CHURCH FATHERS ON JESUS’ SOLE SINLESSNESS:

Apostolic Constitutions:

For no one man is free from sin, excepting Him that was made man for us; since it is written: No man is pure from filthiness; no, not though he be but one day old. Upon which account the lives and conduct of the ancient holy men and patriarchs are described; not that we may reproach them from our reading, but that we ourselves may repent, and have hope that we also shall obtain forgiveness. For their blemishes are to us both security and admonition, because we hence learn, when we have offended, that if we repent we shall have pardon. For it is written: Who can boast that he has a clean heart? And who dare affirm that he is pure from sin? Proverbs 20:9 No man, therefore, is without sin. – Book 2, chapter 18

Forgive them all their offenses, both voluntary and involuntary, and blot out that handwriting which is against them, Colossians 2:13-14 and write them in the book of life; Philippians 4:3 cleanse them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, 2 Corinthians 7:1 and restore and unite them to His holy flock. For He knows our frame. For who can glory that he has a clean heart? And who can boldly say, that he is pure from sin? Proverbs 20:9 For we are all among the blameworthy. – book 8, chapter 8

You who accepted the repentance of the Ninevites, who wills that all men be saved, and come to the acknowledgment of the truth; Jonah 3; 1 Timothy 2:4 who accepted of that son who had consumed his substance in riotous living, with the bowels of a father, on account of his repentance; accept now the repentance of Your supplicants: for there is no man that will not sin; – book 8, chapter 9

Justin Martyr:

For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man — through whose stripes those who approach the Father by Him are healed… – Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 17

Accordingly, you displayed great zeal in publishing throughout all the land bitter and dark and unjust things against the only blameless and righteous Light sent by God. – Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 17

Irenaeus:

“And who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of God, who makes righteous and perfects them that believe on Him, who like unto Him are persecuted and put to death?” – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Chapter 72

Clement of Alexandria:

I know of no one among men who is perfect in all things at once, as long as he is still human…. The only exception is He alone who clothed Himself with humanity for us. – Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)

He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. – Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 2).

For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all. – Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 3, Chapter 12).

Tertullian:

For to the Son of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the last without sin. – Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 3

The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One, and so He teaches that we beg to have our debts remitted us. – Tertulian, On Prayer, Chapter 7

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God…. Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good. – Tertullian, On the Soul, Chapter 41

Origen:

“If by the phrase ‘those who were without sin,’ [the pagan critic Celsus] means those who have never at any time sinned, . . . we reply that it is impossible for a human to be without sin in that manner. In saying this, we except, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who did not sin.” – Origen, Against Celsus, book 3, chapter 62

“All have turned aside, together they have become worthless.” To this he has added, “There is no one who does goodness, there is not even one.”(Romans 3;12) … I think, that the Apostle is saying here that no one has done goodness: He means that no one has brought it to perfection and entire completion. But if we ask, who is truly good and who has done perfect goodness, we shall find only him who says, “I am the good shepherd,” and again, “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.” – Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.3.2

“They use their tongues to deceive.” Deceit is when one speaks one thing with the tongue and ponders something else in his heart. I do not know if even those who are righteous and chosen may remain immune from this fault. I do think, however, that one person may be more prone to this fault, another less prone, but no one is cleansed from it to the point of perfection except he alone, of whom it is written, “He committed no sin and no deceit was found in his mouth.” For even if someone may be found who is careful and cautious, he can perhaps guard himself in more serious matters; but when would you find anyone who does not offend in this matter either out of timidity or negligence? Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.3.4

Cyprian:

No one is without stain and without sin. . . . In the Epistle of John, it says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8]. – Cyprian (c. 250)

Lactantius:

No one can be without defect as long as he is burdened with a covering of flesh. For the infirmity of the flesh is subject to the dominion of sin in a threefold manner: in deeds, words, and thoughts. – Lactantius (c. 304-313)

Ephrem the Syrian:

“The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother’s garments on, she clothed her body with His glory” (Ephraim the Syrian, On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, Hymn 11).

Ambrose:

“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, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A)

Cyril of Jerusalem:

“Since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 2.10).

MARY’S FOUR SINS IN SCRIPTURE:

According to the church fathers, there are four sins of Mary recorded in Scripture.

