Mary was an ever-virgin who was given the privilege of bearing Christ, but her surpassing sexual purity did not mean she was completely sinless. She committed some sins and was forgiven like the rest of us. She’s an example to all of us of modesty and perpetual virginity. We can honor her by following her example, being pure and chaste, not approving of divorce and remarriage like the Cathodox do, which is adultery. Anyone who claims to venerate her while worshiping images of her and slandering her as if she ever showed her face in public will be judged by God for slandering her as a prostitute.

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. – Apostolic Constitutions, 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; – Apostolic Constitutions, book 8, chapter 9

Clement of Rome:

For what can a mortal man do, or what strength is there in one made out of the dust? For it is written, “There was no shape before my eyes, only I heard a sound, and a voice [saying], What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? Or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made! He smote them as a moth; and from morning even until evening they endure not. Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call now, if any one will answer you, or if you will look to any of the holy angels; for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy kills him that is in error.” – 1 Clement, chapter 39

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:

” For this reason the prophet again says, “In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen”ᶜ; it is clear that he indicated that the flesh of Christ, born of David, as we have previously said, after death, will rise from the dead—for the body is called a ‘tabernacle.’ᵈ For by these [words], both that <the> Christ, who, according to the flesh, was of the seed of David, would be called Son of God, and that, having died, He would be raised, and that He would be man in aspect but God in power, and that He would be judge of the whole world in the same manner as [He was] the only worker of righteousness and salvation—all this Scripture makes known.” – Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus, Ch.62

“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, The Stromata, book 4, chapter 21

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. – Tertullian, 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

And lest anyone think that I am detracting from the prophets by saying this, the prophets themselves know that I am not detracting from them when I prefer my Lord Jesus Christ. For they recall each of their own statements and find that of no other is it said: “He did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” For since he is the only one “who did not commit sin,” therefore in him alone did the Holy Spirit “remain” and continue to remain. For if he is the one of whom something unique and remarkable is said, namely what we said above, that he “did not commit sin,” then it is established that all the rest were “under sin.” – Origen, Homilies on Numbers 6.3.4

Frankly, the words that follow terrify me and make me fearful and hesitant to speak. For they relate to that great Moses, the servant and friend of God, with whom God spoke face to face, through whom such awesome and menacing signs and wonderful miracles were accomplished. What indeed does God say to him? “And you yourself will be added,” it says, “to your people, just as Aaron your brother was added on Mount Or.” (Num. 27:14 LXX) And as if explaining the cause of his death, he says: “Because you transgressed my word in the desert of Sin, when the congregation refused to sanctify me. You did not sanctify me at the water before them.”Num. 27:14 So is Moses likewise at fault? He himself likewise fell into a sin of transgression, he himself likewise came to be under sin. I believe that this is why the apostle said with confidence: “Death reigned from Adam up to Moses”; Rom. 5:14 for it approached “up to Moses” and did not spare him. And therefore, I think, he said that “Sin entered into this world, and through sin death, in that all sinned”; Rom. 5:12 and again: “God enclosed all under sin, in order to have mercy on all.” Rom. 11:32 But “thanks [be] to our Lord Jesus Christ,” who “freed us from the body of this death,” so that “where sin abounded, grace would super-abound.” Rom. 5:20 For how could Moses free anyone from sins, when even to himself it is said: “You transgressed my word in the desert of Sin, and you did not sanctify me at the water before the sons of Israel”? Num. 27:14 Thus it is clear to everyone that the former one alone should be sought as the only one: “who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:22 — Origen, Homilies on Numbers 22.3.3

Hippolytus:

God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. – Against Noetus, chapter 17

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)

Methodius:

For while the body still lives, before it has passed through death, sin must also live with it, as it has its roots concealed within us even though it be externally checked by the wounds inflicted by corrections and warnings; since, otherwise, it would not happen that we do wrong after baptism, as we should be entirely and absolutely free from sin. But now, even after believing, and after the time of being touched by the water of sanctification, we are oftentimes found in sin. For no one can boast of being so free from sin as not even to have an evil thought. So that it has come to pass that sin is now restrained and lulled to sleep by faith, so that it does not produce injurious fruits, but yet is not torn up by the roots. For the present we restrain its sprouts, such as evil imaginations, test any root of bitterness springing up trouble us, not suffering its leaves to unclose and open into shoots; while the Word, like an axe, cuts at its roots which grow below. But hereafter the very thought of evil will disappear. – Methodius, From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part 1

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), Divine Institutes, book 6, chapter 13

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

Basil the Great:

For no one among men is without sin. For to One it is testified, that “He committed no sin.” – Basil of Caesarea, Homily on Repentance

Didymus the Blind:

30.15 Therefore, having truly confessed him as the Son of God, that is, genuine and of the same essence, he heard something similar: Bar Jonah, which is interpreted: son of Jonah. 30.16 Peter was not at all of different essence from him who begot him. 30.17 In addition to this, he received authority, rather all received through him, not to forbid those who stumble, but to accept those who repent. 30.18 For no one is without sin, except the one who gave this authority to Peter, for this is: “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  — Didymus the Blind, On the Trinity 1.30

Cyril of Jerusalem:

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, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who cleanses our sins (επειδή εις μόνος αναμάρτητος, ό τάς άμαρτίας ἡμῶν καθαριζων ‘Ιησούς).” – Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 2.10, PG 33:396

Gregory of Nazianzus:

For since to be utterly sinless belongs to God, and to the first and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is peaceful, and not subject to dissension), and I venture to say also that it belongs to the Angelic nature too; or at least, I would affirm that nature to be very nearly sinless, because of its nearness to God; but to sin is human and belongs to the Compound on earth (for composition is the beginning of separation). – Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 40, chapter 7

Fortunatianus of Aquileia:

No-one is righteous in the sight of God…. Therefore it is appropriate that whoever acknowledges that they are a sinner is called and their sins are forgiven, because in the sight of God no-one is without sin. – Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Gospels, M. XLIII.

Jerome:

For if every sin, even every idle word, is deserving of blame, who is there in this world that is sinless and blameless? – Jerome, Letter 69, chapter 8

And to the apostles it was commanded: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) For he would never have given this command to his apostles, if he did not know that man can be perfect. Unless perhaps we should say this: “departing from all evil” signifies correction and moving on from the errors of youth and from the vices of the lascivious age to a more regulated life and the practice of virtue; and that the justice which is proclaimed to be in Zechariah and Elizabeth was external; but the lust which is said now to dwell in our members lives inside. But apostles, who have already attained the age of strength, not children, are commanded to take on the perfection that we too confess exists in the perfect age. In saying these things, we are not flattering the vices but following the authority of the Scriptures, which teach that there is no one free from sin, but God has confined all men under sin, in order to have mercy on all. The only exception is he “who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22) This is also why Solomon says that the tracks of the serpent are not found on the rock. And the Lord himself says of himself: “Behold, the prince of this world is coming, but he finds nothing in me,” (John 14:30) that is, of his own work, of his own tracks. This is why we are commanded: “Do not reproach a man who is turning away from his sins,” and “Do not detest the Egyptian.” (Deuteronomy 23:7) — Jerome, Letter 121.8

Prudentius:

Do you wonder that the soul sins, whose lot it is to dwell in a house made of flesh, when the very angel sins, who is incapable of entering a frail dwelling-place of perishing structure? He sins because he too was created, not begotten. How he was created only the Lord, his creator, knows; enough for me to believe that he was created. Only the author of the world is free from the stain of sin, God unbegotten and begotten, the Father and He that was born of the Father; He alone is exempt from stern punishment, lives unassailed, and knows no bitterness. – Prudentius, On The Divinity of Christ, chapter 1

