us, was born in sin and iniquity (Ps 51:7: 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me'), and just like us, through rebirth/born again, she was freed from the bonds of sin, becoming a new creation (John 3:1-21).

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.617429185325612/706106809791182/?type=3&ref=embed_post

34. Latin Text:

Factus sum, inquit, sicut homo sine adiutorio, inter mortuos liber. In his verbis maxime persona Domini apparet. Quis enim alius inter mortuos liber, nisi in similitudine carnis peccati inter peccatores solus sine peccato? Unde illis qui se insipienter liberos putabant: Omnis, ait, qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Et quia per eum qui non habebat peccatum, oportebat liberari a peccatis: Si vos, inquit: Filius liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis.

- Migne, PL 37:1111

35. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 96-97 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in Ep. 190 ad Opt. n. 24.

36. Context:

He [Augustine] himself leans to Traducianism, but leaves it an open question, so that the truth of the transmission of original sin through propagation be still maintained. But if the fresh creation of the soul could not be maintained without falling into one or other heresy, S. Augustine thought it better to leave its origin as a thing unknown. One Soul, however, and One only, S. Augustine formally excepts, whatever the truth as to the origin of the soul might be [i.e.- Christ]. The omission of any mention of the B. V. [Blessed Virgin] here is the more unaccountable, if S. Augustine had believed her Immaculate Conception, because he is arguing that even if our Lord's Soul was derived from her soul (according to Traducianism), He could still have exempted It somehow from the transmission of sin ; whereas, had he believed the Blessed Virgin to have been immaculately conceived, the exemption had already taken place in her, and her soul, from which, on the supposed hypothesis of Traducianism, His Soul would have derived Its being, would have been already immaculate, so that there was already no sin, the transmission of which was to be cut off. As S. Augustine is so often quoted by the later writers, their sayings will be clearer if I set down at length some chief passages of his. Some are given in brief by Biel, as against what he held himself ; but controversialists seem so commonly to think that a quotation begins too late or ends too soon, that it is as well to have them with a fuller context, when the context has more on the same subject. The citations are from writings spread over eighteen years of S. Augustine's life, from that which he wrote A.D. 412, soon after the appearance of Pelagianism , until his warfare was accomplished, A.D. 430, and his last work was left unfinished. There is in them the remarkable uniformity of statement so often observable in S. Augustine. Repeated at such intervals of time, they show his deliberate, unqualified conviction. Concupiscence, the sin of our first parents, is, in his belief, the instrument of transmitting original sin ; where it is present in the production of the offspring (as it is in every conception except in the one virgin- birth of our Lord) , there it is transmitted to the child. It was fitting that our Lord should be exempt from it also ; therefore He willed not so to be conceived. The Scriptural note which runs throughout is that phrase of Holy Scripture, which occurred in S. Irenæus too, as the characteristic of our Lord, that He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh."

- E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 96-97.

37. Note: “Soul universally” in this quote is “Universæ animæ,” – Augustine is echoing Pope Zosimus' words on this same issue.

38. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 98-99 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in De Pecc. mer. et rem. ii . 24. n. 38. T. x. pp. 60, 61. Ben.

39. Note: Quote was cited in Page 99 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in De Gen. ad litt. x. 20. n. 35. T. 3. p. 270

40. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 99-100 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in Augustine of Hippo in De Gen. ad litt. x. 18. n. 32. pp. 268, 269.

41. Note: Quote was cited in Page 100 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in On Ps. 34. Serm. 2. n. 3. T. iv. 239, 240

42. Note: Quote was cited in Page 100 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his original shorthand for the citation:

Augustine of Hippo in Serm. 294, De bapt. parv. u. 11, p. T. v. 1188.

43. Note: The cited translation bears the following Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Nihil Obstat: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., S.T.L. Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur: + Patrick Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York, February 28, 1994.

44. Note: Quote was cited in Page 100 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“Christ hath no sin ; He neither derived original sin, nor added of His own. He came, apart from the pleasure of carnal passion ; no marital embrace was there ; from the body of the Virgin He assumed not a wound, but a medicament ; He assumed, not what He should heal, but whence He should heal. I speak as pertains to sin. He then Alone was without sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Serm. 294, De bapt. parv. u. 11, p. T. v. 1188.

45. Note: The cited translation bears the following Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Nihil Obstat: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., S.T.L. Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur: + Patrick Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York, February 28, 1994.

46. Note: Quote was cited in Page 101 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“Adam first received the bite of the serpent with poison. Therefore (man) born in flesh of sin, is saved in Christ through ' likeness of flesh of sin .' ' For God sent His Son,' not in flesh of sin, but, as it follows, ' in likeness of flesh of sin,' because He came not from marital embrace, but from the Virgin's womb. -Not in the likeness of flesh, for It was true. Flesh, but in likeness of flesh of sin, ' because It was mortal flesh, without any sin whatsoever.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Serm. 294, De bapt. parv. n. 13.

47. Note: This translation bears the following Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Nihil Obstat: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., S.T.L. Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur: + Patrick Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York, February 28, 1994.

48. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 101-102 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“The Apostle said, ‘We too were at one time by nature children of wrath.’ We do not accuse nature. God is the Author of nature. Nature was formed good by God, but by evil will it was vitiated by the serpent. Therefore what in Adam was of fault, not of nature, to us who are propagated is now become of nature. From this fault of nature, with which man is born, none frees, save He Who was born without fault. From this flesh of sin none frees, save He Who was born without sin by the likeness of flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Serm. 294, De bapt. parv. n. 14.

49. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 102 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation::

“From this concupiscence of the flesh, which, although in the regenerate it is no longer accounted as sin, yet doth not happen to nature save from sin ; from this concupiscence of the flesh, I say, as the daughter of sin, -whatsoever flesh is born, is bound by original sin, unless it be re-born in Him, Whom, without that concupiscence, a virgin conceived ; wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in the flesh, He Alone was born without sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo in De nupt. et concup. i. 24. n. 27. T. x. 294.

50. Note: This translation bears the following Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Nihil Obstat: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., S.T.L. Delegated Censor.

Imprimatur: Thomas V. Daily, D.D. Bishop of Brooklyn Brooklyn, New York: October 6, 1992.

51. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 102 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation::

“The Pelagian seems to confess that flesh, ‘but, sifted, he is found to deny it . flesh, which was ‘the likeness of flesh Christ came in the For Christ came in of sin,’ but was not ‘flesh of sin.’ The Apostle's words are, ‘God sent His Son in the likeness of flesh of sin ;’ not ‘in the likeness of flesh of sin,’ as though the flesh were not flesh, but, because it was flesh, yet was not flesh of sin. But this Pelagius essays to set all other flesh of every infant on a par with the Flesh of Christ. It is not so, Best- beloved. For the likeness of the flesh of sin' would not be set forth as a great thing in Christ, unless all other flesh were flesh of sin.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Serm. 183. c. 8. T. 5. p. 877. B.

52. Note: This translation bears the following Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

Nihil Obstat: John A. Goodwine, Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur: + Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, September 17, 1957.

53. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 102-103 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“Why toilest thou, by great argumentations, to reach the precipice of impiety, that ‘the Flesh of Christ, because He was born of Mary, the flesh of which Virgin, like that of all the rest, had been propagated from Adam, differs nothing from the flesh of sin, and the Apostle is believed to have said without any distinction, that He was sent in the likeness of the flesh. of sin ?’ yea rather, thou urgest, ‘that there is no flesh of sin , lest Christ's too should be such.’ What then is ‘likeness of flesh of sin,’ if there is no ‘flesh of sin?’ Thou sayest that ‘I did not understand this sentence of the Apostle,’ yet didst not thyself explain it, that we might learn from thee, that a thing can be like another thing, which itself is not. But if this is senseless, and the Flesh of Christ is, without doubt, not ‘flesh of sin,’ but ‘like to flesh of sin,’ what remains for us to understand, but that, It excepted, all other human flesh is flesh of sin ?' And hence it appears that that concupiscence, whereby Christ would not be conceived, caused in the human race the propagation of evil, because the body of Mary, although derived thence, did not transmit it to the Body, Which she did not thence conceive. But whosoever denies that the Body of Christ was said to be ‘in the likeness of the flesh of sin,’ because all other flesh of men is ‘flesh of sin,’ and compares the Flesh of Christ with that of other men who are born, so as to assert that both are of equal purity, is found to be a detestable heretic.”

- Augustine of Hippo in C. Julian. Pel. v. 15. n. 52. x. 654.

54. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 103 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“But, as relates to the passing of original sin to all men, since it passes through concupiscence of the flesh, it could not pass into that Flesh, which the Virgin did not conceive through it.”

- Augustine of Hippo in C. Julian. Pel. v. 15. p. 655.

55. Context:

[After the cited passage] he [Augustine] blames Julian, that he had quoted imperfectly words of his "that Adam infected all who should come of his stock" (From the De pecc. mer. et rem. i . 9. n. 10. T. x. p. 7.), whereas he had said, "by the hidden infection of carnal concupiscence heinfected in himself all who should come of his stock." He did not then infect that Flesh, in Whose Conception that infection was not. The Flesh then of Christ derived mortality from the mortality of His Mother's body, because He found her body mortal. He did not derive the contagion of original sin, because He did not find the concupiscence of one having intercourse. But if He had not taken even mortality, but only the substance of flesh from His mother, not only could not His Flesh, not have been flesh of sin, but not even the likeness of flesh of sin.'"

- E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 103-104.

56. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 104 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

57. Note: Quote was cited in Page 104 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“God created man upright, being the Author of natures, not of vices ; but man, of his own will depraved and justly condemned, generated men depraved and condemned . For we were all in that one, when we all were that one, who fell into sin through the woman, who was made from him before sin. For not as yet was that form, in which we should, each of us, live, created and distributed to us individually ; but there was already that seminal nature, from which we should be propagated ; the which being vitiated on account of sin, and being bound by the bond of death and justly condemned, man should be born of man not of another condition.”

- Augustine of Hippo in De Civ. Dei, xiii . 14.

58. Note: Quote was cited in Page 104 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“The sin of the first man, passing to all born of the union of the two sexes by reason of their origin [originaliter] and the debt of the first parents binding all their posterity.”

- Augustine of Hippo in Trin. xiii. 12 . n. 16. Opp. viii . pp. 937, 938.

59. Note: Quote was cited in Page 104 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“Christ willed not that His Flesh should come through such concurrence of male and female ; but, from a Virgin, who desired nothing of such sort in His Conception , He took for us ‘the likeness of flesh of sin,’ whereby the flesh of sin should be cleansed in us. ‘For as through the offence of one,’ saith the Apostle, ‘unto all men to condemnation, so through the justification of One to all men unto justification of life.’ For no one is born without carnal concupiscence operating, which is derived from the first man, Adam ; and no one is re-born without spiritual grace operating, which is given through the second Man, Who is Christ. Wherefore, if we belong to Adam by birth, to Christ by re- birth, and no one can be re- born before he is born ; then He was born in a peculiar way, Who had no need to be re-born, because He passed not from sin , in which He never was, nor ‘was He conceived in iniquity, nor did His mother in the womb nourish Him in sins,’ because ‘the Holy Ghost came upon her, and the virtue of the Highest overshadowed her, wherefore the Holy Thing which was born of her, is called the Son of God.’”

- Augustine of Hippo in Ep. 187 (lib . ad Dard. ), n. 31. Opp. ii . 688

60. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 104-105 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

61. Note: Quote was cited in Pages 104-105 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

62. Note: Quote was cited in Page 106 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“But if it be asked, how Christ was not decimated, since He too, it is plain, according to the origin of His Flesh, was in the loins of Abraham, when that father was decimated to Melchisedek, nothing else occurs, save that Mary, His mother, of whom He took flesh, was born of the carnal concupiscence of parents, but not so did she conceive Christ, Whom she conceived not from human seed, but from the Holy Ghost. He then did not appertain to that relation of seed of man, through which they were in the loins of Abraham, whom Holy Scripture attests to have been decimated in him.. [...] Concupiscence of the flesh there either was not in Adam before he sinned, or it was vitiated in him through sin.–Either then it is itself fault, if there was none before sin, or itself was, without doubt, vitiated by sin ; and therefore original sin is derived from it . There was then in the body of Mary the fleshly matter, whence Christ took flesh, but carnal concupiscence did not sow Christ in her. Whence He was born of flesh, with flesh, yet in ‘the likeness of flesh of sin,’ not, as other men, in flesh of sin, wherefore He dissolved original sin in others by regeneration, He did not Himself contract it by generation. Therefore the one was the first Adam, Christ was the second ; for the first was made, the second was born, without concupiscence of the flesh ; but the first was only man, the second was both God and Man : and therefore the first could not- sin [i.e. could keep from sin], not, like the Second, could- not sin [i .e. was incapable of sinning].”

- Augustine of Hippo in Op. Imp. c . Julian. vi. 22.