First Sin:

Luke 2:46-51: Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Didn’t YOU know I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother kept all these things in her heart.

Mary and Joseph DID NOT understand what Jesus meant when He said He had to be in His Father’s house. They clearly didn’t realize who Jesus really was, contrary to the Cathodox teaching that Mary knew from the beginning that she held the only-begotten son of God in her womb. This is confirmed by the fact that Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ before anyone else. And even before Jesus disowns Mary as His mother, He disowns Joseph as His father IMMEDIATELY after Mary says, “Your father and I…” by saying, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my TRUE Father’s house?”

This mirrors the story of Joseph, who typifies Christ, as it says in Genesis 37:

He dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed yet another dream: and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me.” He told it to his father and to his brothers. His father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves down to you to the earth?” His brothers envied him, but his father kept this saying in mind.

Second Sin:

John 2:1-4: On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

The Cathodox teach that when Jesus said, “What do you have to do with me?” Jesus was very pleased with Mary. But every church father who commentates on this passage says Jesus was rebuking her.

Third Sin:

Mark 3:21 – When His own family heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”

Mark 3:31 – And His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.

Matthew 12:46-50: While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mary is absolutely included with the brethren in saying Jesus has “lost his senses,” or rather, is “out of his mind.” Mary is also included in Jesus’ rebuke. She didn’t rebuke Jesus’ brethren and say, “How dare you say Jesus is out of His mind!” Far from it! She was mentioned FIRST as having said it. Mary was the ringleader in falsely accusing Jesus.

Catholics and orthodox love to point to the symbolism of Mary in the old testament, and they accept that Mariam watching over Moses symbolizes Mary raising Jesus, but what is the symbolism of Mariam and Aaron murmuring against Moses because of His Ethiopian wife? Was there ever a time in the new testament when Jesus’ mother and brothers came and murmured against him because of the people He chose to be His church? Why yes, there was. It appears that a sin of Mary is explicitly prophesied in the old testament!

The catholics stress that typology in the old testament must be heeded, and they use the example of Christ predicting his resurrection in the story of Jonah being in the belly of the fish. Thus, they see Eve and the woman in Revelation as types of Mary. Fools! What these people don’t realize is that all the types of Christ also include his relationship with the church, and that every type is fulfilled in Christ and the church. They don’t realize that Mary herself is a type of the church, leading up to Christ’s fulfillment of all the types! But if you insist that all of the types in the Old Testament are actually of Mary herself and not the synagogue, you make them all to be prophetic of Mary BECOMING LEPROUS BECAUSE OF HER SIN! But not even we would say such insane things about Mary. We only say it about the synagogue which refused to believe in Christ.

He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours — for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren.– Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7

Fourth Sin: 

Matthew 26:31: Then Jesus said to them, “You will all stumble because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’”

Mary was one of the sheep who believe in Jesus, and thus one of the sheep which was scattered after the shepherd was struck. This is the teaching of the post-Nicene church.

What does it mean to stumble? It means “to fall away,” to fall into sin, as it says when Jesus’ own family members wouldn’t believe in Him. When the scriptures refer to stumbling, it always means “sinning,” as the word “sin” and “stumble” are used interchangeably throughout the Scriptures.

Mark 6:3-6: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they stumbled because of Him. Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He wondered at their unbelief.

Matthew 5:29 – If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into Gehenna.

Matthew 11:2-6 – Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, “Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” ⁴answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”

Matthew 13:20-21: The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.

1 Corinthians 8:13: Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Matthew 18:5-6: And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

What are you going to say, you Catholics and Orthodox? You claim that stumbling DOESN’T mean sinning, but rather just being slightly mistaken. So I ask you, if stumbling is such a small thing, why does Jesus pronounce a death penalty on that person who causes a child to stumble? Is Jesus saying it’s a small thing to cause a child to stumble? Read the church fathers’ commentary! They only understand “stumbling” to mean one thing.

John Chrysostom, commentary on Matthew 18: “For when will such an one come to due knowledge of any sin? When will he perceive that he is offending (stumbling)?”

Matthew 26:30-34: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter declared to him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.”

