Dialogue on the Immaculate Conception

What's the "Church Magisterium" in Catholicism? (From a former Protestant)
LizziesAnswers | 17 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGuEsnv3_SU

1:29 You have just said that CCC §283 is not an act of the Magisterium.

With Pope Michael II, you would have the Tridentine Catechism, which undoubtedly is.

Dialogue:

Prime Time

@prime_time_youtube

a) 1:15 – “The Magisterium does not create new theology; it guards the apostolic tradition.”
Let’s break this down simply:
1. Did any Church Father before the 8th century teach that Mary was conceived without original sin? No.
2. Did Fathers explicitly reject this idea? Many: St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
3. Was the idea popular in the 13th century? No. Even St. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, teaching that only Christ had a sinless conception.

To be clear: I’m not denying that Mary was sinless or pure, what I’m rejecting is the claim that she was conceived without original sin.

Conclusion: If no Church Father ever taught it, many actively rejected it, and it remained unpopular well into the 13th century... then there is no epistemological JUSTIFICATION to claim this was part of the apostolic deposit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

"No."

Su mone hagne, su mone eulogemene ... Greek (and parallelled by Coptic) ending of the prayer called in Latin Sub tuum praesidium, which is a Coptic Christmas song from 2nd C.

"St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. John Chrysostom"

St. Augustine, I knew, and Sts Hilary and Fulgentius as well as St. Thomas are influenced by him.

For Sts. Basil and Chrysostom, I'd like details.

It would seem that Palamas taught the Immaculate Conception, the Old Believers defended it against the Skirzhal, and I think this comes from an East Church tradition that then came back to the West and ousted the position of St. Augustine.

The historic question is, did this happen through Anne of Kiev, a French Queen, who came to Paris pre-schism, or did it happen only later through Crusaders familiarising themselves with the Eastern Tradition?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I checked for Sts. Basil and Chrysostom.

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260). St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).

I would answer these two things do not necessarily describe sins. They are movements of the soul which could lead to sins, but never led to sins in Her. As you said you believed in Her sinlessness, you'd agree.

Now, I got this from Catholic Encyclopedia, and here are a few other patristic quotes they give:

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

Prime Time

@ None of the quotes you provided support the idea that Mary’s conception was without sin. At most, they defend her sinlessness... which I already affirmed I believe in.

Augustine (like I do) believed that Mary was sinless, but in his commentary on Psalm 34 he explicitly states that Jesus was born of sinful flesh and that Mary died because of sin, like Adam. Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe, a follower of Augustine, even wrote: "[Mary] was conceived in iniquity" (Epistula 17.13).

Regarding metaphors and typology like the Tabernacle, none of them state that Mary’s conception was without sin. In fact, typological parallels never claim more than what they intend to teach, and freedom from original sin was NEVER their focus. For instance, Saint Proclus called the Virgin Mary the Ark of Noah and the fleece of Gideon, Jacob's Ladder, and so on... while Cyril said Jesus was the Ark of the Covenant, not Mary... cause she was the Temple.

So once again, no Church Father taught that Mary was conceived without original sin. Many affirmed her purity and sinlessness (as I do), but several also taught that only Christ’s conception was immaculate.

You must be aware that the Orthodox, the Coptic do not affirm the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, but as an optional tradition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube It so happens optional traditions end up as dogmas.

"Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption"

Not just "the tabernacle" but also "exempt from defilement and corruption. St. Hippolytus was anterior to Sts Augustine and Fulgentius. If Mary had had original sin or concupiscence, at conception, She would have been freed and not totally exempt from defilement and corruption.

"Regarding metaphors and typology like the Tabernacle, none of them state that Mary’s conception was without sin."

A metaphor or typology doesn't directly state a thing, it shows its fittingness.

But if above quotes weren't sufficiently explicit for you, how about St. John of Damascus?

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others.

Note, while Peter the Eater may not ring a bell, he is not a nobody, he is the author of Historia Scholastica, a standard work on Biblical history for the rest of the Middle Ages.

Prime Time

@hglundahl “Optional traditions end up as dogmas”
False. They have explicitly stated that there is no basis for considering this a dogma.

“Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption”
This is the third time I’ve said that I already believe in the Virgin’s sinlessness. Hippolytus never said anything about her conception. Augustine and Fulgentius explicitly talked about her conception. Your dishonesty is offensive.

“It shows its fittingness”
Exactly, and yet they never said her conception was without sin.

John of Damascus
He wrote that in the 8th century, which is exactly when I said this idea began to emerge... and it wasn't even popular in the 13th Century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube " Hippolytus never said anything about her conception."

You still miss the distinction between "exempt" (i e from the very first) and "cleansed" (i e from later on).

"Augustine and Fulgentius explicitly talked about her conception."

As did Hippolytus by the use of the word "exempt" ...

Fulgentius isn't independent of Augustine, and Augustine did an over-reading in "in Deo salvatore meo" ... he is the originator of rejection of the Immaculate Conception. He spread it over the West, but not far East, and your example about Sts. Basil and Chrysostom are not proof of any kind of sin during Her life, and therefore also not of original sin.

"They have explicitly stated that there is no basis for considering this a dogma."

Who they? I don't think any Church Father ever said sth like "I think this is true, but this can never become a dogma" and nor are the dogmas fixed over time, since prior to Nicaea, full divinity of Christ was not declared dogma binding on all of the Church. Yet it was certainly, if not optional, at least Tradition.

"He wrote that in the 8th century, which is exactly when I said this idea began to emerge"

I can reply, it was there from the beginning and St. Augustine, in the 5th C. was the one personally emerging the opposite idea.

Prime Time

@ You’re still missing the distinction between exemp
The dishonesty is... No, Hippolytus wasn’t speaking about her conception in that passage. You're so lacking in evidence that you're resorting to subterfuge, implying things that simply aren't in the context. By your own generic, decontextualized reading, Romans 3:23 would apply to the Virgin Mary, which is... LOL.

Regarding Augustine, you didn’t grasp what I said. In De Natura et Gratia, he clearly affirms that the Virgin was completely sinless. If you apply your Hippolytus-style lens to that, you'd conclude that Augustine taught the Immaculate Conception. But as I’ve already warned you multiple times, being sinless is not the same as being immaculately conceived. In another work (Commentary on Psalm 34), Augustine explicitly states that she had original sin.

"Who are they?"
That’s just shifting the burden of proof. You’re the one who suggested that this optional tradition could become a dogma with no PARTICULAR evidence for this PARTICULAR case. BTW, that evidence does not exist. None of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic Church, Old Calendarists, Protestants, etc., consider it a dogma, only the Papists do.

As for the claim that “in the 5th century the opposite idea was personally emerging,” that’s also false. No Church Father taught that Mary’s conception was without sin. You’ve presented zero sources to support that claim. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the idea doesn't even appear until the 8th century, and it remained marginal well into the 13th century

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube "only the Papists do."

Which is enough.

It's the Church that Jesus founded.

"As for the claim that “in the 5th century the opposite idea was personally emerging,” that’s also false."

You have no proof against it prior to St. Augustine.