Combox for:
Church Fathers On the Sinlessness of Mary
[16 July 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ss-of-
mary.html
Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, section 8
"But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire . . ."
In context, Anthanasius seems to mean clean and pure as "free from sexual intercourse with a man", which is true and Protestant's believe that. It does not mean "sinless"; just as Job was described as a righteous and blameless man, but that did not mean he was sinless; (Job 1:1-2); and Zacharias and Elizabeth were described as righteous and walking in the commands of the Lord; (Luke 1:6); but that did not mean that they were sinless. Same for Noah in Genesis 6:9.
If Athanasius believed what you say he did, he would have said, "except for Mary" for the second phrase, that all are under sin and the corrupting penalty of death.
Turretin Fan makes some great observations about the source of the second quote you make. I remember several writers in the Early Church Father footnotes about these works attributed to Athanasius also being questioned.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...s-of-
turin.html
"I've noticed that several Roman Catholic apologists have relied on a writing identified by them as "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" and attributed to Athanasius. I wonder whether this is spuria or genuine. The name of the document is not itself frightfully reassuring. It suggests attribution to Athanasius based on a single copy (probably in Coptic-Sahaddic not Greek) from the 6th century or so. As far as I can tell, it was unknown to the Western church as part of the Athanasian corpus and has become known via the journal Le Muséon in 1958:
Le Muséon année 1958 LXXI 3-4 Revue d'études orientales (A Louvain Chez l'Association Le Muséon, fondé en 1881 par Charles De Harlez 1958, brochée grand in 8 de 190.)
Sommaire: L'homélie de S. Athanase des papyrus de Turin. Un nouveau manuscrit de la Narratio de rebus Armeniae. La vision de S. Sabak en grec. Les questions-réponses du ms. Vat. arabe. Das studium der altgeorgischen sprache in georgien. Les catéchèses de S. Theodore studite. Pseudo-Shenoute ou Christian-Behaviour. Nécrologie de Mgr Joseph Lebon et de Michel tarchnisvili. Bibliographie.
and subsequent citation by popular Roman Catholic apologists (particularly English-speaking apologists), especially because of its discussion of Mary. I'm not sure whether there is any reason to consider it be anything more than the writings of yet another Pseudo-Athanasius.
In fact, David Frankfurter appears to identify it as Pseudo-Athanasius in footnote 82 at page 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Anitique Egypt. (link)
I wonder whether any of the Catholic apologists who have been citing this work (e.g. Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Jimmy Akin, and [most recently] Paul Hoffer) have any defense of its authenticity. I'm guessing that each of them got the citation from some secondary source or other (perhaps even tertiary, as Lefort appears to have provided his translation in French), and did not perform any research as to the authenticity of the quotation.
Nevertheless, my guess could be wrong, and I'd be delighted to be mistaken. I don't mean this article to suggest that I've definitively proved the spurious nature of the quotation, but simply given the reader good reason to question its authenticity. If there is another side to the argument, I'd love to hear it.
-TurretinFan
Ken
I does not matter what the Early Church Fathers say or teach you will not believe it. I know James White claims that the Early Church fathers were not Reformed Baptist and he does not claim they were Reformed Baptist,,,he claims they are just Early Fathers, nothing more nothing less.
Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee."
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:495
Ken,
The objections in the post by turretinfan really doesn't add up to much. Personally, I have no idea whether or not the passage is really Athanasius. One cannot simply say "that doesn't sound like him" since much else of what is extant are theological writings and this is obviously a pious prayer written in a poetic style. Aquinas' hymns and prayers don't sound much like the Summa Theologica either.
The fact that it was unknown to the West until recently is not all that surprising since he was an Eastern and not Western figure. It was also found in Coptic and thus originated in Egypt where Athanasius was bishop. This could be a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript as Greek began to fall out of favor with Egyptian Christians or it could be pseudopigraphical. If the latter case, it seems rather an unusual move since it has no theological import to the existing controversies.
But unless there is some clear sign one way or the other, no one knows for sure.
Albert,
Glad to see you back.
There are others in the 38 volume set of Early Church Fathers, that questioned the authenticity of that book attributed to Athanasius. It creates enough doubt in the doctrines of the sinlessness of Mary and the Perpetual Virginity. They have no earlier "seeds". They are beginning around that time, end of the 4th Century. The rise of monasticism, the dessert fathers, such as Simon Stylites, Origen's castration of himself (earlier, 250 AD ? ) and the cessation of persecution in 312/313 AD, added the Virginity and focus on heroic Christianity, ascetics, monks, obsessions over sexual lusts and sins, and guilt (Augustine) and focus on sanctification. One can see how Justification in Scripture was neglected for Sanctification as a process; (and interpreted as the same thing as justification, thus making it a journey and process, with no assurance and emphasis on works-based legalistic salvation)
in this period, especially at a popular level.
Did you read my response to your other comments on justification and early church?
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/inde...php?
itemid=2780
Dr. White brings the issue of justification and sanctification and purgatory to the ultimate questions and issues for Peter Stravinskas.
Excellent getting down to the bottom line -
Romans 4:6; Romans 4:8
Hebrews 10:10-13
It is only a "I hope so"; "maybe", etc. because of the focus on what man does; rather than what Christ has done in salvation.