Did Peter fall away? Clearly he did when he denied Jesus. But these Cathodox want to say Mary only “doubted” Jesus. She didn’t ACTUALLY fall away. But Jesus says they will fall away, not merely doubt. And the post-Nicene bishops say she stumbled, not just doubted. There is a difference, but even doubting is very serious.

Recognitions of Clement book 1, chapter 72:

… One Simon, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was one Stans, — that is, in other words, the Christ, and the great power of the high God, which is superior to the Creator of the world; at the same time that he showed many miracles, and made some doubt, and others fall away to him.

CHURCH FATHERS ON MARY’S SINS:

Irenaeus:

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come — waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. – Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 16, chapter 7

Tertullian:

But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him. John 7:5 So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; while there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, What are mother and brothers to me? And did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour — even because they listened to the word (of God) — He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours — for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s womb and paps, but designating those as more blessed who hear the word of God. – On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7

Origen:

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. – Commentary on Luke, Homily 17, chapter 6

Athanasius:

For though ‘the Word became flesh,’ yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father’s works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He rebuked His Mother, saying, ‘My hour is not yet come,’ and then at once He made the water wine. – Athanasius, Against the Arians, Discourse 3, Chapter XXVII

John Chrysostom:

Mary’s soul was in jeopardy! And contrary to what Catholics and Orthodox will tell you, that this scene is some kind of precursor that prophesied Mary’s intercession on behalf of all men, Chrysostom says that Jesus was commanding her NOT TO EVER DO THIS AGAIN!

Homily 4 on Matthew:

Why then, it may be asked, did he not so in the Virgin’s case also, and declare the good tidings to her after the conception? Lest she should be in agitation and great trouble. For it were likely that she, not knowing the certainty, might have even devised something amiss touching herself, and have gone on to strangle or to stab herself, not enduring the disgrace. For wondrous indeed was that Virgin, and Luke points out her excellency, saying, that when she heard the salutation, she did not straightway pour herself out, neither did she accept the saying, but “was troubled,” seeking “what manner of salutation this might be.” Luke 1:29 Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception. Besides that, it was meet that womb should be free from trouble which the Maker of all things entered; and the soul rid of all perturbation, which was thought worthy to become the minister of such mysteries. For these reasons He speaks to the Virgin before the conception, but to Joseph at the time of travail.

Basil the Great:

About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary His mother, Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Lk. 2:34-35)

By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, “All you shall be offended [stumbled] because of me. Mat. 26:3 Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the Cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man— to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. He indicates that after the offense [stumbling] at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended [stumbled], holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shown. (Letter 260: 6, 9)

Cyril of Alexandria:

What, then, induced the blessed Evangelist to go so much into detail, as to make mention of the women as staying beside the Cross? His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother’s very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: “I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind. And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended [stumbled], when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, so that he impetuously exclaimed: “Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee.” What wonder, then, if a woman’s frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? And when we thus speak, we are not shooting at a venture, as some may suppose, but are led to suspect this by what is written concerning the mother of our Lord. For we remember that the righteous Simeon, when he received the infant Lord into his arms, after having blessed Him, and said: “Now lettest Thou Thy servant depart, O Lord, according to Thy Word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, he also said to the holy Virgin herself: Behold, this Child is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against; yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.” By a sword he meant the keen pang of suffering, which would divide the mind of the woman into strange thoughts; for temptations prove the hearts of those who are tempted, and leave them bare of the thoughts that filled them.

…Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress? Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour’s Will concerning her. (Commentary on John, Bk. 12)

Theodoret of Cyrus:

“If the Word became flesh, therefore, not by changing, but by taking flesh, and if both sets of predicates apply to the Word as incarnate God (for you just said this), the natures were not mingled together, but remained unmixed. If this is our understanding, we shall also see the harmony of the evangelists. For one proclaims the divinity of the one only-begotten one, that is, Christ the Lord, while the other proclaims the humanity. And Christ the Lord himself teaches us this way of understanding. For sometimes he calls himself Son of God, and at other times Son of Man. At one time he honors his mother as the one who bore him, while at another time, as master, he rebukes [her]. On one occasion he approves those who call him son of David, while on another he teaches those who lack knowledge that he is not only David’s son, but also David’s Lord.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogues 2/Eranistes 2, Migne PG83: 144-145).