From these torments Christ sets us free, for He alone had a mother immaculate and wore a sinless body; Jesus put on a nature able to punishment, but not a nature able to the contagion of sin, and so He owed no debt to punishment, being undefiled, without sin, free from all besmirching fault. What would punishment, which is the stem attendant on sin, do in the body of Christ? What could death do where there was no human wickedness? Naturally their efforts would be vain, they would fall to the ground strengthless and ineffectual where there was nothing to prompt sin. Death is nurtured on sin, and he who has no sin annihilates death because it is exhausted through the very want of what it feeds on. So was death annihilated in the body of Christ our Lord, so was it destroyed, being withered by want of its accustomed food. Reverence therefore the divinity that alone is sinless, the strength of the Father and of Christ, and cease now to bring about odium for our soul by saying that it. is God, or a small part of God, since it is not lawful to cut off anything from Christ or lop a part from God, or to diminish the great Godhead which is ever complete for and in itself. – Prudentius, On The Divinity of Christ, chapter 1

John Cassian:

The reason however which drives us into this error is that, as we are utterly ignorant of the virtue of being without sin, we fancy that we cannot contract any guilt from those idle and random vagaries of our thoughts, but being rendered stupid by dullness and as it were smitten with blindness we can see nothing in ourselves but capital offenses, and think that we have only to keep clear of those things which are condemned also by the severity of secular laws, and if we find that even for a short time we are free from these we at once imagine that there is no sin at all in us. – John Cassian, Conference 23, Chapter 7

But since all the saints who altogether keep the commands of their King, say every day “Forgive us our debts,” if they speak the truth there is indeed no one free from sin, but if they speak falsely, it is equally true that they are not free from the sin of falsehood…. Wherefore also that most wise Ecclesiastes reviewing in his mind all the actions and purposes of men declares without any exception: that there is not a righteous man upon earth, that does good and sins not, Ecclesiastes 7:21 i.e., no one ever could or ever will be found on this earth so holy, so diligent, so earnest as to be able continually to cling to that true and unique good, and not day after day to feel that he is drawn aside from it and fails. – Conference 23, Chapter 18

Cyril of Alexandria:

Therefore, let us not slander one another nor condemn our brothers; for the one who is governed by understanding does not look at the sins of others, but gazing on his own evils, sheds tears over them in order to obtain forgiveness from God. For it is impossible for human beings, who are so weak, not to fall into some faults. But to be entirely without fault belongs by nature to God alone. — Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 7.2

No one, even if he is among the most diligent of ascetics, would have a soul entirely free from passions. For as it is written, “Who is clean from filth?” or “Who can boast that he has a pure heart?” And again, “Whoever stumbles in one point becomes guilty of all,” according to the word that renders judgment. Who, then, would not be accused for a single transgression, nor be brought to account? Even the exceedingly vigilant cannot avoid erring in thought. So, insofar as human weakness is concerned, no one is saved; but insofar as the gentleness of the one who saves is concerned, salvation is not hopeless. For not every sin is unto death. — Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 19.26

Ammonius of Alexandria:

[John 1:51] By this He shows that He did not merely seem to be a man, but in truth became man, having been made flesh of Mary, and as the only sinless one He preserved in Himself “the image,” which the first man had received, having been made “in the image and likeness of God.” — Ammonius of Alexandria (Fragments on John in catena, 5th century)

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

“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.” – Pope Gelasius I, Letter 97: Against the Pelagian Heresy, Migne PL 59: 117-118; CSEL 35.1: 402.15-17

Gregory the Great (540-604):

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: 271

Caesarius of Arles (468 – 542):

But perhaps someone among the people may say: Why should I be afraid, since I do no evil? Listen to the Apostle John preaching about this: “If we say that we have no sin,” he says, “we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Therefore, let no one deceive you, dearly beloved; not to know one’s sins is the worst kind of sin. All who admit their offenses can be reconciled to the Lord by means of repentance, but no sinner is more worthy of lamentation than one who thinks he has nothing to lament. For there are many kinds of sins, dearly beloved, and some of them are more dangerous because of the very fact that they are believed to be quite slight. Those which some men think are not even sins at all are all the more harmful, for no evil is more deceptive than what is not understood to be an evil. Therefore, I am not now speaking about murders, adultery, or wicked counsel, for far be it from a Christian to commit these sins. If, perchance, he does commit them he bewails the fact that he has fallen and did not at once resist. But I am rather talking about those things which are believed much smaller and slighter. Now who of you is there, dearly beloved, whom drunkenness has not defiled, or ambition carried away, or jealousy consumed, or lust inflamed, or avarice wounded? Therefore, I advise you, dearly beloved, according to what is written, that you “Humble yourselves under the exceedingly mighty hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6). Since no one is without sin, no one should be without penance; for by this very fact a man becomes guilty if he presumes that he is innocent. A man may be guilty of lesser sin, but no one is guiltless. Surely, there is a difference among men, but no one is safe from guilt. For this reason, dearly beloved, those who have sinned more grievously should seek forgiveness all the more devoutly, while those who have not been defiled by the more serious sins should pray that they may not become so. — Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 144, On Prayer, Repentance, and the Ninivites

MARY’S FOUR SINS IN SCRIPTURE:

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

First Sin:

Matthew 10:34-36: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Luke 2:33-35: And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

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 believed in Jesus, and thus one of the sheep which was scattered after the shepherd was struck. This is the universal teaching of the church that lasted for centuries.

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 fathers say she stumbled, not just doubted. There is a difference, but even doubting is very serious.

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?” He was very pleased with her, hearkening back to the garden of Eden when Adam referred to Eve as “woman.” But Jesus says something quite the opposite of “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Jesus instead says to her, “What do you have to do with me?” Every church father who commentates on this passage says Jesus is rebuking her and distancing Himself from her. In the Greek, the phrase just means, “Go away! Leave me alone!”

Judges 11:12 – And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the sons of Ammon, saying, “What is there between me and you, that you have come to me to fight against my land?”

1 Kings 17:18 – And she said to Elijah, “What do I have to do with you, O man of God? Have you come to me to bring my iniquity to remembrance and to put my son to death?”

2 Kings 3:13 – And Elisha said to the king of Israel, “What do I have to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother.”

Matthew 8:29 – And behold, they cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

Mark 1:24 – “What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

Mark 5:7 – And shouting with a loud voice, he said, “What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!”

Luke 4:34 – “Let us alone! What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

Luke 8:28 – Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell down before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me!”

Furthermore, the Cathodox teach that when Jesus called Mary “woman,” He was harkening back to when Adam called Eve “woman” at a time before Eve had committed any sins, thus proving Mary’s sinlessness! But Mary is not the only woman Jesus calls “woman” throughout the gospels. Jesus says to the Samaritan woman at the well: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming….”Addressing the woman caught in adultery, Jesus says, “Woman, where are they?” Jesus says to the Canaanite mother, “O woman, great is your faith!” Jesus heals a crippled woman and says, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” After His resurrection, Jesus asks Mary Magdalene, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary is not the only woman who is called “woman” by Jesus, and when she was called “woman,” Jesus was angry at her.

Third Sin:

Matthew 10:34-36: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

Mark 3:21 – When His own family heard of this, they went out to seize Him; for they were saying, “He is out of His mind (Ἐξέστη).”

• 2 Corinthians 5:13: For if we are “out of our minds” (as some say), it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.

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.

The Cathodox 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 Cathodox 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! They don’t see 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 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: 

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 corrects Mary, 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, being rebuked by his father Israel, 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.