63. Note:

He [Augustine] uses the same language in that unfinished work, from the midst of which he was translated to his reward, his reply to Julian's insolent attack on his work, " De nuptiis et concupiscentia. " His immediate subject is , the "great and ineffable" mystery, " penetrable by no understanding, comprehended by no thought," of " the natural laws of propagation." By these, according to the Scripture illustration of Levi paying tithes in Abraham, each man was in his forefathers, but Jesus was excepted from the laws consequent thereon, by reason of His Virgin-Birth. [...] S. Augustine's answer to Julian's insolent contrast of him with Jovinian in this same work, implies the same belief. Julian had said, in the course of a series of contrasts between him and the heretic Jovinian, giving the preference to Jovinian, “He undid the virginity of Mary, by the condition of her child- bearing ; thou transferrest Mary herself to the devil by the condition of birth” (Op. Imp. c . Julian. iv. 122. ). S. Augustine denies this ; “We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of birth ; but on this ground, that the condition of birth is dissolved by the grace of re-birth.” S. Augustine does not even give a special answer to the charge. He gives one answer which applies to all Christians ; the ill condition of birth is undone by the grace of re- birth . This is true of cach of us through Holy Baptism . S. Augustine does not say that the condition of Mary's birth was different from that of others : he only says that it was undone. But if it was undone, then it was there, to be undone. This seems to me to lie in S. Augustine's own words, " but on this ground." He does not deny that such was the result of the condition under which the Blessed Virgin received her existence ; but he says, that it was healed. And the force of his words implies that it was healed by an act subsequent to the reception of her existence. In her too, "the condition of birth was dissolved by the grace of re-birth. " To be re- born implies having been previously born. Perrone's comment on the three first of these passages is, “From which texts it is plain to any one who is not carried away by a spirit of party, that the holy Doctor taught that Christ Alone was to be exempted from the universal contagion of sin; but that the Blessed Virgin, as having derived her being from the ordinary generation of both parents, contracted the common stain, and that her flesh was from sin and was flesh of sin, which (flesh) Christ cleansed, either when about to take it, or by taking it” (. c. pp. 58, 59. ).

- E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 91.

64. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1367656980302825/1568059803595874/?type=3&ref=embed_post

65. Latin Text:

Non est qui faciat bonum. […] Non est usque ad unum. Reuera solus est Christus, sine quo bonum aliquod uel incipere uel implere imbecillitas humana non praeualet. Quapropter iure negatum est ullum facere bonum, nisi usque ad ipsum fuerit eius miseratione peruentum. Nam cum ad eum acceditur, nec ab ipso receditur, omne bonum sine dubitatione peragitur.

66. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1367656980302825/1568059803595874/?type=3&ref=embed_post

67. Latin Text:

Ille enim solus naturaliter immaculatus est, qui peccata non habuit. Sancti enim immaculati hunt, quando indulgentiae munera consequuntur, sicut propheta in quinquagesimo psalmo dicit: Lauabis me, et super niuem dealbabor.

68. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1367656980302825/1568059803595874/?type=3&ref=embed_post

69. Latin Text:

Proba me, Deus, et scito cor meum; interroga me, et cognosce semitas meas. Et vide si via iniquitatis in me est; et deduc me in viam aeternam. Istud nullus potest alter de se dicere, nisi qui et illud ait: Ecce venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non inveniet quidquam. Solus enim absque peccato esse dignoscitur qui etiam tulisse peccata hominum comprobatur.

70. Note: Quote was cited in E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Here is his alternate quotation and citation:

“Some opine, that, as that Almighty Creator extracts the seed of flesh from our body, so also a new soul can be generated from the quality of the soul ; that so it may be shown, by transmission of fault, to be guilty of that original sin which the Catholic Church confesses, unless it be absolved by the grace of Baptism. For in what way ought an infant, who has no wish to sin,to be found at all guilty, unless, in some way, the fault should appear to be transfused in the origin itself of the soul ? Whence Father Augustine, commendable for his most religious doubt, says that nothing is rashly to be affirmed : but that it rests in His secret, as also many other things, which our mediocrity cannot know. But this is truly and fixedly to be believed, that God both creates souls, and, on some hidden ground, most justly imputes to them, that they should be held indebted to the sin of the first man. For it is better, in causes so secret, to confess ignorance, than to assume what may be a perilous boldness, since the Apostle says, ‘For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His councillor?’ and, ‘For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.’ [...] But since the tenor of the discussion has led us to this subject, that we should say, that souls generally are guilty through the transmission of sin, it is meet to make mention of the Soul of Christ the Lord, lest any one, perverted by calumnious intent, should think that It was held bound by the like condition. Let us hear then that its origin was prophesied by a worthy herald to holy Mary ever- Virgin . The Angel saith, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ Who, I ask, in this majesty of birth, could either believe, that there was any fault of original sin, or suspect any profane injury to the flesh ? Without sin He undoubtedly came, Who was about to loose the sins of all, conceived by the mystical in-breathing, born of a Virgin. He derived nothing from Adam, Who came, that the evil of Adam might be overcome. That most long coil, wherewith we were bound, was broken ; the torrent, which hurried us along, was dried there.”

- Cassiodorus, De anima, c. 7. ii . 633. Ben.

71. Latin Text:

“Opinione quoque fertur aliquorum quod creator ille potentissimus, sicut de corpore nostro semen carnis educit, ita et de animae qualitate animam nouam posse generari, quatenus originalis illius peccati, quod catholica confitetur ecclesia, per traducem delicti rea possit ostendi, nisi dono fuerit baptismatis absoluta. Nam quemadmodum infans qui peccandi non habet uotum, reus debeat ullatenus inueniri, nisi aliqua ratione in ipsa origine animarum culpa uideatur esse transfusa? unde pater augustinus, religiosissima dubitatione laudandus, nihil temere dicit esse firmandum, sed in ipsius esse secreto sicut et alia multa sunt quae nosse non potest nostra mediocritas. Hoc autem ueraciter fixeque credendum est, et Deum animas creare et occulta quadam ratione iustissime illis imputare quod primi hominis peccato tenentur obnoxiae. Melius est enim in tam occultis causis confiteri ignorantiam quam periculosam assumere fortassis audaciam, cum dicat apostolus: quis enim cognouit sensum Domini aut quis eius consiliarius fuit? et iterum: ex parte scimus et ex parte prophetamus. Sed quoniam in hunc locum tenor nos disputationis adduxit ut animas reas per traducem peccati generaliter esse diceremus, conuenit animam Christi Domini in medium deducere ne quis calumniosa intentione peruersus simili eam putet condicione constrictam. Audiamus igitur originem eius sanctae mariae semper uirgini digno praecone fuisse prophetatam. Ait angelus: spiritus sanctus superueniet in te et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum uocabitur filius Dei. Quis, rogo, in hac maiestate nascendi aut originalis peccati credat esse culpam aut profanam aliquam carnis suspicetur offensam? absque peccato sine dubio uenit qui erat omnium peccata soluturus. Conceptus mystico inspiramine, natus ex uirgine, nihil de adam traxit qui ut malum adae uinceretur aduenit. Funis ille longissimus quo nos ligabamur abruptus est. Torrens qui nos rapiebat ibi siccatus est. Iura sua mors perdidit, dum condicio nostra uitam redemptoris accepit. Nam primus homo posteris transmisit exitium; ueniens Christus Dominus credentibus contulit regna caelorum. Per istum enim reparat amissum statum qui per illum perdiderat meritum. Natus in gloria, conuersatus sine macula, quid potuit de illo trahere quem contraria uenit actione destruere? sanctae origini uita sancta respondit. Qui sine peccato est genitus, nulla est mundi labe superatus. Suscepit uerum hominem natura, non uitiis. Respuit quod protoplastus deliquit et assumpsit hominem purissimum quem creauit, non peccatum suscipiens, sed carnem peccati sine aliqua iniuria pollutionis assumens.”

- Cassiodorus, De Anima, Chapter IX: De Origine Animae, link: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cassiodorus/anima.shtml

72. Alternate translation:

‘Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest.’ For ‘Thy rest,’ he says is the Virgin, and her womb. ‘Thy rest,’ because it shall be made to Thee a couch and a habitation . ‘Arise, O Lord.’ For unless Thou arise from the Bosom of the Father, he saith, our race, long fallen, will not rise again. ‘Arise, O Lord ;’ for, even if Thou arise, Thou shalt not be severed from the glory of the Father, and, having come to us below, Thou shalt not quit the heavens, and, appearing in the Flesh, Thou wilt not lessen Thy ante-mundane might. ‘Thou and the ark of Thy strength.’ For when Thou, having risen thence, shalt seal the ark of Thy sanctification, then will the ark too [i.e. - the Blessed Virgin ] rise with all out of that fall, in which the kindred of Eve set her too.

- Chrysippus of Jerusalem, Serm. de laud . V. Mariæ. Bibl . PP. Gr. Lat. ii . 426. Paris, 1624. [This alternate translation Quote was cited in Page 126 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”]

73. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/610307412704456?ref=embed_post

74. Note: Even the citation itself was translated from Polish to English. Here is the original Polish citation inc ase one desires to track down the scholarly source: Wychowawca 1.2.4, SC 70: 114,116, w: Klemens Aleksandryjski, Wychowawca, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń 2012, s. 21.

75. Greek Text:

Έοικεν δε ο παιδαγωγός ημών, ώ παίδες ύμείς, τώ πατρί αυτού τω θεώ, ουπέρ έστιν υιός αναμάρτητος, ανεπίληπτος και απαθής την ψυχήν, θεός εν ανθρώπου σχήματι άχραντος, πατρικό 3οθελήματι διάκονος, λόγος θεός, ο εν τώ πατρί, ο εκ δεξιών του πατρός, συν και τώ σχήματι θεός. Ούτος ημίν εικών ή ακηλίδωτος, τούτω παντί σθένει πειρατέον εξομοιούν την ψυχήν αλλ' ό μεν απόλυτος εις το παντελές ανθρωπίνων παθών, (διά τούτο γαρ και μόνος κριτής, ότι αναμάρτητος μόνος) ήμείς δέ, όση δύναμις, ώς ότι ελάχιστα αμαρτάνειν πειρώμεθα κατεπείγει γαρ ουδεν τοσούτον ώς ή των παθών και νοσημάτων απαλλαγή πρώτον, έπειτα δε και ή κώλυσις τής εις τήν συνήθειαν τών άμαρτημάτων ευεμπτωσίας. Αριστον μεν ουν το μηδ' όλως εξαμαρτάνειν κατά μηδένα τρόπον, δ δή φαμεν είναι θεού δεύτερον δε (το) μηδενός τών κατά γνώμην εφάψασθαί ποτε αδικημάτων, όπερ οικείον σοφού τρίτον (δε τό) μή πάνυ πολλοίς τών ακουσίων περιπεσείν, όπερ ίδιον παιδαγωγουμένων ευγενώς το δε μή επί μήκιστον (εν)διατρίψαι τοίς αμαρτήμασι τελευταΐον τετάχθω αλλά και τούτο δή τοίς εις μετάνοιαν ανακαλουμένοις αναμαχέσασθαι σωτήριον.

76. Note: Quote was cited in Page 108 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

77. Note: S. Clement of Alexandria contrasts man's innate sinfulness with the single exception of our Lord. - E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 108.

78. Note:

In another place, in answer to Cassian, who, as a leader of the Docetæ, condemned marriage, he [Clement of Alexandria] assumes as agreed, that all lay under the common sentence from Adam, but, since there was this evil in all, before actual sin, he says, as an "argumentum ad hominem," that if, on account of this inborn evil, they condemned marriage as giving birth to the body, they must condemn the origin of the soul too (which they did not), since it was more in fault.

- E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 109.

79. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.773593479709181/1011917659210094/?type=3&ref=embed_post

80. Note: Alternative English translation can also be found here: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Three Christological Treatises, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Volume 129, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. 2014, str. 55.

81. Greek Text:

Ἔφη γοῦν Συμεὼν τῇ ἁγίᾳ Παρθένῳ, ὅτι Καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία· ῥομφαίαν τάχα που λέγων τὴν λύπην ἣν ἔσχεν ἐπὶ τῷ Χριστῷ, βλέπουσα σταυρούμενον ὃν γεγέννηκεν, καὶ οὐκ εἰδυῖα πάντως ὅτι καὶ κρείττων ἔσται θανάτου, καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστήσεται. Καὶ μή τοι θαυμάσῃς, εἰ ἠγνόησεν ἡ Παρθένος, ὅπου καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους ὀλιγοπιστοῦντας εὑρήσομεν περὶ τούτου. Καὶ γοῦν ὁ μακάριος Θωμᾶς, εἰ μὴ τὰς χεῖρας ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐψηλάφησε δὲ καὶ τοὺς τόπους τῶν ἥλων, οὐκ ἠνέσχετο πιστεῦσαι, λεγόντων αὐτοῦ τῶν ἑτέρων μαθητῶν, ὅτι ἐγήγερται Χριστὸς, καὶ ἐμφανῆ κατέστησεν αὐτοῖς ἑαυτόν.

82. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.773593479709181/773591466376049/?type=3&ref=embed_post

83. Note: Alternative citation can also be found here: Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on John”, t. 2, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove 2015, s. 347-348.

84. Greek Text:

Μη γάρ ενδοιάσης, ότι τοιούτους τινάς εισεδέξατο λογισμούς. Γεγέννηκα μεν εγώ τον επί ξύλου γελώμενον αλλ' Υίον εαυτόν αληθινόν είναι λέγων του πάντων κρατούντος Θεού, τάχα που και διεσφάλλετο. Εγώ είμι, λέγων, η ζωή, πώς εσταυρώθη; Κατά τίνα δε τρόπον τοίς των φονώντων ενεπνίγη βρόχοις ; Πώς ου κεκράτηκε της των διωκόντων επιβουλής; Πώς δε ου κάτεισιν από του σταυρού, καίτοι τώ Λαζάρω παλινδρομείν επιτάξας εις ζωήν, και όλην τοις θαύμασι καταπλήξας την Ιουδαίαν; Και εικός γε δη σφόδρα το μυστήριον ουκ είδος εν τοιούτοις τισι το γύναιον ολισθήσαι διαλογισμοίς. Χρή γαρ εννοείν ποιoύντας ορθώς, ότι τών συμβεβηκότων η φύσις δεινή προς το καταστρέψαι και τον νήφοντα λογισμόν. Θαυμαστόν δε ουδέν ει παρώλισθέ πως εις τούτο γυνή. Ει γαρ και αυτός ο των αγίων μαθητών πρόκριτος Πέτρος εσκανδαλίσθη ποτέ, λέγοντος του Χριστού και διδάσκοντος εναργώς, ότι μέλλει παραδοθήναι εις χείρας αμαρτωλών, και σταυρόν υπομένειν, και θάνατον, ώς αναφωνήσαι προαλέστερον Ιλεώς σοι, Κύριε, ου μη έσται σοι τούτο και τι το παράδοξον, ει προς εννοίας ασθενεστέρας ο τρυφερός του γυναίου συνηρπάζετο νούς; Και ταύτά φαμεν ου καταστοχαζόμενοι μάτην, ώς άν τω δοκoίη, αλλ' εκ των γεγραμμένων περί της του Κυρίου μητρός ιόντες εις υποψίαν. Μεμνήμεθα γαρ ότι Σιμεών ο δίκαιος, ότε βρέφος όντα τον Κύριον εις τας αγκάλας εδέξατο, κατά το γεγραμμένον, προευχαριστήσας, και ειπών. Νύν απολύεις τον δουλόν σου, Δέσποτα, κατά το ρημά σου, εν ειρήνη, ότι είδον οι οφθαλμοί μου το σωτήριόν σου και προς αυτήν έφη την αγίαν Παρθένον Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν πολλών εν τώ Ισραήλ, και εις σημείον αντιλεγόμενον, και σου δε αυτής την ψυ χήν διελεύσεται ρομφαία, όπως αν αποκαλυφθώσιν εκ πολλών καρδιών διαλογισμοί. Ρομφαίαν γαρ έλεγε την οξείαν του πάθους προσβολήν προς λογισμούς εκτόπους κατατέμνουσαν του γυναίου τον νούν. Δοκιμάζουσι γάρ οι πειρασμοί τας των πασχόντων καρδίας, και τους ενόντας αυταίς απογυμνούσι λογισμούς.

85. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/611947825873748?ref=embed_post

86. Note: Quote was cited in Page 108 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

87. Note: Didymus of Alexandria, who lived almost throughout the fourth century, mentions the virgin-birth as the ground of our Lord's being free from original sin, to which all besides are subject, and that, in controversy with Manichees. - E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 108.

88. Alternative Citation in Polish:

Bóg posławszy Syna swego w podobieństwie grzesznego ciała, dla grzechu, potępił grzech w ciele” (Rz 8:3). To, co mówi, jest następujące. Ciało każdego człowieka powstaje w wyniku współżycia, z wyjątkiem [ciała] należącego do pierwszego człowieka i tego, które przyjął Zbawiciel. Albowiem ciało ludzkie nie może powstać inaczej, jak tylko przez obcowanie mężczyzny i kobiety. Skoro jednak jedynie Zbawiciel otrzymał swoje ciało od Dziewicy, takie ciało nie powstało w wyniku współżycia. Paweł powiedział, że ciało Pana było podobieństwem do ciała, które powstaje w wyniku współżycia. Nie powiedział bowiem bez zastrzeżeń, że ma podobieństwo ciała, ale raczej, że ma podobieństwo grzesznego ciała. Podobieństwem grzesznego ciała jest ciało, które różni się od innych rodzajów ciał tym, że powstało bez udziału mężczyzny. Było bowiem konieczne, aby Ten, który przyszedł zbawić ludzkość, nie wziął swojego ciała ze współżycia. Jednocześnie Odkupiciel nie mógł urodzić się poza linią rodowodu ludzkiego, jak pierwszy człowiek, aby jego ciało nie zostało uznane za innego rodzaju. Bo gdyby On również został stworzony z ziemi, tak jak założyciel rodzaju ludzkiego, to ci, którzy twierdzą, że jego wygląd był złudzeniem, przypuszczaliby, że dlatego nie miał naprawdę ludzkiego ciała. Co więcej, gdyby przyjął ciało powstałe w wyniku współżycia, to ponieważ nie posiadałoby ono tej nadzwyczajnej cechy [narodzenia z dziewicy], również podlegałoby grzechowi, który ciąży na wszystkich potomkach Adama.

- „Przeciw Manichejczykom” 13, PG 39: 1093,1096 [Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/887123089084782?ref=embed_post]

89. Greek Text:

Ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, περὶ ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. Ὃ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν. Ἡ πάντων ἀνθρώπων σὰρξ, ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, δίχα τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου, καὶ οὗ ἀνέλαβεν ὁ Σωτήρ. Οὐκ ἂν γὰρ ἄλλως σῶμα ἀνθρώπου γένοιτο, μὴ ἐπιπλακέντος τῷ θήλει τοῦ ἄῤῥενος. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐκ μόνης τῆς Παρθένου ἔλαβε σῶμα, τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχον ἐκ συνουσίας, ὁμοίωμα τὴν σάρκα τὴν Κυριακὴν εἶπε τῆς σαρκὸς τῆς ἐκ συνουσίας. Οὐ γὰρ καθάπαξ εἶπεν, ὁμοίωμα σαρκὸς αὐτὸν ἔχειν, ἀλλ' ὁμοίωμα σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. Τὸ δὲ ὁμοίωμα τῆς σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, σάρξ ἐστιν, μόνῳ τούτῳ λειπομένη τῶν ἄλλων σαρκῶν, τὸ ἄνευ ἀνδρὸς ἐσχηκέναι τὴν ὕπαρξιν. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐρχόμενον, μὴ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ σῶμα λαβεῖν. Μηδ' αὖ ἔξωθεν τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων διαδοχῆς, ὥσπερ ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα μὴ ἑτερογενὲς αὐτοῦ νομισθῇ τὸ σῶμα. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐπέπλαστο, ὡς ἀρχηγὸς τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὑπόνοιαν ἐλάμβανον οἱ διὰ φαντασίας τὴν δόκησιν εἰσάγοντες, μήτε ἄρα οὐ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἔφερεν ἀνθρώπου σῶμα. Πάλιν, εἰ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ ἀνειλήφει σῶμα, οὐκ ἔχων τὸ παρηλλαγμένον, ἐνομίσθη ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπεύθυνος εἶναι ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ᾗπερ καὶ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ πάντες κατὰ διαδοχὴν ὑπῆρχον.

90. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1471948979873624?ref=embed_post

91. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1471948979873624?ref=embed_post

92. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1471948979873624?ref=embed_post

93. Note: Quote was cited in Page 109 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

94. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1024561628674260?ref=embed_post

95. Latin Text:

Nemo enim homo sine peccato est. Nam de uno testimonium affertur, quod peccatum non fecerit. Dicemus igitur de poenitentia cum ex veteri tum ex novo Testamento. Hi enim thesauri sunt Ecclesiae.

96. Greek Text:

Ἀνθρώπων γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἀναμάρτητος. Ἑνὶ γὰρ μαρτυρεῖται, ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε. Λέξομεν οὖν περὶ μετανοίας ἐκ Παλαιᾶς τε καὶ Καινῆς. Οὗτοι γὰρ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θησαυροί.

- E. M. Buytaert, “L'héritage littéraire d'Eusèbe d'Émèse”, Louvain 1949, p. 16* (Greek text); personal translation.

97. Latin Text:

A peccati enim veteris nexu non est immunis nec ipsa genitrix Redemptoris ; solus ille , licet ex debito renascatur, lege tamen veteris debiti non tenetur.

98. Note: This collection of homilies used to be attributed to Eusebius of Emesa (Eusebius Emesenus), however, today, they are said to be from a "Eusebius Gallicanus" who lived close to the same time. in most versions of the text that one will find online, the text reads as: A peccati enim veteris nexu **per se** non est immunis nec ipsa genitrix redemptoris, solus ille licet ex debito renascatur, lege tamen veteris debiti non tenetur. The words "per se" are found which change the text to say "she is not in herself free..." This is the reading that we find in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum 1618 Tome 5 Column 545…

As well as the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum 1677 Tome 6:621…

However, this is not the reading of the original text, which we can prove from 4 key witnesses. First, and possibly the most important: Denis Pétau, the 16th Century Jesuit Theologian, writes in his “de Theologicis Dogmatibus,” clearly testifying that the text was later doctored so that it would not contradict the Immaculate Conception:

99. Juan de Torquemada, likewise, testifies that the original text does not include per se…

100. As well as this, a modern version of the text that is not yet in the public domain titled, “Eusebius Gallicanus Collectio Homiliarum” (page 26) does not contain the doctored text…

101. And, finally, in the original manuscript of Eusebius Gallicanus' works, the words "per se" are omitted…

102. In toto, the original text preserved by Petavius, Turrecemata, Léroy and the original manuscript is a clear witness against the immaculate conception. And, as Petavius attests, as well as the versions with "per se", this text was later doctored so that it was not opposed to the immaculate conception. (Documentation of this found in the following helpful tweet thread: https://x.com/anded__1/status/1825159173648097448)

103. Note: The sermon omitted in the Antwerp Editions, 1555, 1568, Alva notices.

104. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source (which provided the latin and a Polish translation). See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1409296672805522/1409295682805621/?type=3&ref=embed_post

105. Note: The original citation itself was originally in French. Here is the original French source and citation in case one desires to track it down: Michel Spanneut, “Recherches sur les écrits d'Eustathe d'Antioche avec une édition nouvelle des fragments dogmatiques et exégétiques”,Facultés catholiques, Lille 1948, s. 117; tłumaczenie własne.

106. Latin Text:

At mater secundum corpus, cum defecisset uinum iis qui secum bibebant, certiorem illum fecit, statim dicens : « Vinum non habent ». Ipse autem, cum respondisset, dixit : « Quid mihi et tibi, mulier ? », dicens (insuper) : «Nondum uenit hora mea». Sed per id, quod motus est ad increpationem, indicauit se, quatenus Deus est, scire omnia et intra praescientiam divinam esse, minime indigentem ut ab aliis ea quae fiunt discat.

107. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source (which provided the Greek and a Polish translation). See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1184855469311541&set=a.976479000149190&type=3&ref=embed_post

108. Greek Text:

Εἰ πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ κατακυριεύσει ὁ σατανᾶς, πάντες δὲ οἱ δίκαιοι ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ εἰσι, πάντων ἄρα τῶν δικαίων κατακυριεύσει ὁ σατανᾶς. Οὐκ ἐν παντὶ δὲ δηλονότι κατακυριεύσει πράγματι, ἀλλ' ἔν τινι. Μόνος γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ.

109. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source (which provided the Greek and a Polish translation). See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1096225024112690/1096223120779547/?type=3&ref=embed_post

110. Latin Text:

Sic caro Christi carni Mariae et similis est, et dissimilis: similis, quia inde traxit originem; dissimilis, quia non inde contraxit vitiatae originis contagionem: similis, quoniam, licet voluntarias, tamen veras sensit infirmitates; dissimilis, quoniam nullas penitus neque per voluntatem, neque per ignorantiam commisit iniquitates: similis, quia passibilis et mortalis; dissimilis, quia incoinquinabilis, et vivificatrix etiam mortuorum.

111. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source (which provided the Greek and a Polish translation). See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.700280787040451/529439420791256/?type=3&ref=embed_post

112. Note:

Among the manuscripts, the last sentence of this fragment appears in several versions, with the difference concerning one phrase: (a) "Truly, therefore, Mary conceived the Word of God, whom she carried in her sinful body" (Latin: in carne peccati) or (b) "Truly, therefore, Mary conceived and gave birth to the Word of God incarnate" (Latin: incarnatum). The denial of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not depend on which version is chosen, because earlier Fulgentius explicitly repeats – and there are no differing versions here – that the body of Mary was truly a sinful body (Latin: caro fuit utique peccati).