Hilary of Poitiers:

[Referring to Simeon’s words as a judgment upon Mary] – “if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Tractatus in Ps 118; PL 9:523)

Ambrose of Milan:

8. Now he is the true Levite and punisher and avenger, who kills the flesh that he may preserve the spirit, such as he was who says, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.” And who are such close neighbours as the flesh and the soul? What is so akin to us as the passions of the body? These the good Levite slays within himself with that spiritual sword which is the word of God, sharp and powerful.

9. There is also a sword of the Spirit, which pierces the soul, as was said to Mary, “A sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35). Is not the flesh united with the soul by a kind of fraternal bond? Is not discourse also related and akin to our mind? When therefore we check our discourse, that we may not incur the sin of much speaking, we put aside the rights of blood, and loose the bonds of this fraternal connexion. Thus by the force of reason the soul severs from itself its irrational and, as it were, cognate part.

10. And so Moses taught the people to rise against their neighbours, by whom faith was in danger of being mocked, and virtue hindered, that whatever in us was straying from virtue, perplexed by error, or entangled in vice might be cut off. By this direction to the people he obtained not only a mitigation of the Divine wrath and a turning away of offence, but even conciliated for them grace. – LETTER LXVI. Of Ambrose, chapter 8-10

Ambrose (c. 339-397) commenting on Luke 1:35:

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. – Saint 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.

No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen. – Ambrose, Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873; for translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258.

So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” – Ambrose, NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. – NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §134.

Ephrem the Syrian:

In his hymn On The Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, Ephrem sings about Jesus in the perspective of Mary, “How shall I call You a stranger to us, Who is from us? Should I call You Son? Should I call You Brother? Husband should I call You? Lord should I call You, O Child that gave Your Mother a second birth from the waters? For I am Your sister, of the house of David the father of us both. Again, I am Your mother because of Your conception, and Your bride am I because of Your sanctification, Your handmaid and Your daughter, from the Blood and Water wherewith You have purchased me.“

Tell me, what is it that makes us the property of Satan? OUR SIN! Ephrem believed Mary had been purchased from Satan by Jesus’ blood! The Bible said all sinners have been purchased with Jesus’ blood and have obtained the forgiveness of their sins through His blood. Tell me, how is it that Mary could be purchased with Jesus’ blood if she was both sinless and immaculately conceived? Ephrem did NOT believe she was immaculately conceived! He believed she received her second birth AT BAPTISM! Therefore, he had no concept of her having been regenerated at her conception, or at any time before her baptism.

Question: Did Mary get baptized? If you say she did, then that means she needed regeneration and confessed her sins just like everyone else (which both Ephrem and Jerome believed). But if you say she DIDN’T get baptized, then you literally believe the servant is above the master. Even JESUS was baptized! You really think Mary conspicuously never received baptism? Look up every single time the church fathers talk about our redemption or “ransom” through Jesus’ blood. Ephrem is saying exactly what all the other church fathers say, that all of us once belonged to Satan but were redeemed by His blood through baptism.

“She learned from him therefore that he was about to perform a sign there. When he reprimanded her because she was in doubt about him, ‘she said to the servants, Whatever my son tells you, do’ (John 2:5).” (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 5.2, in: “Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron”, ed. and trans. Carmel McCarthy, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2, Oxford 1993, p. 95).

“‘She said to him, My son, there is no wine here. He said to her, What is that to me and to you, Woman?’ (John 2:3-4) What was wrong with what she said? She was in great doubt concerning his word, because there was no wine there.” (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 5.4, in: “Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron”, ed. and trans. Carmel McCarthy, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2, Oxford 1993, p. 96).

“Mary hastened to be a servant of his will therefore instead of the apostles, but since it was not her place either to give orders or to anticipate his word, he reproved her for having been hasty.” (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 5.5, in: “Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron”, ed. and trans. Carmel McCarthy, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2, Oxford 1993, p. 96).

“Alternatively, “You will remove the sword”, that is, a denial. For the Greek says clearly, “The inner thoughts of a great number will be revealed”, that is, the thoughts of those who had doubted. For he said, “You will remove the sword”. Indeed, you [Mary] too will doubt.” (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 2.17, in: “Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron”, ed. and trans. Carmel McCarthy, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2, Oxford 1993, p. 68).