CHURCH FATHERS ON MARY’S SINS:

Pseudo-Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Origen
Gregory the Wonderworker
Athanasius (Doctor)
Zeno of Verona
Apollinaris of Laodicea
John Chrysostom (Doctor)
Nilus of Ancyra
Basil the Great (Doctor)
Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor)
Theodoret of Cyrus
Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor)
Ambrose of Milan (Doctor)
Ephrem the Syrian (Doctor)
Ambrosiaster
Eustathius of Antioch
Asterius of Amasea
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Amphilochius of Iconium
Jerome (Doctor)
Epiphanius
Gregory of Nyssa
Severus of Antioch
Severian of Gabala
Augustine (Doctor)
Hesychius of Jerusalem
Maximus of Turin
Ammonius of Alexandria
Pope Leo the Great
Fulgentius of Ruspe
Fulgentius of Ferrandus
Romanos the Melodist
Gregory the Great (Doctor)
Maximus the Confessor
Alcuin of York
Anselm of Canterbury (Doctor)
Theophylact of Ohrid

Pseudo-Justin Martyr:

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

It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them”, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them His mother and His brethren who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts (works), and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. Matthew 10:37 Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess. – Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, chapter 19

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. – Origen, Commentary on Luke, Homily 17, chapter 6

Gregory the Wonderworker:

Second Council of Constantinople:

We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory [of Nazianzus] the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril [of Alexandria], Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.

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,’ [ἐπέπληττε τῇ μητρὶ, λέγων· Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου,] and then at once He made the water wine. – Athanasius, Against the Arians, Discourse 3, Chapter XXVII

What is a rebuke?

Luke 17:3 – If your brother sins against you, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him.

Sirach 11:7 – Don’t find fault before you investigate. Understand first, and then rebuke.

Psalm 95:6 – You have rebuked the nations. You have destroyed the wicked. You have blotted out their name forever and ever.

Psalm 119:21 – You have rebuked the proud who are cursed, who wander from your commandments.

Matthew 16:22 – Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This will certainly not be done to you.” And having turned, He said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For your thoughts are not of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Mark 8:33 – But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men.”

Luke 23:40 – But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Don’t you even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?

Zeno of Verona:

O Love, how kind you are! How rich! How mighty! He who lacks you has nothing! You, O Love, made God become man. You compelled Him to humble Himself and to journey for a time far from His infinite majesty. You enclosed Him for nine months in the prison of the Virgin’s womb. You restored Eve in Mary. You renewed Adam in Christ. You prepared the holy cross to save a world already lost. You stripped death of its power by teaching God Himself to die. – Zeno of Verona, Treatise 2, chapter 10

Up to now, we have spoken of the first circumcision as the Jews practice it; now let us briefly discuss the second circumcision, which is ours. It possesses such great power that it begins with a woman—something impossible for the former. Indeed, from the woman who first sinned also comes the remedy of this circumcision. Since the devil had crept into Eve through persuasion via her ear, wounding and killing her, so too did Christ enter Mary through her ear and cut away all the vices of the heart. By being born of a virgin, he healed the wound of womanhood. Here you have the sign of salvation! Weakness was followed by wholeness; birth was followed by virginity. In a similar manner, Adam is circumcised through the cross of the Lord. And because through the woman—who alone had touched the fateful tree—both sexes had inherited death, so too did, in contrast, the whole of humanity receive life again through the man who hung upon the wood – Zeno of Verona, Treatise 13, chapter 10, On Circumcision, Migne PL 11: 352

Apollinaris of Laodicea:

That “his brothers” did not yet believe in Him we learn from John, while from Mark we have also heard something else: for His own family tried to restrain Him, as though He were out of His mind. On account of their mindset, the Lord does not often mention them as his own family. He points instead to those who are obedient. To believers he applies all the terms of family relationship, those, namely, who had been joined to him in the kindred fellowship of obedience. And although Mary herself had a temporary opposition to Him, as Simeon had foretold when he had said “a sword shall pierce through your own soul,” she overcame these things, as was fitting, and the Lord graciously made mention of her at his passion and entrusted her to the beloved disciple. – Apollinaris of Laodicea, Commentary on Matthew 12:46–48 (Fragment 75 in MKGK/Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Edited by Joseph Reuss. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1957, pages 22–23)

John Chrysostom:

“Master, I will follow You wherever You go.” Matthew 8:19

Do you see how great his arrogance? For as not deigning to be numbered with the multitude, and indicating that he is above the common sort, so he comes near. Because such is the Jewish character; full of unseasonable confidence. So too another afterwards, when all men were keeping silence, of his own accord springs up, and says, “Which is the first commandment?”

Yet nevertheless the Lord rebuked not his unseasonable confidence, teaching us to bear even with such as these. Therefore He does not openly convict them who are devising mischief, but replies to their secret thought, leaving it to themselves only to know that they are convicted, and doubly doing them good, first by showing that He knows what is in their conscience, next by granting unto them concealment after this manifestation, and allowing them to recover themselves again, if they will: which thing He does in the case of this man also.

For he, seeing the many signs, and many drawn after Him, thought to make a gain out of such miracles; wherefore also he was forward to follow Him. And whence is this manifest? From the answer which Christ makes, meeting not the question, as it stands verbally, but the temper shown in its meaning. For, “What?” says He, “do you look to gather wealth by following me? Do you see not then that I have not even a lodging, not even so much as the birds have?”

For “the foxes,” says He, “have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has not where to lay His head.” Matthew 8:20

Now these were not the words of one turning Himself away, but of one who while putting to the proof his evil disposition, yet permitted him (if he were willing with such a prospect) to follow Him. And to convince you of his wickedness, when he had heard these things, and had been proved, he did not say, “I am ready to follow You.”

5. And in many other places also Christ is clearly doing this; He does not openly convict, but by His answer He manifests the purpose of them that are coming unto Him. Thus to him again that said, “Good Master,” and had thought by such flattery to gain His favor, according to his purpose He made answer, saying, “Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”

And when they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brethren seek You;” Matthew 12:47-48 forasmuch as these were under the influence of some human infirmity, not desiring to hear something profitable, but to make a display of their relationship to Him, and therein to be vainglorious; hear what He says: “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”

And again to His brethren themselves, saying unto Him, “Show yourself to the world,” John 7:4, 6 and wishing thence to feed their vainglory, He said, “Your time” (so He speaks) “is always ready, but my time is not yet come.”

And in the opposite cases too He does so; as in that of Nathanael, saying, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” John 1:47 And again, “Go and show John again those things which you do hear and see.” Matthew 11:4 For neither in this did He reply to the words, but to the intention of him that sent them. And with the people again in like manner, He addresses His discourse unto their conscience, saying, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Matthew 11:7 That is because they were probably feeling about John, as though he had been a sort of easy and wavering person; to correct this their suspicion, He says, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” or, “a man clothed with soft raiment?” by both these figures declaring, that he was neither of himself a waverer, nor would be softened by any luxury. Thus then in the present case also He makes His answer to their meaning.

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.