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.700280787040451/529439420791256/?type=3&ref=embed_post

113. Note: Alternative citation can also be found here: Fulgentius of Ruspe, “Opera II”, edited by J. Fraipont, Brepols, Turnhout 1968, pp. 571-572; “Fulgentius of Ruspe and The Scythian Monks: Correspondence on Christology and Grace”, Catholic University of America Press, Washington 2013, p. 54.

114. Latin Text:

Haec est gratia qua factum est ut Deus, qui uenit peccata tollere, quia peccatum in eo non est, homo conciperetur atque nasceretur in similitudine carnis peccati, de carne peccati. Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus fuerat humana solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. […] Similitudo uero carnis peccati cum in Dei Filio, uel potius Dei Filius in similitudine carnis peccati cum dicitur, credendum est Vnigenitum Deum de uirginis carne mortali non traxisse peccati sordem, sed accepisse naturae integram ueritatem, ut ueritatis ortus de terra existeret, quem prophetali sermone beatus Dauid insinuat dicens : Veritas de terra orta est. Vere igitur Deum Verbum Maria concepit, quod in carne peccati/incarnatum peperit.

- CCSL 91A: 571-572

115. Latin Text:

Propter quod et apostolus dicit : Per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intrauit, et per peccatum mors ; et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccauerunt. Item dicit : Regnauit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam in eos qui non peccauerunt in similitudine praeuaricationis Adae. Peccans igitur homo totam in se peccato suo subdidit progeniem, quando delinquendo ueram perdidit libertatem : A quo enim quis deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est, et : Omnis qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati. Ab hac seruitute, qua nascentes paruuli tenentur obstricti, solus unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus liber est genitus ; qui licet uerus homo natus fuerit, non tamen interueniente concupiscentia carnis, nec ex concubitu maris et feminae, sed de sancto Spiritu natus, ita ueram carnem de carne matris accepit, ut Deus uerus non culpam humanae sumeret originis, sed naturam.

116. Latin Text:

Ut scilicet ullius immaculati Agni sit proprium nullum prorsus habuisse peccatum, ne non soli videatur esse deputandum, si alius quilibet sanctus expers delicti fuisse credatur.

117. Note: Quote was found in & translated from a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1262196614182196?ref=embed_post

118. Greek Text:

ὅτι γὰρ διὰ σαρκὸς τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ συναναστρεφόμενος φύσει ἐν τῇ παιδικῇ ἡλικίᾳ ἐνομοθέτει, δι' ὧν ἐποίει, τὴν ὑποταγὴν τῇ νεότητι, δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς τὸ τέλειον τῆς ἡλικίας αὐτὸν προελθόντα μηκέτι πρὸς τὴν τῆς μητρὸς ἐξουσίαν βλέπειν. προτρεπομένης γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐκείνης ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας δεῖξαι τὴν δύναμιν ἐν τῷ λείποντι τῇ πανδαισίᾳ τῶν γάμων καὶ τὴν τοῦ οἴνου χρείαν τῇ εὐωχίᾳ χαρίσασθαι, τὴν μὲν χάριν τοῖς δεομένοις παρασχεῖν οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, τὴν δὲ μητρῷαν συμβουλὴν ὡς οὐκέτι κατὰ καιρὸν αὐτῷ προσαγομένην ἀπεποιήσατο εἰπών· Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; μὴ καὶ ταύτης μου τῆς ἡλικίας ἐπιστατεῖν ἐθέλεις; Οὔπω ἥκει μου ἡ ὥρα ἡ τὸ αὐτοκρατὲς παρεχομένη τῇ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ αὐτεξούσιον

119. Note: Quote was found in & translated from a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/995628907505636?ref=embed_post

120. Note: Quoted by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, 3rd part, question 34, article 1, reply to objection 3. Link: https://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP034.html

121. Latin Text:

Nos quippe etsi sancti efficimur, non tamen sancti nascimur, quia ipsa naturae corruptibilis conditione constringimur, ut cum Propheta dicamus: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in delictis peperit me mater mea. Ille autem solus veraciter sanctus natus est, qui ut ipsam conditionem naturae corruptibilis vinceret, ex commistione carnalis copulae conceptus non est.

122. Note: Quote was found in & translated from a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.765455197189676/1335126156889241/?type=3&ref=embed_post

123. Latin Text:

Potest vero hoc in loco intelligi, quia beatus Iob incarnationem Redemptoris intuitus, solum vidit in mundo hominem de immundo semine non esse conceptum, qui sic in mundum venit ex Virgine, ut nihil haberet de immunda conceptione. Neque enim ex viro et femina, sed ex sancto Spiritu et Maria virgine processit. Solus ergo in carne sua vere mundus exstitit, qui delectatione carnis tangi non potuit, quia nec per carnalem huc delectationem venit.

124. Note: Quote was found in & translated from a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.765455197189676/1335126156889241/?type=3&ref=embed_post

125. Latin Text:

Quia autem nemo hominum in hoc mundo sine peccato est - et quid est aliud peccare nisi a Deo fugere? fiducialiter dico etiam eamdem filiam meam peccata aliqua habere. - Letter 7.27, CCSL 140: 485

126. Note:

Gregory, following the Western interpretation of Matthew 12:46-50, similarly to Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, and Augustine, pointed to Mary as a symbol of the unrecognized and distancing synagogue from Christ.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.765455197189676/1335126156889241/?type=3&ref=embed_post

127. Note: Quote was found in & translated from a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.765455197189676/1335126156889241/?type=3&ref=embed_post

128. Latin Text:

Sancti Evangelii, fratres charissimi, brevis est lectio recitata, sed magnis mysteriorum ponderibus gravida. Iesus etenim conditor et redemptor noster matrem se nosse dissimulat, et quae ei mater sit, et qui propinqui, non per cognationem carnis, sed per coniunctionem spiritus designat, dicens: Quae est mater mea, et qui sunt fratres mei? Quicunque enim fecerit voluntatem Patris mei qui in coelis est, ipse meus frater, et soror, et mater est. Quibus nobis verbis quid aliud innuit, nisi quod obsequentes iussionibus suis multos ex gentilitate colligit, et Iudaeam, ex cuius carne est genitus, non agnoscit? Unde et mater eius cum quasi non agnoscitur, foris stare perhibetur, quia videlicet Synagoga idcirco ab auctore suo non recognoscitur, quia, legis observationem tenens, spiritalem intellectum perdidit, et sese ad custodiam litterae foris fixit.

129. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/696730740728789?ref=embed_post

130. Note: Even the citation itself was translated from Polish to English. Here is the original Polish citation in case one desires to track down the scholarly source: „Traktat do Psalmu 118” 3.12; CSEL 22: 384, w: Hilary z Poitiers, „Traktat do Psalmu 118”, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKSW, Warszawa 2017, s. 64.

131. Latin Text:

Beatae Mariae animam gladius pertransibit, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes. Si in judicii severitatem capax illa Dei Virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit a Deo judicari?

132. Note:

Referring to the event described in Matthew 12:46-50, where we read of Jesus' family standing outside while He himself was teaching to the crowds, Hilary points out that in Mary and His brothers a future image of the synagogue has been presented, and of the Israelites, who disbelieving turn away from Him. And though Hilary points out Jesus saying, "Who is my mother?" “ he did not intend to treat Mary in a contemptuous way, because, as he points out, He showed concern for her, entrusting her to care for John, this interprets the behavior of a family outside, which, despite having free access to Him, was not among those Jesus preached, as a foreteller to the unbelieving part of Israel, who will reject her messiah.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/627477040987493?ref=embed_post

133. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/627477040987493?ref=embed_post

134. Latin Text:

Propinquitatum jus jam unde sumendum. Christi propinqui foris stantes, Synagoga. - Et quia totum istud in paternae majestatis virtute loqueretur; nuntianti sibi quod foris a matre atque a fratribus exspectaretur, manum in discipulos extendens, eos sibi fratres esse matremque respondit; et quicumque voluntati paternae obsecutus esset, eum esse et fratrem et sororem et matrem: formam se ipsum universis agendi sentiendique constituens, propinquitatum omnium jus atque nomen, jam non de conditione nascendi, sed de Ecclesiae communione retinendum. Caeterum non fastidiose de matre sua sensisse existimandus est, cui in passione positus maximae sollicitudinis tribuerit affectum. Est autem etiam in eo typica ratio servata, ut mater ejus et fratres foris starent, cum utuiqe ingrediendi ad eum haberent ut caeteri potestatem. Sed quia in sua venit, et sui eum non receperunt; in matre ejus ac fratribus Synagoga et Israelitae praefigurantur, ingressu ejus atque aditu abstinentes.

- Migne PL 9: 993

135. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.679941525741044/878587609209767/?type=3&ref=embed_post

136. Note:

The main issue raised in Jerome's letter to Ktesiphon was Pelagianism and the problem of sinlessness. After citing a series of biblical passages highlighting the universal sinfulness of all people without exception, Jerome refers to a passage from the book of Isaiah 53 and states that the only person without sin is Jesus. Jerome makes no exception for Mary, and when we compare this letter with his work against the Pelagians, where he accuses his opponents of being unable to cite even one person who has truly never sinned, he points out that even the Apostles and Patriarchs were not without sin. He also acknowledges that some people can be relatively just (in relation to others), while still being sinners (citing Mary and John the Baptist as examples). From this, we can conclude that the doctrine of the sinlessness (and even more so, the Immaculate Conception) of Mary was completely foreign to Jerome. When we combine this testimony with countless others from both earlier and later centuries, it must be stated that this teaching did not exist in the early Church. Anyone who teaches today (especially dogmatically) about the Immaculate Conception and sinlessness of Mary not only contradicts the teachings of Scripture but also contradicts the common teaching of the early Church.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.679941525741044/878587609209767/?type=3&ref=embed_post

137. Latin Text:

Soletis et hoc dicere, aut possibilia esse mandata, et recte a Deo data: aut impossibilia, et non in his esse culpam qui accipere mandata, sed in eo qui dedit impossibilia. Numquid praecepit mihi Deus, ut essem quod Deus est: ut nihil inter me esset et Dominum Creatorem: ut major essem Angelorum fastigio, ut haberem quod Angeli non habent? De illo scriptum est quasi proprium: Qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus in ore ejus (Isai. 53. 9). Si hoc et mihi cum Christo commune est, quid ille habuit proprium? alioqui per se tua sententia destruetur.

- Migne PL22: 1156

138. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.679941525741044/878597109208817/?type=3&ref=embed_post

139. Latin Text:

Ecce mater mea, et fratres mei. Quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem Patris mei, qui in coelis est, ipse meus frater, et soror, et mater est. Isti sunt mater mea, qui me quotidie in credentium animis generant. Isti sunt fratres mei, qui faciunt opera Patris mei. Non ergo iuxta Marcionem et Manichaeum matrem negavit, ut natus de phantasmate putaretur; sed apostolos cognationi praetulit, ut et nos in comparatione dilectionis carni spiritum praeferamus. Ecce mater tua, et fratres tui foris stant, quaerentes te. Quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Ioseph filios suspicantur, sequentes deliramenta apocryphorum, et quamdam Melcham vel Escham mulierculam confingentes. Nos autem sicut in libro, quem contra Helvidium scripsimus, continetur, fratres Domini, non filios Ioseph, sed consobrinos Salvatoris, Mariae liberos intelligimus materterae Domini quae esse dicitur mater Iacobi Minoris et Ioseph et Iudae, quos in alio Evangelii loco fratres Domini legimus appellatos. Fratres autem consobrinos dici, omnis Scriptura demonstrat. Dicamus et aliter: Salvator loquitur ad turbas, intrinsecus erudit nationes. Mater eius et fratres, hoc est, synagoga et populus Iudaeorum foris stant, et intrare desiderant, et sermone eius indigni fiunt. Cumque rogaverint, et quaesierint, et nuntium miserint, responsum accipient, liberi eos esse arbitrii, et intrare posse, si velint et ipsi credere: qui tamen intrare non poterunt, nisi alios rogaverint.

140. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.657401914661672/1331316667270190/?type=3&ref=embed_post

141. Latin Text:

Et primum quidem blasphemiae stultiloquium est dicere esse hominem sine peccato; quod omnino non potest, nisi unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus, qui sine peccato est conceptus et partus. Nam ceteri homines cum peccato originali nascentes testimonium praeuaricationis Adae, etiam sine actuali peccato existentes, portare noscuntur, secundum prophetam dicentem: ‘Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis peperit me mater mea.’

- Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum 2.19, Migne PL 95: 114

142. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/779044189892673?ref=embed_post

143. Greek Text:

σήμερον δε και πλέον έτερόν τι μανθάνομεν, ότι ουδε το κυοφορήσαι τον Χριστον, και τον θαυμαστόν εκείνον τόκον τεκείν, έχει τι κέρδος, αρετής ουκ ούσης. Και τούτο μάλιστα εντεύθεν δήλον Έτι γάρ αυτού λαλούντος τοις όχλοις, φησί, είπέ τις αυτό, ότι η μήτηρ σου και οι αδελφοί σου ζητούσί σε. Ο δε λέγει τίς εστιν η μήτηρ μου, και τίνες οι αδελφοί μου; Ταύτα δε έλεγεν, ουκ επαισχυνόμενος επί τη μητρί, ουδε αρνούμενος την γεγεννηκυίαν ει γάρ επησχύνετο, ουδ' αν διήλθε διά της μήτρας εκείνης αλλά δηλών, ότι ουδέν αυτή όφελος τούτου, ει μη τα δέοντα ποιεί άπαντα. Και γαρόπερ επεχείρησε, φιλοτιμίας ήν περιττής εβούλετο γαρ ενδείξασθαι τώ δήμω, ότι κρατεί και αυθεντεί του παιδός, ουδέν ουδέπω περί αυτού μέγα φανταζομένη, διο και ακαίρως προσήλθεν. Ορα γούν και αυτής και εκείνων την απόνοιαν. Δέον γάρ εισελθόντας ακούσαι μετά του όχλου, ή μή τούτο βουλομένους αναμείναι καταλύσαι τον λόγον, και τότε προσελθείν οι δε έξω καλούσιν αυτόν, και επί πάντων τούτο ποιούσι, φιλοτιμίαν επιδεικνύμενοι περιττήν, και δείξαι θέλοντες, ότι μετά πολλής αυτό επιτάττουσι της εξουσίας. Οπερ και ο ευαγγελιστής δείκνυται εγκαλών , αυτό γαρ τούτο αινιττόμενος ούτως είρηκεν. Έτι αυτού λαλούντος τοις όχλοις ώσανεί έλεγε μη γαρ ουκ ήν καιρός έτερος, μή γαρ ουκ ήν κατ' ιδίαν διαλεχθήναι; Τί δε και λαλήσαι έβούλοντο; Ει μεν γαρ υπέρ των της αληθείας δογμάτων, κοινή ταύτα προθείναι εχρήν, και επί πάντων ειπείν, ώστε και τους άλλους κερδάναι" ει δε περί ετέρων των αυτοίς διαφερόντων, ουκ έχρήν ούτω κατεπείγειν. Ει γάρ πατέρα θάψαι ουκ αφήκεν, ίνα μη διακόπτηται η ακολούθησις, πολλώ μάλλον την αυτού δημηγορίαν καταλύσαι ουκ εχ ρήν υπέρ των ουδεν προσηκόντων. Όθεν δήλον, ότι κενοδοξία τούτο μόνον επoίoυν.

144. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/779044189892673?ref=embed_post

145. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/787521005711658?ref=embed_post

146. Note:

For Chrysostom, it is clear that even after the Annunciation, which was also a revelation of the truth about Jesus, His family, including Mary, remained essentially unaware of the true identity and greatness of the child.

- Piotr Szczur, "The Mariological Thought of John Chrysostom in Light of *In Matthaeum Homiliae*," *VOX PATRUM* 80 (2021), p. 98. [ORIGINAL CITATION: Piotr Szczur, „Myśl mariologiczna Jana Chryzostoma w świetle In Matthaeum homiliae”, VOX PATRUM 80 (2021), s. 98.

147. Greek Text:

ὅπου γε οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κυοφοροῦσα Παρθένος ᾔδει τοῦ μυστηρίου τὸ ἀπόῤῥητον, οὐδὲ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ὁ δοκῶν εἶναι πατὴρ μέγα τι ἐφαντάζετο περὶ αὐτοῦ.

148. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/787521005711658?ref=embed_post

149. Note:

In Antioch, John Chrysostom delivered a series of homilies on the *Gospel According to Matthew.* In one of them, commenting on Matthew 1:17–21, he attributes purely human emotions to Mary, emphasizing that she, "who was to receive such great grace, succumbed to human feeling and said: ‘How shall this be, since I do not know a man?’ (Luke 1:34)". Describing her reaction to the Annunciation, Chrysostom highlights that the Virgin, fearing scandal, was very troubled and distressed, even considering suicide. The angel sent to her consoled her precisely to prevent this: “So that this would not happen, the angel came before the conception. It was fitting that the womb into which the Creator of all things would enter should not remain in fear, and the soul deemed worthy of becoming the instrument of such mysteries should be free from any dread.” Regarding Mary's suicidal thoughts and disbelief, we read [the above cited quote].

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/787521005711658?ref=embed_post

150. Greek Text:

Διὰ ταῦτα ἡ Παρθένος μὲν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ λέγει, ὁ δὲ ἄγγελος τοῦ καιροῦ καλοῦντος ἐφίσταται. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν, φησὶν, οὐχὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Παρθένου τοῦτο ἐποίησε, καὶ μετὰ τὴν κύησιν αὐτὴν εὐηγγελίσατο; Ἵνα μὴ ἐν ταραχῇ ᾖ καὶ θορύβῳ πολλῷ. Καὶ γὰρ εἰκὸς ἦν, τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ εἰδυῖαν, καὶ βουλεύσασθαί τι περὶ ἑαυτῆς ἄτοπον, καὶ ἐπὶ βρόχον ἐλθεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ ξίφος, οὐ φέρουσαν τὴν αἰσχύνην. Καὶ γὰρ θαυμαστὴ ἦν ἡ Παρθένος, καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῆς τὴν ἀρετὴν ὁ Λουκᾶς, λέγων ὅτι ἐπειδὴ τὸν ἀσπασμὸν ἤκουσεν, οὐκ εὐθέως ἑαυτὴν ἐξέχεεν, οὐδὲ ἐδέξατο τὸ λεχθέν· ἀλλ' ἐταράχθη ζητοῦσα τὸ, ποταπὸς εἴη ὁ ἀσπασμός. Ἡ δὲ οὕτως οὖσα διηκριβωμένη, κἂν ἐξέστη τῇ ἀθυμίᾳ τὴν αἰσχύνην λογιζομένη, καὶ οὐ προσδοκῶσα, ὅσα ἂν λέγῃ, πείσειν τινὰ τῶν ἀκουόντων, ὅτι οὐ μοιχεία τὸ γεγενημένον.

151. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1170107640786324?ref=embed_post

152. Greek Text:

Πόθεν οὖν ἐπῆλθε τῇ μητρὶ μέγα τι φαντασθῆναι περὶ αὐτοῦ; φησίν. Ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι λοιπὸν ἤρχετο, καὶ ἐξ Ἰωάννου κατάδηλος ἦν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰρημένων αὐτῷ· καὶ πρὸ τούτων δὲ ἁπάντων, αὐτὴ ἡ σύλληψις, καὶ τὰ μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν γενόμενα πάντα, μεγίστην αὐτῇ περὶ τοῦ παιδὸς ἐνέθηκε τὴν ὑπόνοιαν. Ἤκουσε γὰρ, φησὶ, πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ παιδός, "Καὶ συνετήρει ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς". Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν, φησὶν, οὐ πρὸ τούτου ταῦτα ἔλεγεν; Ὅτι, ὅπερ ἔφην, τότε λοιπὸν ἀρχὴν τοῦ φανεροῦσθαι ἐλάμβανε. Πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τούτου ὡς τῶν πολλῶν εἷς ὢν, οὕτω διῆγεν· ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἐθάῤῥει τοιοῦτόν τι πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ εἰπεῖν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἤκουσεν, ὅτι Ἰωάννης δι' αὐτὸν ἦλθε, καὶ ὅτι αὐτῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν ἅπερ ἐμαρτύρησε, καὶ ὅτι μαθητὰς ἔσχε, τότε λοιπὸν θαῤῥοῦσα παρακαλεῖ, καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου, λέγει· "Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν". Ἐβούλετο γὰρ καὶ ἐκείνοις καταθέσθαι χάριν, καὶ ἑαυτὴν λαμπροτέραν ποιῆσαι διὰ τοῦ παιδός. Καὶ τάχα τι καὶ ἀνθρώπινον ἔπασχε, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες, "Δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ", βουλόμενοι τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν θαυμάτων δόξαν καρπώσασθαι. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ αὐτὸς σφοδρότερον ἀπεκρίνατο, λέγων· "Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, γύναι; Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου". Ἐπεὶ ὅτι σφόδρα ᾐδεῖτο τὴν τεκοῦσαν, ἄκουσον τοῦ Λουκᾶ διηγουμένου πῶς ὑποτεταγμένος τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἦν, καὶ αὐτοῦ δὲ τούτου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ δεικνύντος, πῶς αὐτῆς προενόησε καὶ παρ' αὐτὸν τοῦ σταυροῦ τὸν καιρόν. Ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ἂν μηδὲν ἐμποδίζωσι, μηδὲ παρεγκόπτωσί τι τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν πραγμάτων οἱ γονεῖς, ἀναγκαῖον εἴκειν καὶ ὀφειλόμενον, καὶ τὸ μὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, κίνδυνος μέγας· ὅταν δὲ ἀκαίρως τι ζητῶσι καὶ ἐγκόπτωσί τι τῶν πνευματικῶν, οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς πείθεσθαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐνταῦθα οὕτως ἀπεκρίνατο, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ πάλιν· Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου, καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου; Οὐδέπω γὰρ ἣν ἐχρῆν περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαν εἶχον· ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ὤδινεν αὐτὸν, ἠξίου κατὰ τὴν λοιπὴν τῶν μητέρων συνήθειαν, οὕτως ἅπαντα ἐπιτάττειν αὐτῷ, δέον ὡς Δεσπότην σέβειν καὶ προσκυνεῖν. Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν τότε οὕτως ἀπεκρίνατο. Ἐννόησον γὰρ οἷον ἦν παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ δήμου περιεστῶτος αὐτὸν, καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῆς ἀκροάσεως ἐκκρεμαμένου, καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας προτεθείσης, ἐκείνην παρελθοῦσαν μέσην, ἀπαγαγεῖν μὲν αὐτὸν τῆς παραινέσεως, ἰδίᾳ δὲ διαλέγεσθαι, μηδὲ ἔνδον ἀνέχεσθαι ἐλθεῖν, ἀλλ' ἕλκειν αὐτὸν ἔξω μόνον πρὸς ἑαυτήν. Διὰ τοῦτο ἔλεγε, Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου; οὐχ ὑβρίζων τὴν γεγεννηκυῖαν· ἄπαγε· ἀλλ' ὠφελῶν τὰ μέγιστα, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιεὶς ταπεινὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ φρονεῖν. Εἰ γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἐκήδετο, καὶ πάντα ἔπραττεν ὥστε ἐνθεῖναι αὐτοῖς τὴν προσήκουσαν περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ μητρός. [...] Διὸ καὶ τότε ἐπετίμησε, λέγων· Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, γύναι; παιδεύων αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ μέλλον μηκέτι τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιεῖν. Ἔμελε γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν μητέρα τιμῆς, πολλῷ δὲ πλέον τῆς σωτηρίας τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν, καὶ τῆς τῶν πολλῶν εὐεργεσίας, δι' ἣν καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπέδυ.

153. Note:

Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1170107640786324?ref=embed_post

154. Greek Text:

Ἀλλ' Ἰωάννης ἐνταῦθα τὸ, Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου, εἰσάγει τὸν Χριστὸν λέγοντα, δεικνὺς ὅτι οὔπω δῆλος ἦν τοῖς πολλοῖς, καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲ τῶν μαθητῶν τὸν χορὸν πάντα εἶχεν, ἀλλ' Ἀνδρέας αὐτῷ ἠκολούθει καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ Φίλιππος, ἄλλος δὲ οὐδείς· μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ οὗτοι πάντες ὡς ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν ἐγίγνωσκον, οὐδὲ ἡ μήτηρ, οὐδὲ οἱ ἀδελφοί. Μετὰ γὰρ τὰ πολλὰ θαύματα τοῦτο περὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἔφησεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι Οὐδὲ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν.