Jerome:

“In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find: Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, ‘John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.’ But He said to them, ‘what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?” – Against the Pelagians, book 3, chapter 2

This quote from Jerome proves that Jerome believed Mary was a sinner, as it explicitly says in the Hebrew version of Matthew, the Gospel to the Hebrews.

Jerome is considered by catholics to be one of the absolute most respected teachers and scholars of the church. And he records his belief not only that Mary committed a sin, but that Mary committed multiple sins. And not only that she committed multiple sins which needed remitting, but one sin in particular which was against Jesus Himself. And not only any sin against Jesus, but actually that she accused Jesus of being a sinner! And this accusation against Mary does not come from Jerome’s own opinion, but from a book of scripture! And not only does the fact of Mary’s sin come from an apostle, but from TWO people simultaneously! The two people who accuse Mary of sin are JESUS and MARY HERSELF. Mary tells Jesus they should all go get baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, which is an acknowledgement of her own sin, and she also accuses JESUS of having sins that HE needs to have washed away! Jesus asks her what sin He’s committed that needs remitting, and then leaves. Mary pronounces both her own need for forgiveness and also her disbelief in Jesus as the perfect savior of mankind in the same sentence.

On top of all this, we find this passage being cited in Holy Scripture itself, written by the apostle Matthew, who is a witness of Mary’s sins. There is no quote more damning of the catholics than this. First of all, it comes from the scriptures. Secondly, it’s from Mary AND Jesus. Thirdly, it’s written by the apostle Matthew in the gospel. And fourthly, this passage is recorded as authentic by the most respected historian of the catholic church, Jerome, who is corroborated by countless ante-Nicene church fathers before him that the gospel of Matthew is longer in the original Hebrew. At this point, the question stops being, “Can we find a church father who accused Mary of being a sinner,” and instead becomes, “Can we find a church father who DOESN’T accuse Mary of sinning?”

Epiphanius:

Here’s that passage from Epiphanius’s book The Panarion. You’ll find it on pages 637-645 (Against The Collyridians)

For the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess.

But I shall also go on to the New Testament as well. If it were ordained by God that women should offer sacrifice or have any canonical function in the church, Mary herself, if anyone, should have functioned as a priest in the New Testament. She was counted worthy to bear the king of all in her own womb, the heavenly God, the Son of God. Her womb became a temple, and by God’s kindness and an awesome mystery was prepared to be the dwelling place of the Lord’s human nature. But it was not God’s pleasure [that she be a priest]. She was not even entrusted with the administration of baptism—for Christ could have been baptized by her rather than by John  

For the ordinance of discipline and good order in the church has been well protected with understanding, by the standard of our rule. For the same reason the word of God does not allow a woman “to speak” in church either, or “bear rule over a man.” And there is a great deal that can be said about this…. 

Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not God. Yes, the Virgin was indeed a virgin and honored as such, but she was not given us to worship; she worships Him who, though born of her flesh, has come from heaven, from the bosom of his Father. And the Gospel therefore protects us by telling us so on the occasion when the Lord himself said, “Woman, what is between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” For to make sure that no one would suppose, because of the words, “What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.  

She was surely not born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like everyone else. For even though the story and traditions of Mary say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has conceived,” it was not because this had come about without conjugal intercourse or a man’s seed.  

No one in the world can be born in any but the normal human way. Only the Son was fit for this; nature allowed it to him alone.

He did not permit her to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom.  

“Thou shalt not eat of the tree.” And yet the tree was not error; the disobedience of error came by the tree. Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though the tree is “lovely” it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped.

Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. They must not say, “We honor the queen of heaven.” Taphnes knows how they must be punished; the places in Magdula know how to receive their bodies for the moth. Do not obey a woman, Israel; rise above a woman’s evil counsel.  

Our mother Eve should be honored because formed by God, but not be obeyed, or she may convince her children to eat of the tree and transgress the commandment.  

But evil returns to us, to perpetuate the defect in the world. Thanks to their God-given prudence, however, neither young men nor old obey the woman.  