• Just in case anyone suggests that Chrysostom doesn’t necessarily consider “vainglory” to be a sin, listen to him in another sermon teaching how vainglory (κενοδοξία) is the mother of hell. This is the same Greek word used when he says of Mary in the passages above: “Observe the madness (ἀπόνοιαν) of both her [Mary] and them! Whence it is clear, that nothing but vainglory (κενοδοξίᾳ) led them to do this”:

…But nothing is worse than vainglory (κενοδοξία); for this, this above all, was what destroyed them. Therefore Christ also said to them, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44). This vice, together with destruction, also brings much ridicule, and even before the punishment there, it surrounds a man here with countless miseries. And if you wish, so that you may learn this, let us for the present leave aside heaven, from which it casts us out, and Gehenna, into which it throws us, and let us examine the whole matter from what happens here. What, then, is more costly than this? And what could be more shameful and more burdensome? That this disease is costly is clear from those who squander their substance idly and to no purpose in theaters and horse races and other such ill-timed displays of ambition; from those who build splendid and extravagant houses, and prepare all the other things that make for useless excess, which it is not possible to run through in full now. And that the man who is sick in this way, being costly and extravagant, must also be rapacious and greedy, is plain enough to everyone. For in order to have something to feed the beast, he stretches out his hands against the substance of others. And why do I speak only of possessions? For this fire devours not money only, but souls also, and it brings about not only the present death, but the death to come as well. For vainglory (κενοδοξία) is the mother of Hell, and it fiercely kindles that fire and that venomous worm. One might even see it ruling among the dead—which could be worse than that? For all other passions are dissolved by death, but this one even after death still forces its way on, and strives contentiously to display its own nature even in the dead body. For when, as they are dying, they command that splendid tombs be set up for them, tombs that consume their whole substance, and are eager to lay up lavish wastefulness for themselves even in burial; and while living they insult the poor who approach them for a single obol or one loaf of bread, yet when dead they spread an abundant table for the worm—what further excess do you seek of the tyranny of this disease? From this dreadful thing also are born unnatural lusts; for many are driven into adultery not by the beauty of what they see, nor by desire for the union itself, but by wanting to boast, “I tripped up such-and-such a woman and cast her into adultery.” And why need I speak of all the other evils that spring from this? For I would choose to become the slave of ten thousand barbarians rather than be once enslaved to vainglory (κενοδοξίας); for those men do not lay upon their captives such commands as this one lays upon its subjects. – John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Romans, PG 60.568-569

• Chrysostom would rather “choose to become the slave of ten thousand barbarians rather than be ONCE enslaved to vainglory”… and even if this was Mary’s only moment of being guilty of vainglory, Chrysostom would STILL rather become the slave of ten thousand barbarians than be in her shoes! Chrysostom also speaks on vainglory throughout his other homilies and condemns this sin, which Mary was guilty of.

The cause of all evils, however, is vainglory and the desire to give one’s own name to property, baths, houses…. – John Chrysostom, Homily 22 on Genesis

For where they blow a heavy blast they upset all things from the foundation and shatter them to pieces; and just as many prostitutes, although by nature ill favoured and ugly, do yet by means of enamels and pigments excite the feelings of the youthful while they are still tender, and when they have got them under their control treat them more insolently than any slave; so also do these passions, vainglory and arrogance, defile the souls of men more than any other kind of pollution. – John Chrysostom, The letter to the young widow, Chapter 6

Nilus of Ancyra:

In fact it is the vineyards of Gaddi which is interpreted as “eye of the test.” For the grape in blossom, hanging on the branch, since it has not yet come to fruition, is not wanted by everyone. Rare indeed are they who like to defer their enjoyment, because human beings generally prefer the enjoyment of whatever is in fruition; things that cannot be enjoyed immediately but must be hoped for they consider useless. But it is a matter of agricultural knowledge to detect the future use in the fruit which is not yet ripe and to see in the sour grape the fruit which will be. Similarly, the Lord, suspended from the cross (Acts 10:39), as though being tested before the eyes of all, created an enormous despair in those onlookers. Who would not be that way, seeing the liberation of humankind arrive at the ultimate punishment, who had worked so many wonders and freed Lazarus from the chains of Death nailed to the Cross—Life turning into Death? Thus the sentence against him threw everyone who believed in him into doubt about what they had seen, because every eye was now filled up by the ordeal, and, forgetting about the miracles, turned to this new subject and made a judgment based on the suffering which was the only thing visible at the moment. For not only the Jews, but the disciples also doubted, even after he “was raised from the dead” (Romans 6:9), they did not believe in the Resurrection (Luke 24:11). Knowing this, the Lord said to them as the Passion approached, “You will all be scandalized tonight” (Matthew 26:31), saying it is the night of the darkness of helplessness, and, to Mary through Simeon, “and a sword will pierce your soul as well” (Luke 2:35), a sword of wavering, caused by disbelief. And, many of the Jews shouted, “He saved others, he cannot save himself. If you are King of Israel, come down from the Cross and we shall believe in you” (Matthew 27:42). They said “let him come down from the Cross” ironically. Moses the Great knew their unkindness long ago, and prophesied before the crowd, “You will see your life hanging before you and will not believe in it” (Deuteronomy 28:66). This prediction was realized when they hung the one who said “I am the life” (John 14:6) upon the wood. – Nilus of Ancyra, Commentary on the Songs of Songs, chapter 30-31 (420 AD) 

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:

He introduces the women standing at the cross, his mother and the others with her, clearly weeping. The feminine gender is always prone to tears and very much inclined to lament, especially when there is abundant reason for shedding tears. 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. Do not doubt that she entertained considerations such as this (Μὴ γὰρ ἐνδοιάσῃς, ὅτι τοιούτους τινὰς εἰσεδέχετο λογισμούς): “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 (Καὶ ταῦτά φαμεν οὐ καταστοχαζόμενοι μάτην, ὡς ἂν τῷ δοκεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων περὶ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου μητρὸς ἰόντες εἰς ὑπόνοιαν). 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)

“For reasons which we have given, Christ suffers not Mary to touch Him, though in her love of God she greatly yearned for this boon; but still rewards her for her watchful care, and doubly requites her for her passionate faith and love for Him, showing that those who are diligent in His service meet with a recompense. And, what was even yet more glorious, she achieved the deliverance of woman from the frailties of old; for in her first—I mean in Mary [Magdalene]—all womankind, so to speak, are crowned with a double honour. For though at first she thus lamented, and made Christ an occasion for weeping, she turned her mourning into joy when she was told to forbear from tears by Him, Who, by His own sentence of old, had made woman easy to be overcome by the attacks of sorrow. For God had said to the woman: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; but just as He once made her subject unto sorrow in Paradise, when she hearkened to the voice of the serpent and ministered to the devil’s wiles, so now again in a garden He bids her refrain from weeping. Releasing her from that curse which bound her unto sorrow, He bids her be the first messenger of tidings of great joy, and proclaim to the disciples His journey heavenward; that as the great woman, the mother of all mankind, was condemned for listening to the devil’s voice, and through her the whole race of women, so also this woman, in that she had hearkened to our Saviour’s words and announced tidings fraught with life eternal, might deliver the entire race of women from the charge of old.” – Cyril, Commentary on John, Book 12

[Here, Cyril of Alexandria says Mary Magdalene is another “second Eve.” Ambrose of Milan also says Mary Magdalene was the second Eve:

But they are refuted by the acts of the pious, and by the course of the Scriptures. For Mary worshipped Christ, and therefore is appointed to be the messenger of the Resurrection to the apostles (John 20:17-18), loosening the hereditary bond, and the huge offense of womankind. For this the Lord wrought mystically, that where sin had exceedingly abounded, grace might more exceedingly abound (Romans 5:20). And rightly is a woman appointed [as messenger] to men; that she who first had brought the message of sin to man should first bring the message of the grace of the Lord. – Ambrose, On The Holy Spirit, book 3, chapter 11.74]