155. Note:

So, bearing in mind that the titles “New Eve” or “Second Eve” not only do not appear in Scripture, but were also not used by early Christian writers, and remembering that the various comparisons related to Eve and her disobedience were not exclusively Mariological, let us look at the writings of Justin Martyr and see whether Catholic apologists should refer to his testimony. [...] Justin is the first early Christian author to refer to this image. In “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” he contrasts the disobedience of one with the obedience of the other. And that is where the comparison ends. Justin does not refer to her permanent virginity, does not indicate her sinlessness or immaculate conception. He simply refers to the fact that through Eve disobedience and death came into the world and through Mary faith and joy. All speculations and guesses according to which this juxtaposition is supposed to indicate the initial sinlessness of Mary are groundless and do not result from the text. They are rather over-interpretations and attempts to find one's own teachings and beliefs in the writings of people who would not have thought of these teachings. Additionally, if we were to, as Catholic apologists do, go beyond what the authors themselves wrote, we could do almost anything with this image. Using the antithesis, disobedience (of Eve) - obedience (of Mary), we could further use it and indicate at least the initial sinlessness (of Eve) - the initial sinfulness (of Mary). There are many possibilities, but unless the author himself invokes the antithesis in question, the personal speculations of Catholic apologists are irrelevant. Justin himself taught that the only innocent and sinless man was Jesus, and thus the attempt to interpret the antithesis of disobedience and obedience he used in such a way as to indicate the sinlessness or immaculate conception of Mary is all the more erroneous.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://mlodyireformowany.blogspot.com/2023/05/maria-we-wczesnym-kosciele.html?m=1

156. Greek Text:

καὶ διὰ τῆς Παρθένου ἄνθρωπος γεγονέναι, ἵνα καὶ δι᾿ ἧς ὁδοῦ ἡ ἀ πὸ τοῦ ὄφεως παρακοὴ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβε, καὶ διὰ ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ καὶ κατάλυσιν λάβῃ. Παρθένος γὰρ οὖσα Εὔα καὶ ἄφθορος, τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως σ υλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε. Πίστιν δὲ καὶ χαρὰν λαβοῦσα Μαρία ἡ Παρθένος, εὐαγγελιζομένου αὐτῇ Γα βριὴλ ἀγγέλου, ὅτι Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν ἐπελεύσεται, καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει αὐτήν· διὸ καὶ τὸ γενν ώμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἅγιόν ἐστιν Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, ἀπεκρίνατο· “Γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.” Καὶ διὰ ταύτης γεγέννηται οὗτος, περὶ οὗ τὰς τοσαύτας Γραφὰς ἀπεδ είξαμεν εἰρῆσθαι, δι᾿ οὗ ὁ Θεὸς τόν τε ὄφιν καὶ τοὺς ὁμοιωθέντας ἀγγέλους καὶ ἀνθρώπους καταλύει· ἀπαλλαγὴν δὲ τοῦ θαν άτου τοῖς μεταγινώσκουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν φαύλων καὶ πιστεύουσιν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐργάζεται.

157. Note:

So, bearing in mind that the titles “New Eve” or “Second Eve” not only do not appear in Scripture, but were also not used by early Christian writers, and remembering that the various comparisons related to Eve and her disobedience were not exclusively Mariological, let us look at the writings of Justin Martyr and see whether Catholic apologists should refer to his testimony. [...] Justin is the first early Christian author to refer to this image. In “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” he contrasts the disobedience of one with the obedience of the other. And that is where the comparison ends. Justin does not refer to her permanent virginity, does not indicate her sinlessness or immaculate conception. He simply refers to the fact that through Eve disobedience and death came into the world and through Mary faith and joy. All speculations and guesses according to which this juxtaposition is supposed to indicate the initial sinlessness of Mary are groundless and do not result from the text. They are rather over-interpretations and attempts to find one's own teachings and beliefs in the writings of people who would not have thought of these teachings. Additionally, if we were to, as Catholic apologists do, go beyond what the authors themselves wrote, we could do almost anything with this image. Using the antithesis, disobedience (of Eve) - obedience (of Mary), we could further use it and indicate at least the initial sinlessness (of Eve) - the initial sinfulness (of Mary). There are many possibilities, but unless the author himself invokes the antithesis in question, the personal speculations of Catholic apologists are irrelevant. Justin himself taught that the only innocent and sinless man was Jesus, and thus the attempt to interpret the antithesis of disobedience and obedience he used in such a way as to indicate the sinlessness or immaculate conception of Mary is all the more erroneous - E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 123.

158. Greek Text:

Οὐχ οὕτως γὰρ τὰ ἄλλα ἔθνη εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἀδικίαν τὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐνέχονται, ὅσον ὑμεῖς, οἳ κἀκείνοις τῆς κατὰ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ ἡμῶν τῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνου, κακῆς προλήψεως αἴτιο ι ὑπάρχετε. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸ σταυρῶσαι ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖνον τὸν μόνον ἄμωμον καὶ δίκαιον ἄ νθρωπον, δι᾿ οὗ τῶν μωλώπων ἴασις γίνεται τοῖς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πατέρα προσχωροῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ἐγνώκατε αὐτὸν ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ὡς αἱ προφητεῖαι προεμήνυον γενησόμενον, οὐ μόνον οὐ μετενοήσατε ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἐπράξατε κα κῶς, ἀλλὰ ἄνδρας ἐκλεκτοὺς ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐκλεξάμενοι τότε ἐξεπέμψατε εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, λέγοντας, αἵρεσιν ἄθεον Χριστια νῶν πεφηνέναι, καταλέγοντας τε ταῦτα ἅπερ καθ᾿ ἡμῶν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες ἡμᾶς πάντες λέγουσιν.

159. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.933756803692847/933755193693008/?type=3&ref=embed_post

160. Latin Text:

In quo conflictu pro nobis inito, magno et mirabili aequitatis iure certatum est, dum omnipotens dominus cum saeuissimo hoste, non in sua maiestate, sed in nostra humilitate congreditur, obiciens ei eamdem formam eamdem que naturam, mortalitatis quidem nostrae participem, sed peccati totius expertem. Alienum quippe ab hac natiuitate est, quod de omnibus legitur: Nemo mundus a sorde, nec infans cuius unius diei si sit uita eius super terram. Nihil in istam singularem natiuitatem de carnis concupiscentia transiit, nihil de peccati lege manauit.

161. Note:

In his work Contra Aphthartodocetas ("Against the Aphthartodoketists"), Leontius polemizes with those who, following Julian of Halicarnassus, taught that from the moment of the Incarnation, Christ's body was indestructible and immortal. The Marian theme arises in the context of the descent of the Holy Spirit and Mary's overshadowing (cf. Luke 1:35). Leontius – as noted by Brian E. Daley, the translator of the Byzantine's works – argues that since God willed to save humanity not only by an act of His will, but also by sending His Son to partake of human nature, it was necessary for His humanity to be entirely like ours, both in soul and body. Therefore, the Aphthartodocetists were in error. However, Leontius' opponent objects, disagreeing with the idea that their side taught that Christ's humanity was inherently immortal or indestructible in itself. They maintained that it became such only when it was united with the Logos. In response, Leontius points out that if Mary, from whom the Logos took His human nature, remained naturally unchanged by the Incarnation – as all Christians believe – then the child developing in her womb should have remained exactly as it was beforehand. In response from the Aphthartodocetists, one would expect a denial and an assertion that Mary's body was altered due to her contact with the Logos. In reality, however, Leontius' opponent agrees that if the descent of the Spirit and the overshadowing of Mary made her nature indestructible, she would not have been able to give birth to Jesus through the normal process of childbirth. In this context, Leontius' opponent states that "the descent of the Spirit upon her brought purity of soul and holiness of body, but did not cause any change in her essence or nature." Leontius himself, agreeing, adds that "the Virgin herself was not superior to us in anything except holiness." Although the mystery of the Incarnation created in Mary an extraordinary purity and holiness that surpasses all of us, it did not make her sinless. A few paragraphs later, referencing Romans 5:12, Leontius states that all have sinned and there has never been any person who did not sin during their life. Even the saints must be attributed some minor sins. The only exception to this universal rule is Jesus Christ. [...] To summarize, neither Leoncius nor his opponent, who followed Julian of Halicarnassus, taught about the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Both the Byzantine theologian and his Aftartodocet opponent emphasized that the only person who was immaculately conceived and without sin was Jesus. While Mary was holy and pure, she was not sinless.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://mlodyireformowany.blogspot.com/2023/05/maria-we-wczesnym-kosciele.html?m=1

162. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=866446801152411&set=a.866445244485900&type=3&ref=embed_post

163. Greek Text:

Τό δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἔφην, ὦ βέλτιστε, παθεῖν τήν τοῦ Κυρίου σάρκα διττῶς λέγεται, ὅτι τε συγχωροῦντος τοῦ Λόγου τό περί αὐτήν πάθος συνέβαινε (δυνάμενος γάρ κωλύειν οὐκ ἐκώλυσε, κατά τόν μέγαν Ἀθανάσιον), καί ὅτι πάσης ἁμαρτίας κρείττων φανεῖσα, οὐκ ἐχρεώστει δι’ ἑαυτήν θάνατον· εἴπερ καί τήν ἀρχήν ὁ θάνατος διά τήν ἁμαρτίαν εἰσέφρησε, καί διά πάσης κεχώρηκε τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, ἐφ’ ᾧ, κατά τόν Παῦλον, ʺπάντες ἥμαρτονʺ· οὐ γάρ ἔστιν ἤ γέγονεν ἐκ τοῦ παντός αἰῶνος ἀνθρώπου ψυχή, ἑκουσίου τε ἤ ἀκουσίου ἁμαρτίας καθαρά. Ἀλλά καί τάς ψυχάς εἴποιμ’ ἄν μικρόν, εἰ καί μή κατ’ ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλ’ οὖν γε κατά διάνοιαν πάντως ῥύπου κακίας εἰσδέξεσθαί τι. Καί τοῦτο σαφῶς ἔστιν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ Κυρίου διδάσκοντος, ἐν οἷς φησιν· ʺἜρχεται ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, καί ἐν ἐμοί εὑρίσκει οὐδένʺ. Τό γάρ ʺἐν ἐμοίʺ καί τό ʺοὐδένʺ εἰπών διαῤῥήδην ὑπέδειξεν, ὅτι γε μόνος ἁπάσης μεμένηκε καί τῆς κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν ἁμαρτίας ἐλεύθερος.

164. Greek Text:

Ἡ δὲ τῶν σκελῶν κλάσις δηλοῖ ὅτι πάντας μὲν ἀνθρώπους ἀποθνῄσκοντας οὐκ ἄνευ πλημμελημάτων καὶ συντριβῆς ἁμαρτίας εὑρίσκεσθε, μόνος δὲ ὁ κύριος σῶος καὶ ἄνευ τῆς οἱασοῦν ἁμαρτίας ἀπέθανεν.

165. Note: Here, our Roman Catholic friends may be tempted to respond by saying something along the lines of: “Aha! But Maximus believed that Mary was Immaculate. Additionally, if Mary was bodily assumed without undergoing death, then Maximus’ quote here wouldn’t rule out Mary’s immaculate conception.” However, although Maximus believed Mary to be the immaculate virgin in some respect, he never says that she was so from the moment of her conception. Additionally, he also explicitly believes that Mary died, was put in a tomb, had her soul assumed into heaven first, and then had her body assumed into heaven second:

As she escaped the pains of childbirth in the ineffable Nativity, so the pains of death did not come upon her at the time of her Dormition, for both then and now the king and Lord of natures altered the course of nature. Then the host of angels invisibly applauded the sendoff of her holy soul. The house and the surrounding area were filled by a waft of indescribable perfume, and unapproachable light (cf. 1 Tim 6.16) spread forth over the holy body. And in this way the master and the disciples, and heaven and earth led forth the holy Virgin: the gracious and glorious Lord and master led away the holy soul of his immaculate mother to heaven; the disciples took care of her immaculate body on earth, anointing it with myrrh and tending to the things that she had planned. And after a little while, her son and God wished to translate the body to Paradise or somewhere.21 The holy apostles encircled the bed on which lay the holy Theotokos’ body, wider than heaven. They honored it with hymns and praise; they embraced it with fear and trembling. They not only showed faith and devotion but were also gratified to receive grace and great benefit, and the work of faith had only just begun. - Maximus the Confessor, The Life of the Virgin [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012], pg. 136, link: https://ia902906.us.archive.org/7/items/symbolism-encyclopedia/The%20Life%20of%20the%20Virgin%2C%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor%20%20-Sephen%20J.%20Shomaker.pdf

Nevertheless, by the grace of the apostles and by the command of their Lord, God, and master, they brought the holy and immaculate body of their queen from Zion to Gethsemane and placed it in a tomb, as Joseph and Nicodemus once did with the body of the Lord Jesus. And as the Lord of glory arose on the third day, so also now on the third day the body of his holy mother was not found in the tomb, but it had been translated to where her son wished. She was buried as one of the dead according to the order of nature, and she was translated as the mother of God, in order to confirm and make credible the Resurrection of the Lord born from her and the assumption of the nature that he had put on from her, and to confirm our ascension and incorruptibility that truly will come later. As her giving birth was without corruption, so her death also took place without corruption. As her giving birth was beyond words and nature, so her Dormition took place in a manner beyond the temporal and natural order. And she was wondrous, because as her soul ascended to heaven without her body, so her body also without her soul, so that14 she showed to her son and his servants both communion and separation. She ascended to Heaven by the grace and assistance of her son before the general resurrection to draw our attention to the coming resurrection. She was assumed completely, but first her holy soul separately, when she gave it over to the Lord, and then the immaculate body, as the Lord willed. - Maximus the Confessor, The Life of the Virgin [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012], pg. 153, link: https://ia902906.us.archive.org/7/items/symbolism-encyclopedia/The%20Life%20of%20the%20Virgin%2C%20Maximus%20the%20Confessor%20%20-Sephen%20J.%20Shomaker.pdf

^ In light of these passages, Maximus’ statement that Christ is the only one to die without sin is rendered rather curious if he believed that Mary also died without sin.