I believe I have said enough about all this, beloved. Now that we have squashed this blister-beetle too, as it were, with the speech of the truth—it looks golden, has something like wings, and flies, but it is poisonous and contains deadly venom—let us go on to the one sect still remaining.  

These quotes, combined with the silence of the church fathers on the mediating role of Mary, convince me that at least at the time when Epiphanius released his famous book in about 378 condemning heresies, the holy Catholic church did not 1) glorify Mary to excess, 2) give women any canonical function in the church, 3) allow women “to speak” in church, or “bear rule over man,” 4) stand in excessive awe of the saint, 5) believe Mary was anything more than a woman, 6) believe she was born any way but the normal way, 7) believe Mary ruled over the earth, 8) offer sacrifices of any kind to Mary, 9) obey Mary, or 10) obey women in general.

And all of this was written particularly in reference to Mary, not just women in general. Epiphanius considered every single one of the practices mentioned (offering sacrifices, calling her “queen of heaven,” believing she was born in a special way) to be “glorifying Mary to excess” and overstepping the bounds of orthodoxy into heresy. He also considered it an act of worship to offer a sacrifice to Mary, even a loaf (whereas Catholics are told they ought to offer their entire bodies to Mary as sacrifices). What’s a loaf compared to a body?

I would ask myself, is there such a thing as having excessive awe of Mary? I don’t think any Catholic believes in such a thing. What would that look like? Is it the same definition as the early church’s?

Augustine:

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. – NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.

Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.” For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,” even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,” in friendship with sins. – NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV].

Augustine (354-430 AD): See, here is Ambrose; see what he says about what you are attacking. He says, “He could not alone be righteous, since the whole human race went astray, if it were not that, because he was born of a virgin, he was not held by the law of the guilty race.” Listen further; listen and stop the impudent tongue of your effrontery by shedding tears: “For intercourse with a man did not open the gates of the Virgin’s womb; rather, the Holy Spirit poured spotless seed into that inviolable womb. For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91.

Therefore it is true that in the sight of God “shall no man living be justified,” and yet that “the just shall live by his faith.” On the one hand, “the saints are clothed with righteousness,” one more, another less; on the other hand, no one lives here wholly without sin—one sins more, another less, and the best is the man who sins least. – NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustin, Letter 167 – To Jerome, Chapter 3, §13.

For, if no soul is propagated from another, while all souls are enclosed in flesh descended from sinful flesh, how much less credible is it that His soul could have come by propagation from a sinful woman, whereas his flesh came from a virgin and was not conceived in lust, that He might be ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ not in sinful flesh! – See FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 190, to Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 287.

(See, Augustine believes Mary is NOT a “sinful woman,” but he still doesn’t believe her to be sinless. A “sinful woman” is a woman who commits sins with her body, but Mary was sexually pure. She was not a sinful woman, but she still had committed a few other sins in her life.)

In the advice and admonition he gives that I rather apply my effort to stamping out this deadly heresy from the Churches, he refers to that same Pelagian heresy which I urge you, my brother, with all my strength, to avoid with the utmost care, whenever you either think or argue about the origin of souls, so that the belief may not steal upon you that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth. – FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 420.

Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin apart from the flesh of the one who came without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh. He says that the one who cried out, I was conceived in iniquities (Ps 51:7), “was born from a sinful origin and under the law of sin. Saint Ambrose says that “the little ones who have been baptized are changed from their wickedness back to the original state of their nature.” He says that “by reason of his immaculate birth the Holy Lord Jesus alone of those born of a woman experienced no infection from earthly corruption.” He says that we all die in Adam, because through one man sin entered the world (Rom 5:12) and his sin is the death of all. He says that in his wound “the whole human race would have died, if that Samaritan had not come down and healed his grave wounds.” He says that Adam existed and all existed in him, that Adam perished and all perished in him. He says that we are stained with infection before we were born and that a human being is not conceived free of iniquity, because, as he says, we are “conceived in the sin of our parents and we are born in their transgressions. Birth itself has its own infections, and nature itself does not have only one infection.” He says that the devil is a money lender to whom sinful Eve “put the whole human race in debt with succeeding generations subject to usury.” He says that Eve was deceived by the devil “in order to trip up her husband and place their descendants in debt.” He says that Adam was so wounded by the bite of the serpent “that we all limp because of that wound.” He says that through the union of the bodies of the man and the woman no one is immune from transgression, but that “the one who is immune from transgression,” that is, Christ the Lord, “is also immune from that manner of conception.” – See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 290-291.