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] – For since no living person is pure in His sight, how can His judgment be something desirable? When we must give an account for every idle word (Matthew 12:36), shall we desire the Day of Judgment? On that day, we must endure the tireless fire and the grievous punishments necessary to expiate sins. Even the soul of the Blessed Mary was pierced by a sword so that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed (Luke 2:35). If this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape? –  Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus in Ps 118; PL 9:523

And while he was saying all these things in the power of the Father’s majesty, it was told to him that outside his mother and brothers awaited him. Extending his hand toward the disciples, he responded that they are his brothers and his mother, and whoever follows the will of the Father, that person is his brother, and his sister, and his mother. As a benefit to all people, he establishes himself as that model of action and thought as it pertains to the rights and title of all his relatives, not merely by the virtue of birth, but for the one who follows in the communion of the Church. We must not think that he felt disdain for his mother, whose experience of suffering produced in him a feeling of the greatest solicitude. There is also a figurative reason disclosed in this event: his mother and brothers stood outside although they, as others did, had the opportunity of at least coming to him. Because he came to his own people and his own did not recognize him, in his mother and brothers are prefigured the synagogue and the Israelites, who refrained from approaching and entering. – Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 12:46-50

Ambrose of Milan:

7. But he caused those closest to be killed by those closest, the parents their children, the brother his brother, we find an evident precept that religion must be preferred to family ties, and devotion to kinship. For that is true piety which prefers divine things to human, eternal to temporal. Wherefore also Moses himself said to the sons of Levi, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me.’ And he said unto them. ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go throughout the camp,’ that thus, through contemplation and love of divine reverence, every bond of family affection would be destroyed. It is written that three thousand men were slain, nor need we feel any jealousy of the number being so great, for it is better that by the punishment of a few the body should be exonerated, than that vengeance should be taken on all; nor indeed does any punishment of wrong against God appear too severe.

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 66.7-10

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. – Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A

“Why did you search for Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s affairs?” (Lk. 2:49). In Christ there is dual sonship: one affiliates Him to His heavenly Father, the other to His Mother. The one by His Father is totally divine, whereas that by His Mother subjects Him to the weariness and labour that is our lot. Anything in His actions that surpasses nature, age, and that which in general is common to mankind, must not be attributed to His human but to His divine powers. In another passage His Mother presses Him to perform a miracle (Jn. 2:3). But in this instance His Mother is checked for expecting Him to act as a human. But remember that here He is a child of twelve years, and that in the other case He is a grown man with disciples. You see how the Mother has learnt more about her Son, so much so that she asks Him, in His maturity, to perform a miracle — she who was so astounded by His display in childhood of wondrous powers. – Ambrose Commentary on Luke, Book 2, chapter 64

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

BAD TRANSLATION:

There follows Mary’s prophecy. Its plenitude matches the greatness of the person who utters it. I consider it not without interest that Elizabeth prophesies before the birth of John, and Mary, too, prophesies before the birth of the Lord. The first beginnings of man’s salvation gradually emerge; and since sin began from women, it is right that good, too, should begin from women. Thus women, laying aside womanish things, might renounce weakness. And their soul, which has no sex, might apply itself religiously to imitating the chastity of sinless Mary. – Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, book 2, chapter 28 (translated by Ide M. Ni Riain, a fanatical Catholic woman)

The Latin word Ambrose used is “error,” not “sin.” The Latin words for sin are peccatum (sin), iniquitas (iniquity), and delictum (fault). If Ambrose wanted to say Mary was absolutely sinless, he would have used peccatum (sin), iniquitas (iniquity), or delictum (fault). Instead, he only says, “Maria quae nescit errorem” (Mary does not wander/is not deceived.). If I say that someone is not deceived, would that automatically mean they’re a completely sinless person? What desperation the Cathodox have been driven to!

Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373):

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).

Ambrosiaster (between 366 and 384):

“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: 130-131

Eustathius of Antioch (?-337):

Asterius of Amasea (350-410):

Theodore of Mopsuestia:

“Jesus was invited, and he went, with his disciples, to the wedding.” John 2:2 By disciples he means here those whom he previously mentioned as already adhering to him; for not yet had the twelve believed or been gathered. Therefore, the Lord did not immediately test them in difficult matters, but also went with them to the wedding feast. “When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him: They have no wine.” John 2:3 His mother, as mothers do, urged him toward performing a miracle, desiring that the greatness of her son be revealed at once, and thinking that the lack of wine was a suitable occasion for a miracle. “But the Lord said to her: What is there between me and you, woman? Has my hour not yet come?” John 2:4 This should be read in the sense of a question: Has my hour not yet come? That is: “Why do you trouble me, and why do you burden me? Do not think that for me there are distinct moments for knowledge and works, as it was for Moses, who at one time could give manna, and at another time could give flesh, and later made water gush from the rock as the need of the people required, for he distributed these things by the power he had received. It is not so with me,” he says, “For I always have the power to act whenever and however I will; and even without the necessity of those in need pressing me, I am not unable to manifest my power. Therefore, the excuse you bring—the shortage of wine—is an insult to me, as if I were to receive the power to act because of others’ need, and not, rather, that this need exists because I am powerful.” — Theodoret of Mopsuestia (Commentary on John 2:3)

Amphilochius of Iconium (339–403):

“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, 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.” – Amphilochius of Iconium, Homily for the Presentation of the Lord, 2.8, CCSG 3: 65,67,69

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? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.” – Jerome, 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 doctors 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 the apostle Matthew, but from TWO people in simultaneously accusing Mary of sin in his gospel! The two people who accuse Mary of sin are JESUS CHRIST 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 for the Catholics than this. First of all, it comes from the Scriptures, from the gospel written by the apostle Matthew. Secondly, it’s a statement about Mary’s sins coming from both Mary AND Jesus. And thirdly, 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 and contains this passage. 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?”

In case anyone fails to understand that Jerome is accusing Mary of committing sins, let us remind you that the whole point of this book Jerome wrote against the Pelagians was to prove that no one can be absolutely sinless, even the most righteous patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Jerome continues two sentences later:

And in the same volume, “If your brother sin against you in word, and make amends to you, receive him seven times in a day.” Simon, His disciple, said to Him, “Seven times in a day”? The Lord answered and said to him, “I say unto you until seventy times seven.” Even the prophets, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, were guilty of sinful words. Ignatius, an apostolic man and a martyr, boldly writes, The Lord chose Apostles who were sinners above all men. It is of their speedy conversion that the Psalmist sings, Their infirmities were multiplied; afterwards they made haste. If you do not allow the authority of this evidence [Hebrew Matthew], at least admit its antiquity, and see what has been the opinion of all good churchmen. Suppose a person who has been baptized to have been carried off by death either immediately, or on the very day of his baptism, and I will generously concede that he neither thought nor said anything whereby, through error and ignorance, he fell into sin. Does it follow that he will, therefore, be without sin, because he appears not to have overcome, but to have avoided sin? Is not the true reason rather that by the mercy of God he was released from the prison of sins and departed to the Lord? – Jerome, Against the Pelagians, book 3, chapter 2

But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Galatians 4.4-5 Pay careful attention that he did not say “made through a woman,” which Marcion and other heresies want, which pretend that Christ had putative flesh; but “of a woman.” Thus one should believe that he was born not through her but of her. But because he has named the holy and blessed mother of the Lord a “woman,” not a virgin, this same thing is also written in the Gospel according to Matthew, when she is called the “wife” of Joseph. Also she is rebuked as a “woman” by the Lord himself. For it was not necessary always to be so cautious and timid about saying “virgin,” since woman signifies gender more than union with a man. And according to the understanding of the Greek, γυνή may be validly translated both “wife” and “woman.” But, to pass over everything, just as “he was made under the law to redeem those who were under the law,” so he wanted to be born of a woman for the sake of those who were born of a woman. For that is why he also received baptism in the waters of the Jordan, as a penitent, though he was free from sins, so that he would teach others of the need to be cleansed through baptism and to be born as sons by the new adoption of the Spirit. – Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 4:4-5