Same for all systems of "faith plus works" - Islam - "Insh'allah" -- "I hope so"
Jehovahs Witnesses - no one knows for sure if he has eternal life. Mormons, all of man man religion
Galatians 4:1-9 and Colossians 2:8-23
Sinlessness of Mary is already contained in Luke 1:28, as I've shown in more than one paper, at great length. If you come back with Svendsen's "answers," I've already refuted and disposed of them. They're unsuccessful in overthrowing the "Catholic" interpretation.
Not even contained in Luke 1:28 whatsoever; you did not show that at all; one of the more ridiculous examples of RCC eisegesis.
RCC interpretation was absolutely overthrown and quashed.
Same for all systems of "faith plus works" - Islam - "Insh'allah" -- "I hope so"
"Insh'allah" does not mean nor even imply "I hope so." It means "If it is God's will." In Muslim theology, God's will is absolutely sovereign, in sort of a hyper-Calvinistic sense: worse than Calvinism, because in Islam God's will is purely arbitrary. That's why Arabs have been known to light matches so they can see if their gas tanks are really out of gas.
Anyway, since the New Testament teaches a system of "faith plus works" and explicitly rejects "faith alone," it follows that anyone who confidently asserts that he will make it to heaven without having received a personal revelation from God is presumptuous. "Absolute assurance" and "once saved always saved" are unbiblical doctrines, contrary to the Christian faith. "Focusing on what Christ has done" merely begs the question -- it does nothing to assure us that we individually and personally will certainly respond in faith to what Christ has done.
Not even contained in Luke 1:28 whatsoever; you did not show that at all; one of the more ridiculous examples of RCC eisegesis. RCC interpretation was absolutely overthrown and quashed.
Wow. If it only were that easy to disprove the Catholic interpretation of "Hail, full of grace."
Yes, that is what "Insha'allah means - "If God wills" but it practically works out that way into everyday life as "I hope so"; because there is no assurance in Islam, except for dying in Jihad.
Not even contained in Luke 1:28 whatsoever; you did not show that at all; one of the more ridiculous examples of RCC eisegesis.
Thanks for the compliment!
I tell you of example of a Protestant ridiculous example of eisegesis is getting Sola Scriptura out of 2 Tim 3:16-17.
After Timothy read the letter Paul wrote him did Timothy practice Sola Scriptura?
You see if Paul was teaching Sola Scriptura in 2 Tim 3:16 then Timothy would had understood it and started to practice the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
There are others in the xxvolume set of "The athoritiative text" , that questioned the authenticity of that book attributed to Luther. It creates enough doubt in the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fides. They have no earlier "seeds". They are beginning around that time, end of the 15 Century.
McGrath on justification and regeneration Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1
p. 182 "Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."
p. 184 "The significance of the Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before. Despite the astonishingly theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not."
p. 36 "Augustine demonstrates of iustitia, effected only through man's justification, demonstrates how the doctrine of justification encompasses the whole of Christian existence from the first moment of faith through the increase in righteousness before God and man, to the final perfection of that righteousness in the eschatological city. Justification is about being made just."
p. 185 "The medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the reformers departed from it."
p. 186 "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo sautis, THE ESSENTIAL POINT IS THAT A NOTIONAL DISTINCTION IS MADE WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL TRADITION WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED BEFORE. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
p. 182 " Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous
Ken,
Thanks for the greeting. I'm afraid I probably did not see your comments since time constraints have prevented me from following up on everywhere I stick my $0.02 worth. 
"There are others in the 38 volume set of Early Church Fathers, that questioned the authenticity of that book attributed to Athanasius."
I'm not sure what exactly you were getting to in that comment so maybe you could make it clearer. I was admitting that I have no idea about the veracity of the attribution but pointed out the comments at the post linked really do not bear on the question. There have been other discoveries in the bowels of monasteries in the Near East that have proven frutiful and I have heard it said that a number of the writings of the Eastern theologians from the patristic and medieval periods reamain untranslated.
I would also point out the erroneous assmptions that can arise from assuming thelogical developments began with famous dead guys. Most devotional aspects of the faith ( and the Marian beliefs fall in this categiory) begin at the popular level and are given theological justifications later. We see Marain beliefs emerging early in certain popular apocryphal stories. Whether these beliefs were actually true is a matter for debate, but the emergence at the level of popular piety is already there. My guess is that from the popular piety it would move into prayers, liturgy, and then finally theology.
You can see this today in the Eastern Churches. There are a number of things relating to Mary and the Saints that are part of the popular piety of the EO and incorporated into the liturgy that are not defined dogmas of these churches. This sort of thing would not be acceptable in the West, but they don't seem to mind.
(55) De Virginitate. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf., spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn (ubi supr., pp. 27, sqq.), who rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceticism which is implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius. ‘Three hypostases’ are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius’ way of speaking in later life.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...04.v.iii.i.html
Albert,
My mistake – I mixed two different works that are claimed to be by Athanasius. This is about his work, On Virginity, which has some scholars who doubt it. This work is used to support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, whereas the Homily on the Papyrus of Turin is used to promote the Sinlessness of Mary. I apologize. Took lots of time to make sure about this.
I think you are right about these later dogmas, they started at the popular level and worked there way up to the leaders and some scholars over the centuries. That seems to be a very good point. Is there a work that proves or gives good evidence of this?
Albert,
What do you think of my response to your other point? (earlier, July 10, about books on RC and Protestant dialogue, etc. and citing Early church fathers)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...s-
catholic.html
Commenting by HaloScan