Say to this man [i.e., Ambrose], if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception. – See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306.

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.” – NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, as set forth above.

AUGUSTINE’S EXCEPTION

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin — after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin — to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (On Nature and Grace, or De natura et gratia, Migne PL 44:267)

To which I reply:

a) Mary would certainly confess her own sins just like all the other saints. She would not claim to be sinless.

b) In this quotation, Augustine is refusing (at the time) to address the question of whether Mary had sin. He does not assert that she was sinless.

c) Augustine is saying that there is one (Jesus Christ) who certainly had no sin.

d) Augustine is addressing the issue of actual sin, not original sin.

Augustine would fall into this camp of believing Mary was “derived from the propagation of sin” (in Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32).

ANOTHER ACCUSATION AGAINST MARY:

Julian of Eclanum, a deposed Pelagian bishop, lifted the discussion to the level of original sin. In his view, every man is born sinless; a unique proof of his position, he feels, is Mary. To attack the doctrine of original sin in its implications, he establishes a parallel between his enemy Augustine and the heresiarch Jovinian, to the advantage of the latter:

“Jovinian opposed Ambrose, but compared with you, he deserves to be acquitted. He destroyed the virginity of Mary by subjecting her to the common laws of child-bearing, but you transfer Mary to the devil, by subjecting her to the common condition of birth.” (Julian of Eclanum, cited by Augustine, Contra Julian; from Julian’s Ad Florum, 4; PL 45:1417; Archbishop William Ullathorne, Immaculate Conception, page 96) [ original latin: ille virginitatem Mariae partus conditione dissolvit; tu ipsam Mariam diabolo nascendi conditione transribis ]

Jovinian, says Julian, sacrificed Mary’s virginity by submitting her to the usual circumstances of human childbearing; Augustine surrenders the very person of Mary to the devil by asserting that original sin is inseparable from human generation. Augustine’s retort ranks among the most passionately disputed sentences in Christian literature:

We do not deliver Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth; but for this reason: because this very condition is resolved by the grace of rebirth. (Augustine, Against Julianus, Book 4, Par 122, only in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, NOT Matthew A. Schumacher’s translation, which omits this part)

Non transcribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi. (Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 4.1.22, PL 45, p. 1418)

In other words, Augustine is saying Mary was not surrendered to the Devil because she ULTIMATELY was regenerated (either through baptism or at the conception of Jesus). He had no concept of her immaculate conception.

WEDDING AT CANA:

Moreover, those parties also are to be abhorred who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ had in Mary a mother upon earth; while that dispensation has honored both sexes, at once the male and the female, and has made it plain that not only that sex which He assumed pertains to God’s care, but also that sex by which He did assume this other, in that He bore [the nature of] the man (virum gerendo), [and] in that He was born of the woman. Neither is there anything to compel us to a denial of the mother of the Lord, in the circumstance that this word was spoken by Him: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty (cujus majestatis personam) He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine. But as regards His being crucified, He was crucified in respect of his being man; and that was the hour which had not come as yet, at the time when this word was spoken, “What have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come;” that is, the hour at which I shall recognize thee. For at that period, when He was crucified as man, He recognized His human mother (hominem matrem), and committed her most humanely (humanissime) to the care of the best beloved disciple. Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us. For if, on the ground of His having said, “Who is my mother?” every one should conclude that He had no mother on earth, then each should as matter of course be also compelled to deny that the apostles had fathers on earth; since He gave them an injunction in these terms: “Call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” – Augustine, A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, chapter 4, paragraph 9

Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (435-517):

“He [Jesus] chides his mother for having importunely reminded God, who has no need to be reminded of anything. It is as if he had said, ‘Do not regard me only as a man but also as God. Not yet has the time of my manifestation come. Not as yet is it known who I am.” Greek: 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. (Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis 57, Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche 211).