… Even the Saviour says to the Father, “Thou knowest my foolishness,” and again “I am as a wonder unto many, but thou art my strong refuge.” “I was as a beast before thee; nevertheless I am continually with thee.” In the gospel we read that even His kinsfolk desired to bind Him as one of weak mind. His opponents also reviled him saying “thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil,” and another time “he casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.” – Jerome, Letter to Eustochium

And yet Jerome still believed Mary was the greatest woman that ever lived. The two are not mutually exclusive:

“This is the day the Lord has made; let us be glad and rejoice in it.” Just as the Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Lord, holds the first place among all women, even so, this day is the mother of days among all days. – Jerome, Homily 93 (On Easter Sunday)

Epiphanius:

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

Another sect has come to public notice after this, and I have already mentioned a few things about it in the Sect preceding, in the letter about Mary which I wrote to Arabia. This one, again, was also brought to Arabia from Thrace and upper Scythia, and word of it has reached me; it too is ridiculous and, in the opinion of the wise, wholly absurd. So let us begin the discussion and description of it; as others like it were, it too will be adjudged silly rather than wise. For as, long ago, those who, from an insolent attitude towards Mary, have seen fit to suspect these things were sowing damaging suspicions in people’s minds, so these persons who lean in the other direction are guilty of doing the worst sort of harm. In them too the maxim of certain pagan philosophers, “Extremes are equal,” will be exemplified.

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. And who but women are the teachers of this? Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited. As in our earlier chapter on Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla, so here the devil has seen fit to disgorge ridiculous teachings from the mouths of women. For certain women decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread – as I partially discussed in my same letter to Arabia.

For to begin with, to whom is it not immediately obvious, if he will investigate the whole scope of the past, that their teaching and behavior are devilish, and their undertaking a deviation? Never at any time has a woman offered sacrifice to God— Eve herself, though she had fallen into transgression, still did not dare to undertake such a further impiety. Not one of her daughters did, though Abel sacrificed to God at once, and, even though they were not accepted, Cain offered sacrifices before the Lord. Enoch pleased God and was translated. Noah made thank offerings to the Lord, as a token of gratitude, with the extra animals in the ark, in thanksgiving to the One who had preserved him. The righteous Abraham offered God sacrifice, and Melchizedek the priest of God Most High. Isaac was pleasing to God, and Jacob made the best offering he could on the stone, by pouring oil from his flask. And the children of Jacob. We find that Levi was the next to receive the priesthood, but that those who received the priestly order came from his stock—I mean Moses the prophet and expositor, Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Phinehas, and his grandson Ithamar.  And why name the throngs of those who sacrificed to God in the Old Testament? We find Ahitub sacrificing, and the sons of Korah, and the Gershonites and the Merarites, to whom the levitical order was entrusted. And the house of Eli, and his kinsmen after him in the household of Abimelech and Abiathar, Helkiah and Buzi, down to the high priest Joshua, and Ezra the priest, and the rest And nowhere did a woman offer sacrifice.

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 [she was] 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) give women any canonical function in the church, 2) allow women “to speak” in church, or “bear rule over man,” 3) stand in excessive awe of the saint, 4) believe Mary was anything more than a woman, 5) believe she was born any way but the normal way, 6) believe Mary ruled over the earth, 7) call Mary “queen of heaven, 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 a loaf in her name, calling her “queen of heaven,” believing she was born in a special way, etc.) 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 loaf in Mary’s name (whereas Catholics are told they ought to offer their entire bodies to Mary as sacrifices). What’s a loaf compared to a body? Ask yourself this, is it possible to have 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?

This practice of offering a loaf in Mary’s name is a Gnostic practice, found in the Six Books Apocryphon, which the Cathodox use to justify believe in the ascension of Mary and the offering of incense.

The Six Books Apocryphon:

Then the apostles drew near and said to the blessed one: “Leave a blessing, my Lady Mary, to the world which you are quitting, that those who make to you commemorations and offerings may be delivered from grievous afflictions.” Then my Lady Mary prayed and said: “May God, who willed of His own will and sent His Son, and He put on a body and dwelt in the palace of my members, have mercy upon the peoplem who call upon Him.” And again she prayed and said: “Our Lord Jesus, do you receive the prayers of the people who call upon You; and make bad times cease from the earth; and give a crown to old age, and bringing up to youth; and aid the souls that call upon You: and make bad times cease from the earth when mankind, Lord, hold a commemoration to my body and spirit, which have quitted the earth; and make death and captivity and the sword and famine, and all calamities that befall mankind, pass away from the land in which offerings are offered to me; and make the pestilence cease from the land in which offerings are offered to me; and bless the garland of the year; and let these lands be preserved from locust, that they may not devour them, and from blight and mildew and hailstones; and let every one who is sick, be healed; and who is afflicted, be relieved; and who is hungry, be satisfied; and whoever is captive through violence, let his bonds be loosed; and if any are sailing on the sea, and storms arise against them, and they call on the name of the Lord, let them be preserved from injury; and let those who are in distant lands, and call upon my name, come (home) in safety. Let the fields too, from which offerings are offered in honor of me, be blessed and bring forth the seeds which are concealed in the furrows; and let the vines, from which wine is pressed in my name, bear good bunches (of grapes); and let there be concord and peace on all created beings that call on You. And let, O Lord, the garland of the years and the months be blessed before you. And when the priests offer my offerings, receive their tithes with gladness; and make their churches thunder with thanksgiving, and let the Holy Spirit sing along with them. And on the kings be concord; and on the judges peace; and blessings and joys be on the face of the earth forever and ever, Amen.” Then our Lord Jesus said to His mother: “Everything you have said to me, Mary, will I do to please you; and I will show mercy to everyone who calls upon your name.”

And the apostles also ordered that any offering offered in the name of my Lady Mary should not remain over the night, but that at midnight of the night immediately preceding her commemoration, it should be kneaded and baked; and in the morning let it go up on the altar, whilst the people stand before the altar with psalms of David, and let the New and Old Testaments be read, and the volume of the decease of the blessed one; and let everyone be before the altar in the church, and let the priests celebrate (the holy Eucharist) and set forth the censer of incense and kindle the lights, and let the whole service be concerning these offering; and when the whole service is finished, let everyone take his offering to his house. And let the priest speak thus: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we celebrate the commemoration of my Lady Mary.” Thus let the priest speak three times; and (simultaneously) with the word of the priest who speaks, the Holy Spirit shall come and bless these offerings; and when everyone takes away his offering, and goes to his house, great help and the benison of the blessed one shall enter his dwelling and stablish it forever. – The Six Books Apocryphon, book 4 (THE SIX BOOKS OF MARY APOCRIPHON (also known as): THE DEPARTURE OF MY LADY MARY FROM THIS WORLD, EDITED FROM TWO SYRIAC MASS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND TRANSLATED BY W. WRIGHT, Reprinted for Private Circulation from THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD for January and April, 1865)

Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 394):

“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.

Severian of Gabala (355-425):

Severus of Antioch (459-538):

Augustine:

Do not think that there is a single soul, except that of the Mediator, which does not inherit from Adam original sin, acquired by generation, which must be undone by regeneration. – Augustine, Letter to Optatus, 202a [Latin: ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum.]