166. Note: Notice that Maximus speaks of Christ’s unique status in saying of Mary, “The fruit of your womb alone is blessed” — then proceeds to describe Christ as uniquely sinless and born of a virgin. Additionally, Maximus also describes Mary as “adorned with every grace, as she surpassed nature in every aspect” but says nothing about her being conceived or born without sin — only that she prophesied in a Spirit-filled manner and that she is both a virgin and a mother. Maximus lauds her, saying that “Her soul was filled with all humility, meekness, and fear of God” but says nothing about her being sinless

167. Note: In this passage in particular, it is made beyond clear by Maximus that nobody except for Christ was born without sin, and that Maximus sees the virgin conception and birth as integral to how the God-Man was able to be born without sin in the first place. Mary herself wasn’t conceived and birthed by a virgin — ergo, she would have been conceived in sin according to Maximus’ stated theology and the logic of this passage.

168. Greek Text:

Ο του Θεού Υιός Ιησούς Χριστός ουκ εφείσατο εξυτού, ίνα ημων φέιόηται, ο μονος άναμάρτητος αποθανων υπέρ των αμαρτωλώ.

- Migne PG 79: 201

169. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1227559931707761?ref=embed_post

170. Latin Text:

Spiritu timoris Dei cohonestatum, qui post multam crapulam novissime expergefactus adiunxit: « posse hominem sine peccato esse, non sine adiutorio Dei, » et per hos praesumptionem, ut arbitror, gradus non reformidat ascendere, usque in id elatus; ut dicat, quia in similitudinem Christi perfecta sui potentia plenus, in toto super eum descenderit Spiritus sanctus et manserit: cum tamen hoc illi soli a Patre Deo datum sit, cui etiam dedit nomen, quod est super omne nomen, qui solus sine peccato est et ingreditur sine macula, apud quem manet ipsum sanctitatis unguentum. - CSEL 5:627-628

171. Note: Quote was cited in Page 122-123 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.”

172. Note: S. Peter Chrysologus, A.D. 433, states the universality and the transmission of original sin, as inherent in us, making no exception, except as to our Lord. - E.B. Pusey, First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D., pg. 108.

173. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1082738026189953&set=a.1144716435930215&type=3&ref=embed_post

174. Latin Text:

OBJECTIO PRIMA. Quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus non pro omnium hominum salute et redemptione sit passus. RESPONSIO. Contra vulnus originalis peccati quo in Adam omnium hominum corrupta et mortificata natura est, et unde omnium concupiscentiarum morbus inolevit, verum et potens ac singulare remedium est mors Filii Dei Domini nostri Jesu Christi: qui liber a mortis debito, et solus absque peccato, pro peccatoribus et debitoribus mortis est mortuus. Quod ergo ad magnitudinem et potentiam pretii, et quod ad unam pertinet causam generis humani, sanguis Christi redemptio est totius mundi. Sed qui hoc saeculum sine fide Christi et sine regnerationis Sacramento pertranseunt, redemptionis alieni sunt. Cum itaque propter unam omnium naturam, et unam omnium causam a Domino nostro in veritate susceptam, recte omnes dicantur redempti, et tamen non omnes a captivitate sint eruti; redemptionis proprietas haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi missus est foras, et jam non vasa diaboli, sed membra sunt Christi.

175. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1082738026189953&set=a.1144716435930215&type=3&ref=embed_post

176. Latin Text:

Et compunctum corde mortificare. Cordis compunctio , quae proprie ad conuersos a peccatis pertinet, non conuenit Christo, qui solus exstitit absque peccato.

- CCSL 68A:54.

177. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1130513184745770&set=a.1130515728078849&type=3&ref=embed_post

178. Greek Text:

Ὥστε οὐδεὶς ἀπείραστος γέγονε, κατὰ τὴν προφητείαν τοῦ δικαίου Συμεών. Πέτρος ὁ κορυφαῖος τῶν μαθητῶν τρὶς ἠρνήσατο· οἱ ἄλλοι μαθηταὶ καταλιπόντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον. […] Διῆλθε τοίνυν καὶ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν ῥομφαία· τὸ πειρατήριον, καὶ ἡ ἀμφιβολία [1]· Καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία, ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί.

179. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1402530646815458/1402525130149343/?type=3&ref=embed_post

180. Note:

The collection of around 150 questions and answers from the 5th century, originally titled Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos and attributed to Justin Martyr (2nd century), is one of the earliest examples of the question-and-answer (erotapokriseis) literature in Christian writings. The author of the collection is most likely someone from the Antiochene school (which included figures such as Diodore of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Cyrrhus), although it remains uncertain who exactly the author is. Modern scholars either skeptically attribute the work to Theodore of Cyrrhus [1], or, taking a more cautious stance, suggest an unknown 5th-century Antiochene theologian from Syria [2]. In responding to one of the questions, the author presents his views on Mary in a very clear manner. By combining passages from John 2:4, Matthew 12:46-50, and Luke 11:27-28, he points out: (a) the inappropriate behavior of the Lord's mother, (b) that she was rebuked by her Son, and (c) that while others called her blessed, Jesus, in contrast, referred to others in this way.

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1402530646815458/1402525130149343/?type=3&ref=embed_post

181. Greek Text:

Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ γάμῳ, διὰ τὸ Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ γύναι; τῇ μητρὶ λέγειν, ἐπέπληξεν. Ἡνίκα δὲ θεάσασθαι αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ ἠθέλησε, μητέρα καὶ ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιοῦντας ὠνόμασε. Καὶ πάλιν, ὅτε ἐμακαρίζετο ἡ βαστάσασα αὐτὸν κοιλία καὶ οἱ μαστοὶ οὓς ἐθήλασε, τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτὸς ἐμακάριζεν. Ἅπερ ἅπαντα ἐφ' ὕβρει τῆς μητρὸς παρ' αὐτοῦ νομίζονται λέγεσθαι, διότι, τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ὀνομασθείσης καὶ μακαρισθείσης, κατὰ ἀντιδιαστολὴν αὐτῆς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐμακαρίσθησαν ἕτεροι.

182. Latin Text:

Solus enim Christus dominus, ut ait beatae memoriae Augustinus episcopus, "per inuiolata matris uirginea uiscera membra infantis eduxit" qui post resurrectionem "per clausa ostia membra iuuenis introduxit" : Solus peccatum non habens "infantilis aetatis exortu" qui peccatum non habuit "grandioris aetatis accessu", ipso dicente : "Ecce uenit princeps huius mundi et in me nihil inueniet". - CCSL 60: 147

183. Note:

Romanos the Melodist, also known as the Hymnographer, was one of the greatest Syrian hymnographers of early Christian antiquity. In his hymn for the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Romanos, referencing Origen's interpretation of the prophecy of Simeon, attributes doubt and disbelief to Mary. After the resurrection, both Mary and all of his disciples will regain their faith, receiving from Jesus the "invincible peace." [...] Bazyli Degórski points out that "St. Roman is a representative of the current of Greek patristic tradition, according to which Mary, witnessing the unjust suffering of her Son, lost her faith in Him, even doubting the possibility of His resurrection. In fact, some Fathers interpreted the sword that was to pierce Mary's soul, as mentioned in the prophecy of Simeon (cf. Luke 2:35), in this way" (source: Bazyli Degórski, Święty Roman Melodos, Kontakion na święto „Spotkania Pana” – „Ofiarowania Jezusa w Świątyni Jerozolimskiej”, VOX PATRUM 38 (2018) t. 70, str. 655).

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.931864443882083/931859120549282/?type=3&ref=embed_post

184. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.931864443882083/931859120549282/?type=3&ref=embed_post

185. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.708389129562950/708383859563477/?type=3&ref=embed_post

186. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1465976450470877/1465973253804530/?type=3&ref=embed_post

187. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=858241595306265&set=a.1465976450470877&type=3&ref=embed_post

188. Note:

Today, we will examine his [Severian of Gabala’s] interpretation of the events at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1–12) to see that the Bishop of Gabala also did not believe in her sinlessness. Commenting on John 2:3–5, Severian highlights the fact that Mary did not believe that Jesus was God and that, as a result, she was rebuked by Him. This observation is confirmed by Fr. Stanisław Longosz, who writes: "Severian of Syrian Gabala also seems to accept that, until the moment Jesus performed His first miracle at Cana, His Mother regarded Him as an ordinary man or had practically forgotten that He was God" (Source: Stanisław Longosz, „Niepokalane poczęcie w kontekście nauczania Ojców Kościoła o świętości Maryi (II-IV wiek)”, w: „Tota pulchra es Maria. Materiały z ogólnopolskiego sympozjum mariologicznego w Licheniu”, red. J. Kumala, Licheń 2004, s. 79.). The renowned Catholic mariologist and expert of the Second Vatican Council, René Laurentin, notes that Severian "in a homily preserved in Armenian, 'In sanctum martyrem Acacium,' appears to teach that at the moment Jesus performed His first miracle at the wedding in Cana, His mother still regarded Him as a man, forgetting that He was God" (Source: René Laurentin, „La foi de Marie, mère du rédempteur”, t. 2, Mediaspaul, Paryż 1996, s. 54).

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=858241595306265&set=a.1465976450470877&type=3&ref=embed_post

189. Latin Text:

Admonet Mater, Vinum, ait, non habent; quae Mater erat secundum carnem, et ancilla secundum Divinitatem. Ancilla cum esset juxta Divinam naturam, mater extitit juxta dispensativam. Eratque ipsius Deus, et Filius; Deus secundum Dominium, Filius autem secundum Dispensationem. Vinum non habent. Quid mihi, et tibi est mulier? nondum venit hora mea. Hoc loco nonnulli intellexere, quod alias promittit. Imponit tamen matri, quia adhuc tamquam hominem aspiciebat Dominum hominum. Arguebat eam, non quod moruerit, sed quia tamquam hominem admonuerit. Multi credidere illud, Nondum venit hora mea, dictum fuisse pro. Nondum venit tempus prodigiorum. Quod si non venerit, cur agis prodigia? Sed matrem ut frustra et importune suggerentem inculpat, et quia Deus non indiget excitamento. Nondum venit tempus revelationis meae, quia nemo novit me, quis sim. Ut autem discas, quod illud verbum non, ne operaretur prodigium, dixit, sed ad demonstrandam virtutem suam, mater ipsa potentiam cognoscens, dicit (ministris): Quodcumque dixerit vobis facite.

190. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/764881621308930?ref=embed_post

191. Latin Text:

Sed quae ratio responsi matrem et fratres ad praesens negantis discat etiam Apelles. Fratres domini non crediderant in illum, sicut et in evangelio ante Marcionem edito continetur: Mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi, cum Martha et Mariae aliae in commercio eius frequententur. Hoc denique in loco apparet incredulitas eorum: Cum Iesus doceret viam vitae, cum dei regnum praedicaret, cum languoribus et vitiis medendis operaretur, extraneis defixis in illum tam proximi aberant: Denique superveniunt et foris subsistunt nec introeunt, non computantes scilicet quid intus ageretur, nec sustinent saltem, quasi necessarius aliquid afferrent eo quod ille cum maxime agebat, sed amplius interpellant et a tanto opere revocatum volunt. Oro te Apelle, vel tu Marcion, si forte tabula ludens vel de histrionibus aut aurigis contendens tali nuntio avocareris nonne dixisses, Quae mihi mater aut qui fratres? Deum praedicans et probans Christus, legem et prophetas adimplens, tanti retro aevi caliginem dispergens, indigne usus est hoc dicto ad percutiendam incredulitatem foris stantium vel ad excutiendam importunitatem ab opere revocantium? Ceterum ad negandam nativitatem alius fuisset ei locus et tempus et ordo sermonis, non eius qui possit pronuntiari etiam ab eo cui et mater esset et fratres: cum indignatio parentes negat, non negat sed obiurgat. Denique potiores fecit alios, et meritum praelationis ostendens, audientiam scilicet verbi, demonstrat qua condicione negaverit matrem et fratres: qua enim alios sibi adoptavit qui ei adhaerebant, ea abnegavit illos qui ab eo absistebant. solet etiam adimplere Christus quod alios docet. Quale ergo erat si docens non tanti facere matrem aut patrem autfratres quanti dei verbum ipse dei verbum adnuntiata matre et fraternitate desereret? Negavit itaque parentes quomodo docuit negandos, pro dei opere. Sed et alias figura est synagogae in matre abiuncta, et Iudaeorum in fratribus incredulis. Foris erat in illis Israel: discipuli autem novi, intus audientes et credentes, cohaerentes Christo ecclesiam deliniabant, quam potiorem matrem et digniorem fraternitatem recusato carnali genere nuncupavit. Eodem sensu denique et illi exclamationi respondit, non matris uterum et ubera negans sed feliciores designans qui verbum dei audiunt. - De Corpore Christi 7, Migne PL2: 767-769

192. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/599161243819073?ref=embed_post

193. Polish quote:

Tak więc niektórzy ludzie są bardzo źli, inni z kolei bardzo dobrzy; jednak dusze wszystkich mają jedną cechę wspólną: nawet w najgorszym jest coś dobrego, a w najlepszym, coś złego. Istotnie, sam Bóg jest bez grzechu; a jedynym człowiekiem bez grzechu jest Chrystus, albowiem Chrystus jest Bogiem.