Pope Leo the Great (400-461):

“For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock” (Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 24.3).

“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 succour 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?’” (Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 28.3).

Pope Gelasius (492):

“It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all” (Pope Gelasius I, Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671).

Fulgentius of Ruspe (467-532):

“This is the grace by which it came about that God (who came to take away sins because there is no sin in him) was conceived from sinful flesh and born as man in the likeness of sinful flesh. To be sure, the flesh of Mary had been conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice, and so her flesh (that gave birth to the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh) was indeed sinful. […] When it is said that truly the likeness of sinful flesh is in the Son of God, or rather that the Son of God is in the likeness of sinful flesh, one must believe that the Only-begotten God did not take the defilement of sin from the mortal flesh of the Virgin, but that he received the full reality of its nature so that the Source of truth might arise from the earth, the Source whom the blessed David announces in a prophetic word, saying: “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” Truly, therefore, Mary conceived God the Word, which she bore in sinful flesh, which God received.” – (Epistula 17.13, Migne PL65: 458)

Gregory the Great (540-604):

At the marriage, when the Virgin Mother said that wine was wanting, He replied, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. For it was not that the Lord of the angels was subject to the hour, having, among all things which He had created, made hours and times; but, because the Virgin Mother, when wine was wanting, wished a miracle to be done by Him, it was at once answered her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me of my Father, not of my Mother. For He who of the nature of His Father did miracles had it of His mother that He could die. Whence also, when He was on the cross, in dying He acknowledged His mother, whom He commended to the disciple, saying, Behold thy mother. He says, then, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.—That is, “In the miracle, which I have not of thy nature, I do not acknowledge thee. When the hour of death shall come, I shall acknowledge thee as my mother, since I have it of thee that I can die.” – Gregory the Great, Epistle XXXIX, To Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria

“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” (Pope Gregory the Great, Exposition of Job, Book 18 on Job 27).

Pope John IV (587-642):

“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’” (Pope John IV, as cited by Bede in Ecclesiastical History 2.19, PL 80:602B-C).

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109):

God assumed sinless humanity, as though unleavened were taken from fermented dough. For, granted that the conception of that Man Himself is pure and free from the sin of carnal delight, yet the virgin herself from whom He assumed humanity was “shapen in wickedness,” and “in sin did her mother conceive her,” and she was born with original sin, since she herself sinned in Adam, in whom all have sinned. – Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), chapter 16,

Peter Lombard (1100-1160):

He denies the immaculate conception in three Quaestiones of Article 1 of Distinction III of the Third Book of “The Sentences.” It is in the process of being translated from Latin to English, but those who can read Latin quote him as saying, “But this is asked, on what account and whence is it that Mary was conceived without original sin? We say this was impossible.”

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153):

“She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness” (Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistle 174).

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):

“She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin” (Pope Innocent III, De festo Assump, Sermon 2).

“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, Sermon 16 on Feast Days).

Saint Bonaventure (1221-1274):

Bonaventure taught that Mary was conceived in original sin, as this Catholic article thoroughly explains. The Catholic writer says, “Thus, in accordance with the majority position at that time and based on numerous arguments, among which are several extracted from the Scripture and testimonies of some saints, Bonaventure denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”

Pope Innocent V (1225-1276):

“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 V, As cited by Peter Lombard in Sentences, Book 3, Distinction 3, Question 1, Article 1).

Pope John XXII (1249-1334):

“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” (Pope John XXII, Sermon One on the Assumption).

Pope Clement VI (1291-1352):

“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).

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes…. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way. – Compendium Theologiæ, Question 27, the sanctification of the blessed virgin

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.

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e. Christ, “and not see it”—(because “no defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written in Wisdom 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception.

Reply to Objection 4. Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.”

Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534):

“If the Scriptures be duly considered, and the saying of the doctors ancient and modern, who have been most devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is plain from their words that she was conceived in sin.” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Loc Theol parts c. 2).

TOTAL REVERSAL OF TEACHING:

But then suddenly, on December 8, 1854, the pope announced that the church had ALWAYS believed Mary was sinless!

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878):

“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts. . . . Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom ‘he who is mighty has done great things,’ was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God – indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory.” – Ineffabilis Deus