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

He did nothing by violence, but every thing by persuasion and warning. The old servitude was past and the day of liberty had dawned and man was fitly and helpfully taught how he had been created with free will. By his miracles he, being God, produced faith in God, and by his passion, in the human nature he had assumed, he furthered respect for human nature. Speaking to the multitudes as God he refused to recognize his mother when her coming was announced, and yet, as the Gospel says, he was obedient to his parents (Matt. 12:48, Luke 2:51). In his doctrine the God appeared, and the Man in the various stages of his life. When, as God, he was about to turn water into wine, he said: “Woman, depart from me; what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come” (John 2:4). But when his hour had come when, as man, he should die, he recognized his mother from the Cross and commended her to the disciple whom he loved more than the others (John 19:26-27). – Augustine, On True Religion, chapter 31

Explain for me what you think of those words of the most blessed Simeon in order that I may follow your interpretation. When he had come into the temple under the impulse of the Holy Spirit in order to see Christ because of a revelation from God and when he had taken the infant Lord into his arms and blessed him, he said to Mary in these words, See, he is destined for the fall and the rise of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be contradicted, and a sword will pierce your very soul in order that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed (Lk 2:34-35). Are we perhaps to believe that he prophesied this about the martyrdom of Mary, which has nowhere been recorded? Or was he speaking about her motherly love, in which, when at the time of the Passion she stood beside the cross, on which he to whom she gave birth was nailed, she was later pierced by the grief of her motherly heart, and did the sword of the cross, which pierced her son according to the flesh as she looked on, pierce her soul? For I see that it was said of Joseph in the psalms, They humbled his feet in shackles; a blade has passed through his soul (Ps 1 05 : 1 8), just as Simeon said in the gospel, And a sword will pierce your very soul. It does not say, “flesh,” but, “soul.” In it is found the disposition of love, and the sting of sorrow acts like a sword when one suffers some injury of his flesh, like Joseph. He bore the sufferings of injuries when he was sold as a slave and was bound as someone guilty and put into prison. In the same way Mary’s motherly mind certainly drew her to the cross of the Lord, on which she then thought only of the body of her son, and, when she had seen that he was dead, she grieved in human weakness and brought him to be buried, without counting on his resurrection. For the pain of the Passion set before her eyes blinded her faith in the miracle to come. And yet the Lord consoled her as she stood beside his cross. Not afraid with the weakness of someone dying, but having that death in his control, which he was facing willingly, he taught her about the death of the cross with the full power of someone living and with the resoluteness of someone who would rise. He said of the blessed apostle, John, Woman, behold your son, and likewise to him as he stood there, Behold your mother (Jn 19:26-27). That is, now moving from the human frailty, in which he was born from a woman, through the death on the cross into the eternity of God, in order to be in the glory of God the Father, he transferred to a human being the rights of human filial piety and chose the youngest of his disciples in order quite fittingly to give to the virgin apostle his virgin mother. – Augustine, Letter 121, chapter 17

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

For it is good for all men to hear His voice and live, by passing to the life of godliness from the death of ungodliness. Of this death the Apostle Paul says, Therefore all are dead, and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all, for our sins, and rose again for our justification…. – Augustine, City of God, book 20, chapter 6

What else does he here teach us, than to prefer to kinship “after the flesh” our descent “after the Spirit.” He teaches that persons are united by nearness of spirit to those who are just and holy, and that by obeying and following they cleave to their teaching and conduct. Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. For to the one who said, “Blessed is the womb, which bore you!” he himself answered: “Blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it.” Concerning his own brothers, his own relatives after the flesh, who at first did not believe in him, he found dubious advantage in being their kin. As for Mary, her nearness as a mother would have been little help for her salvation if she had not borne Christ in her heart in a more blessed manner than in the flesh. – Augustine (On Virginity 3)

AUGUSTINE’S EXCEPTION

He then enumerates those “who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.” And he adds the names of some women,—“Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,” he says, “we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.” We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? Would it be in the language of our author, or in the words of the Apostle John? I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?” – Augustine, On Nature and Grace, or De natura et gratia, chapter 36, Migne’s Patrologia Latina 44:267

To which I reply:

a) Mary would certainly confess her own sins just like all the other saints if you asked her. She would not claim to be sinless. She was certainly baptized like all the rest, and she certainly confessed her sins at baptism.

b) According to Peter Lombard, Augustine does believe Mary committed sins prior to the Holy Spirit overshadowing her.

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 was ULTIMATELY regenerated through baptism. He had no concept of her immaculate conception.

Hesychius of Jerusalem (approx. 450):

Maximus of Turin (465):

The most blessed Mary said to him, “They have no wine.” Jesus answered as though he were displeased. “Woman,” he said, “is that my concern or yours?” It can hardly be doubted that these were words of displeasure. However, this I think was only because his mother mentioned to him so casually the lack of earthly wine, when he had come to offer the peoples of the whole world the new chalice of eternal salvation. By his reply, “My hour has not yet come,” he was foretelling the most glorious hour of his passion and the wine of our redemption, which would obtain life for all. Mary was asking for a temporal favor, but Christ was preparing joys that would be eternal. Nevertheless, the Lord in his goodness did not refuse this small grace while greater graces awaited. – Maximus of Turin AD 465, Sermon 23

Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (435-517):

“He [Jesus] rebukes his mother for having untimely reminded Him—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.” He rebukes His mother for urging Him toward a miracle before the proper time. 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. Μέμφεται τὴν μητέρα πρὸς θαυματουργίαν αὐτὸν παρορμῶσαν παράκαιρον. (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).

Fulgentius of Ruspe (460-533):

“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. For the Apostle bears witness: “Because God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), namely, Him who, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6–7). And the Son of God was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and likewise was made in the likeness of men, for this reason: so that He might be like men in the truth of the flesh which He Himself had created, and so that God might take away in flesh without sin that unlikeness of ours which He saw to be in our flesh not from His own work, but from our sin. Therefore the Son of God appeared sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, because in His true human flesh there was not man’s iniquity, but mortality. 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.” – Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistula 17.13 (Migne PL 65:458)

Fulgentius of Ferrandus (?-547):

“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, Letter 3.4 Ad Antalium diaconum urbis Romae, Migne PL 67:892

Romanos the Melodist (?-555):

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).

Maximus the Confessor (580-662):

Alcuin of York (804):

She (Mary) represents here the Synagogue, which challenges Christ to perform a miracle. It was customary with the Jews to ask for miracles “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?” – Alcuin of York AD 804, Catena Aurea by Aquinas

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. – Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), chapter 16,

Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107):

Peter Lombard (1100-1160):

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.”

Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, Commentary on the Third Book of Sentences, distinction 3, part 1, article 1, question 1-3, question III, 61a–72b:

“4. To the objection that the Virgin’s conception took place within a legitimate marriage, and therefore etc., it must be said that the whole argument is plausible, namely that she was conceived from a barren woman and through conjugal union without any actual sin. However, it does not follow that she was conceived without the cause of sin, for original sin is transmitted just as much from those who generate through legitimate union as from those who generate through illicit union.”

“And if it is objected that there should have been no cause of original sin, since conception was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit, and due to the miraculous fertility of her sterile mother, which was not from man but from God, it must be said that this argument is not valid, because the same could be objected in the cases of John and Isaac, who were conceived from barren mothers.” (Ibid., 62b).