- Tertulian, O Duszy 41, Migne PL 2: 720

194. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/619128555155675?ref=embed_post

195. Latin Text:

Consequens erat, ut observata Dei liberalitate, etiam clementiam eius precaremur: quid enim alimenta proderunt, si illis reputamur re vera quasi taurus ad victimam? Sciebat Dominus se solum sine delicto esse. Docet itaque petamus DIMITTI NOBIS DEBITA NOSTRA. Exomologesis est, petitio veniae, quia qui petit veniam, delictum confitetur. Sic et paenitentia demonstratur acceptabilis Deo, quia vult eam, quam mortem peccatoris. - Migne PL 1:1162

196. Latin Text:

Saul, bonus prae caeteris, liuore postea euertitur. Dauid uir bonus secundum cor Domini, postea caedis et stupri reus est. Solomon omni gratia et sapientia donatus a Domino, ad idololatriam a mulieribus inducitur. Soli enim Dei filio seruabatur sine delicto permanere. Quid ergo si episcopus, si diaconus, si uidua, si uirgo, si doctor, si etiam martyr lapsus a regula fuerit? Ideo haereses ueritatem uidebuntur obtinere? - Liber De Praescriptione Haereticorum 3.4-5, Migne, PL 2:14-15.

197. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/1343579136043943?ref=embed_post

198. Note: Even the citation itself was translated from Polish to English. Here is the original Polish citation in case one desires to track down the scholarly source: Rozmowa 22.9.1-3, Migne PL 49: 1231-1232, CSEL 13: 627-628, w: Jan Kasjan, Rozmowy z Ojcami, t. 3, Tyniec Wydawnictwo Benedyktynów, Kraków 2017, s. 267-268.

199. Latin Text:

Multos quidem esse sanctos ac iustos negare non possumus, sed inter sanctum et immaculatum multa distantia est. Aliud est enim esse quempiam sanctum, id est, divino cultui consecratum; hoc enim nomen non solum hominibus, sed etiam locis et vasculis templi atque lebetibus, attestante Scriptura, commune est. Aliud est autem esse absque peccato, quod unius Domini nostri Iesu Christi singulariter convenit maiestati, de quo etiam Apostolus velut praecipuum quid ac speciale pronuntiat dicens: Qui peccatum non fecit. Satis enim vilem atque indignam eius praeconiis laudem quasi incomparabile ac divinum ei aliquid assignavit, si etiam nos illibatam ab omni peccato possumus transigere vitam. Rursus Apostolus ad Hebraeos: Non enim habemus, inquit, pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum autem per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato. Si igitur etiam terrenae humilitatis nostrae cum illo excelso divinoque Pontifice haec potest esse communio, ut etiam nos absque ulla peccati offensione tentemur, cur Apostolus hoc in illo velut unicum ac singulare suspiciens, eius meritum ab hominibus tanta divisione discrevit? Hac ergo sola ab omnibus nobis exceptione distinguitur, qui nos non absque peccato, illum sine peccato constat fuisse tentatum. - Migne PL 49: 1231-1232

200. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/posts/959305614471299?ref=embed_post

201. Latin Text:

Et quia suasione per aurem irrepens diabolus, Evam vulnerans interemerat; per aurem intrans Christus in Mariam, universa cordis desecat vitia: vulnusque mulieris, dum de virgine nascitur, curat.

202. Alternate link: https://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=18&s=0&limit=50

203. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1410760482659141/1410670949334761/?type=3&ref=embed_post

204. Context:

The Synod, convened by Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, aimed to correct errors regarding the doctrine of the Incarnation. In the "Symbol of Faith" issued by the Synod, it is stated that Jesus Christ, since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, is the only person who was born without sin. [...] The Mother of Jesus was described by the Synod as "immaculate" in order to emphasize that Christ was born of a Virgin who had not been touched by a man, rather than to point to her being free from sin. Otherwise, the sentence formulated by the Synod would not make sense, since "only one Man was born without sin."

- Damian Dziedzic (Młody i Reformowany), link: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1410760482659141/1410670949334761/?type=3&ref=embed_post

205. Note: Quote was cited in Page 64-67 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Link: https://archive.org/details/firstlettertover00puseuoft/page/64/mode/1up?q=feast

206. Note:

In Quodlibet XV q.13, Henry of Ghent considers whether the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived. He argues that she was not, but rather possessed sin only at the first instant of her existence. Because Henry’s defense of this position involves an elaborate discussion of motion and mutation, his discussion marks an important contribution to medieval discussions of Aristotelian natural philosophy.

- Instantaneous Change and the Physics of Sanctification: "Quasi-Aristotelianism" in Henry of Ghent's Quodlibet XV q. 13, Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (1):19-46 (2002), link: https://philpapers.org/rec/SUSICA-2

207. Context:

During the Advent season of 1291, an open-forum style debate was held at the University of Paris, at which the presiding Master of Theology (at the time, Henry of Ghent) had to answer any question posed. An attending student inquired of Henry by what belief ought the faithful celebrate Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Master Henry replied that the primary reason of celebration is not by mere virtue of the occurrence, but because of the person’s sanctity. Henry’s answer first proceeded by demonstrating that every liturgical feast is celebrated because of an individual’s sanctity. Henry suggested that Mary’s being immaculately conceived might have occurred upon the moment of her actual conception or as many as thirty-five or forty-two days after the “moment of animation.” Calculations of Mary’s actual birth versus that of her sanctification suggest that she was perhaps conceived in September, having been born in December. Regardless, Henry understood the essence of the student’s question which asked if the purification of the soul was the same as the moment of animation of Mary’s soul. Henry arrives at the answer that if these two moments do not coincide, then there are two possibilities that remain: 1) “once the soul is infused in the body and infected with sin, it is immediately sanctified so that for no continuous period of time does it remain in a state of sin” or 2) “there is a period of time in which Mary’s soul remained in a state of original sin, whether it be long or short.”

- Klapheke, John, "The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (2021). Undergraduate Theses. 72. Link: https://scholarworks.bellarmine.edu/ugrad_theses/72

208. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source and back-translated from Polish. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1004713463992410&set=a.864269601370131&type=3&ref=embed_post

209. Note: Quote was cited in Page 250 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Link: https://archive.org/details/firstlettertover00puseuoft/page/64/mode/1up?q=feast

210. Note: Quote was cited in Page 250-252 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Link: https://archive.org/details/firstlettertover00puseuoft/page/64/mode/1up?q=feast

211. Note: Quote was cited in Page 252-253 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Link: https://archive.org/details/firstlettertover00puseuoft/page/64/mode/1up?q=feast

212. Note: De Bacon argues further against the Scotist solution, that she would have contracted it, but for the redemption by Christ ; that this " preservation " is not redemption ; that it could not be said that there was any necessity of contracting original sin; and argues [the cited quote].”

213. Latin Text:

Omnium Creator rerum, te elegit genitricem. Qui Mariam peccatricem, emundavit a reatu. Ipse tuo me precatu, a peccatis cunctis tergat.

214. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/mlodyireformowany/photos/a.1526136214454900/1526135267788328/?type=3&ref=embed_post

215. Greek Text:

Προ ούν του Χριστού Αβραάμ, και Ισαακ, και Ιακώδ, και Μωσής, και Ενώχ, ουχ υπήκουσαν του Θεού, και ευηρέστησαν αυτώ; Eί και ευηρεστηκέναι τω Θεώ λέγονται, αλλά προς σύγκρισιν των λοιπών ανθρώπων. άκρως δε, και το παράπαν αμαρτίας άγευστος ουδείς ει μή και Χριστός. Πάσα δε αμαρτία και η τυχούσα θάνατον, επιφέρεται.

- Migne PG 97: 1464

216. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1076840933446329&set=a.976479133482510&type=3&ref=embed_post

217. Note: Alternative English translation can also be found here: “The Explanation of Blessed Theophylact Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke”, Chrysostom Press, House Springs 2007, s. 36

218. Greek Text:

Καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς, τῆς Παρθένου, τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία· τάχα μὲν καὶ ἡ θλίψις ἡ ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει γενομένη· τάχα δὲ, ῥομφαίαν λέγει καὶ τὸν σκανδαλισμὸν ὃν ἐσκανδαλίσθη ὁρῶτα τὸν Κύριον σταυρούμενον. Ἴσως γὰρ ὑπενόει, Πῶς ὁ τεχθεὶς ἀσπόρως, ὁ θαύματα ποιήσα;, ὁ νεκροὺς ἀναστήσας, ἐσταυρώθη, καὶ ἐνεκρώθη, καὶ ἐνεπτύσθη; Τὸ δὲ, ̔́Οπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί, τοῦτο σημαίνει, ὅτι ἀποκαλυφθήσονται καὶ φανερωθήσονται πολλῶν λογισμοὶ σκανδαλιζομένων, καὶ ἐλεγχθέντες, εὑρήτουσι ταχεῖαν τὴν ἴασιν· οἷον καὶ σὺ, ὦ Παρθένε, ἀποκαλυφθήσῃ καὶ φανερωθήσῃ, τί φρονεῖς περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ· εἶτα βεβαιωθήσῃ ἐπὶ τῇ εἰς αὐτὸν πίστει· ὁμοίως καὶ Πέτρος ἀπεκαλύφθῃ ἀρνησάμενος, ἀλλ' ἐδείχθη ἡ ἰσχὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ, προσλαβομένου αὐτὸν διὰ τῆς μετανοίας·

219. Note: Quote was found in a Polish source and back-translated from Polish. See here for the Polish quote & citation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=976512370145853&set=a.976479133482510&type=3&ref=embed_post

220. Note: Alternative English translation can also be found here: “The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew”, Chrysostom Press, House Springs 2006, s. 109.

221. Greek Text:

Ετι δὲ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὑτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω, ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι. Ανθρώπινόν τι ἐβούλετο ἐνδείξασθαι ἡ μήτηρ ὅτι ἐξουσιάζει τοῦ παιδὸς οὐδὲν γὰρ μέγα οὔπω περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐνόει διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ἔτι λαλοῦντα βούλεται πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἐπισπάσασθαι φιλοτιμουμένη ὡς ὑποταττομένου αὐτῇ τοῦ γιοῦ. Τί γοῦν ὁ Χριστός; Ἐπεὶ τὸν σκοπὸν αὐτῆς ἔγνω, ἄκουε τί φησιν. Είπε δέ τις αὐτῷ. Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου έξω ἑστήκασι ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ. Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου; καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, εἶπεν Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου. Οστι γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν. Οὐχ ὑβρίζων τὴν μητέρα λέγει ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ διορθούμενος τὴν φιλόδοξον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην γνώμην. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστι μου μήτηρ αλλ, ὅτι ̓Εὰν μὴ ποιῇ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδὲν αὐτὴν ὠφελήσει τὸ γεννῆσαί με. Οὐ γὰρ ἀρνεῖται τὴν κατὰ φύσιν συγγένειαν, ἀλλὰ προστίθησι καὶ τήν κατ ἀρετήν. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀνάξιο ἀπὸ συγγένείας ὠφελεῖται. Διορθωσάμενος τοίνυν τῆς κενοδοξίας τὸ νόσημα, ὅμως πάλιν ὑπακούει τῇ μητρὶ καλούσῃ Φησὶ γὰρ ἡ εὐαγγελιστής.

222. Note: Quote was cited in Page 213-214 of E.B. Pusey’s, “First letter To the Very Rev. J.H. Newman, D.D.” Link: https://archive.org/details/firstlettertover00puseuoft/page/64/mode/1up?q=feast

223. Note: An alternative citation and translation I found is as follows:

“The Blessed Virgin was in the loins of Abraham in two ways. For she was conceived through an act of concupiscence, and not by the Holy Spirit; and therefore she contracted original sin; and for this reason Maurice, Bishop of Paris, prohibited the feast of her conception from being celebrated in the Parisian church.”

- William of Auxerre, Summa Setentia Sententiarum, Book 3.

224. Edit (02/08/25): I combined the “Eusebius of Gaul” and “Eusebius Gallicanus” section and entries, upon realizing that I had made two sections for the same author. I, likewise, did the same for William of Auxerre, upon realizing that I had provided two different translations of the same quote from him. Additionally, I updated all of the quotes’ layouts so that each citation no longer crowded up on the actual quote itself. Additionally, I added block quote markings to each quote found in the footnotes so that there would be no confusion as to which comments are my own, and which comments I am citing from others.

225. Edit (03/04/25): I added a lengthy quote from Bernard of Clairvaux’s letter to the canons of Lyons.

226. Edit (03/12/25): I tracked down several of Pusey’s citations and added alternate translations and citations from other sources corroborating Pusey.