“4. Likewise, if we posit extremes, it is possible to establish a middle ground. But we find some who bear original sin in both soul and flesh, as the sons of Adam commonly do; and we find others who are free from it in both soul and flesh, as in Christ. Therefore, it must be possible to find an intermediate case—someone who has original sin in the flesh but not in the soul, or in the soul but not in the flesh. However, to have it in the soul but not in the flesh is impossible, because original sin originates from the flesh; for the soul is not transmitted, whereas the flesh is. Thus, it remains that there was someone who had original sin solely in the flesh and not in the soul. This would be the one who most closely approaches Christ in purity, and this is the Virgin Mary: therefore, etc.” (Ibid., 65b).

“1. In Romans 5: All have sinned in Adam; but this is true only because we existed in Adam according to seminal nature. Therefore, if the Virgin existed according to seminal nature, it seems that she contracted original sin, just like all others.” (Ibid.).

“2. Likewise, Augustine: No one is freed from the mass of sin except through faith in the Redeemer. Therefore, all who are saved are saved through Christ. But no one is freed from sin that they do not have. Hence, it seems that all others apart from Christ must have contracted original sin.” (Ibid.).

“3. Likewise, Bernard: Our Savior came to liberate all, just as He found no one free from guilt. Therefore, He did not find even the Blessed Virgin free from it; hence, she must have contracted original sin.” (Ibid.).

“4. Likewise, this seems reasonable: because if the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, then she was also free from the penalty of death. Therefore, either an injustice was done to her when she died, or she died as a dispensation for the salvation of the human race. But the first would be an offense against God, for if it were true, God would not be a just retributor. The second would be an offense against Christ, for if it were true, Christ would not be a sufficient redeemer. Therefore, both are false and impossible. It remains, then, that she had original sin.” (Ibid., 66a–66b).

“5. Likewise, no one belongs to the redemption of Christ unless they have guilt. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin lacked original sin, it seems that she does not pertain to the redemption of Christ. But great is Christ’s glory from the Saints whom He has redeemed. Therefore, if He did not redeem the Blessed Virgin, He is deprived of His most noble glory. Since it is profane and impious to say such a thing, it seems, etc.” (Ibid., 66b).

“6. Likewise, if the Blessed Virgin did not have original sin, and the gate of heaven is closed to no one except by reason of original sin, then it follows that if she had died before Christ, she would have immediately ascended to heaven. Therefore, it does not seem that the gate was opened to all through Christ, and thus, the Apostle would be speaking falsely when he says in Colossians 1: It pleased Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether in heaven or on earth, through Him.” (Ibid.).

“Others, however, hold that the sanctification of the Virgin followed the contraction of original sin; and this is because no one was immune from the guilt of original sin except the Son of the Virgin alone.” (Ibid.).

“For as the Apostle says in Romans 3: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There, the Gloss states: The grace of Christ found all to be sinners, for He alone came without sin, and all are in need of the glory of God—that is, that He alone should free them, for He is able, not you, who are in need of liberation.” (Ibid.).

“And Augustine says the same in his commentary on John, discussing the verse: Behold the Lamb of God! There, he says that He alone could take away the sins of the world, because He alone came without sin, for He is entirely free from all sin.” (Ibid.).

“This manner of speaking is more common, more reasonable, and more secure. More common, I say, because almost everyone holds that the Blessed Virgin had original sin, since this appears from the many penalties she endured, which cannot be said to have been suffered for the redemption of others, nor can it be said that she assumed them voluntarily, but rather that she contracted them.” (Ibid.).

“It is also more reasonable because the existence of nature precedes the existence of grace, either in time or in order of nature. And therefore, Augustine says that it is first to be born, then to be reborn, just as to be comes before to be good. Thus, the soul is united to the flesh before the grace of God is infused into it. If, therefore, that flesh was infected, its infection by nature would have transmitted original guilt to the soul. It is therefore necessary to affirm that the infection of original guilt preceded sanctification.” (Ibid., 67b–68a).

“It is also more secure because it is more in harmony with the piety of the faith and the authority of the Saints. It is more in harmony with the authority of the Saints because, when speaking on this matter, they commonly exclude only Christ from the general statement: All have sinned in Adam. But none of those whom we have heard with our own ears has ever been found to have said that the Virgin Mary was immune from original sin.” (Ibid., 68a).

“It is also more in harmony with the piety of the faith because, although the Mother is to be held in reverence and great devotion should be shown toward her, far greater devotion is owed to the Son, from whom all her honor and glory derive. And therefore, because it pertains to the supreme dignity of Christ that He alone is the Redeemer and Savior of all, that He alone opened the gate to all, and that He alone died for all, the Blessed Virgin Mary must not in any way be excluded from this generality, lest, in enlarging the excellence of the Mother, the glory of the Son be diminished.” (Ibid.).

“Therefore, adhering to this position for the honor of Jesus Christ—who in no way prejudices the honor of His Mother, while He incomparably surpasses her—we hold, according to the common opinion, that the sanctification of the Virgin occurred after the contraction of original sin.” (Ibid.).

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):

For the honor of the Holy Trinity, for the joy of the Catholic Church, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, with that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and with ours: We declare, we affirm, and we define that it has been revealed by God, and consequently, that it must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful, the doctrine that maintains that the most holy Virgin Mary was preserved immune from all stain of original guilt, in the first instant of her conception, by singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in attention to the merits of Jesus Christ, savior of the human race.

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.

Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life — not of death — the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely. They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, “I will put enmities between you and the woman.”-Unmistakable evidence that she crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom “the first-born of every creature” would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows of the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

• When the fathers say Mary was without stain, they are NOT talking about “original sin,” but rather the stain of sexual knowledge. This kind of stain can be avoided by all people, not just Mary. The only way that Mary and Jesus were superior to all other people was because they were even sexually pure in their minds. They never lusted after anyone, whereas most people – even holy virgins – have experienced lustful thoughts. If any other interpretation of the fathers is adopted, then their statements about other virgins being “free from stain” become incoherent!

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

These truths, so generally accepted and put into practice by the faithful, indicate how zealously the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches, has continued to teach this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. Yet the more important actions of the Church deserve to be mentioned in detail. For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith. – Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)

The Ark of the Covenant Fell:

You Cathodox say Mary is the ark of the covenant. Granted! Did you know there was a time when the ark of the covenant FELL? Did you know it was about to fall straight into the dirt? I wonder who Uzzah symbolizes…. Uzzah was a priest who saw that the Ark (Mary) was in danger of falling (sinning), so he tried to prevent it from happening! Uzzah said, “The ark is falling into the mud! I can’t let it happen! Mary must be sinless! I refuse to let her be guilty of sin!” The ark fell, and those priests who refused to accept it, who thought it was their job to ensure the Mary was sinless, were struck with death – spiritual death! After they failed to make Mary sinless, the ark was left with someone else along the road, who took better care of it than the priests did.

In case any of you Cathodox deny that the ark really did fall, hear the fathers confirm it:

They [the Galatians] had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he [Paul] says that the gospel was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith soon proceeds from this to graver errors and becomes entirely corrupted. Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition? Let them hear Paul’s assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the gospel. … Don’t you know that even under the old covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death? And that Uzzah, who supported the ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath and to touch the falling ark drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awe-inspiring doctrines find excuse and pardon? Assuredly not. A lack of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction, great ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates fever, mortification and death; so in the soul, slight evils overlooked open the door to graver ones. – John Chrysostom, COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS 1

When the ark of the Lord was being transferred to Jerusalem, and the oxen kicked and made the wagon lean to one side, Uzzah, the Levite, reached out his hand to support the ark that had been tipped, and there follow immediately these words: “And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his ignorance, and he died before the ark of God. – Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1.33