As a Protestant I was shocked to learn that Augustine was CATHOLIC! That same great man I had heard so much about. And yet he believed in purgatory, he venerated the saints, he thought Mary to be sinless. HOW COULD THIS BE? And yet it is so. For we find from Augustine that he identifies himself most notably with this one particular Church; that one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298

*******

Now, as a Catholic, I can say that I am part of that one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, the one formed out of dust by my Lord and Savior, the one lead, taught and protected by the Holy Spirit for over 2,000 years.

God Bless,

Gail

P.S. Great answer Paul h!!! Oh, here's a challenge to my Protestant friends coming here to this forum: Where in scripture does it ever say that you are saved by "faith alone"? Of course, you cannot find that scripture but you can find a scripture that says "ye are NOT saved by faith alone."

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 21, 2004.

Gail, are you ignoring me?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00CE0p

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004.

Jason Engwer writes:

Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:

"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the *only* post- Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is the view held by the universal church of his day, a view supported by "the catholic faith":

"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,-- so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he 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.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." - Philip Schaff (section 81)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004.

Augustine writes, On nature and grace Chapter 42:

He(Pelagius) 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?

Clearly, neither Pelagius nor Augustine believed that Mary had sinned. The Church is not Pelagian. The Immaculate Conception really doesn't change anything except state clearly the time of Mary's reception of grace. Therefore, it makes no other sense to consider when Mary was imbued with this abundance of grace except at the moment of her conception, which would not at all contradict the overflowing of grace granted to her for the rest of her life. If not, she can't be considered sinless.

From what I cited Augustine clearly says Mary is without sin.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 22, 2004.

David,

Here's another counterpoint to your post. The entire article can be found at http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm

This is an excerpt from Phil Vaz's debate with JasonTE (Jason Engwer?)

"The Anglican historian JND Kelly (in Early Christian Doctrines) does refer to Origen, then Basil and John Chrysostom as doubting the sinlessness of Mary, but also notes that St. Ephraem in Syria did believe her "free from every stain, like her Son." Let's examine the fuller evidence from the Fathers and Doctors. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"But these Greek writers [who doubted Mary's sinlessness] cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38,48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7,35,48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted." (Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], on "Blessed Virgin Mary")

Juniper Carol writes that "St. Augustine's opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity." What was Augustine's view on the personal sinlessness of the Blessed Mother?

"Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin -- after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin -- to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?" (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)

As mentioned some of the Eastern theologians "appear to have spoken of imperfections in the Virgin, and even of positive faults" while the Fathers St. Ephraem (c. 310-378) and St. Epiphanius (c. 315- 403) "seem to have escaped succumbing to the renowned authority of Origen" (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 352) who first implied Mary had minor faults. Subsequent Fathers and Saints in the East are clearer on the complete sinlessness of Mary: Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (d. 430); St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 446); Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. 450); Basil of Seleucia (d. 458); St. James of Sarug (452-519), St. Anastasius I (d. 598); St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 637); St. Modestus (d. 634) another patriarch of Jerusalem; St. John Damascene (c. 675-749); St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 806); Joseph Hymnographus (d. 833); Georgius Nicomediensis (friend and contemporary of Photius); Euthymius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 917); Petrus, Bishop of Argo (d. 920); and on and on.

Among the Western theologians besides St. Augustine we have St. Ambrose of Milan (333-397) in the fourth century; (St. Hilary appears to be the lone exception in the West who had doubts); St. Peter Chrysologus in the fifth; St. Maximus of Turin (d. 470); Sedulius a writer of hymns; St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspa (d. 533); St. Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 609); St. Ildephonse of Toledo (d. 666); Ambrose Autpertus (d. 778); Paulus Warnefridus; Haymon, Bishop of Alberstadt (d. 853); Paschasius Radbertus (d. 860); St. Fulbert (d. 1028); then we have the controversy in the West leading to the solution by John Duns Scotus (1270-1308). That is a fuller picture of the historical evidence and development of the IC doctrine (see Carol Mariology, volume 1, pages 328ff).

The most famous Doctor to dispute the IC is St. Thomas Aquinas, but even he was absolutely clear on the personal sinlessness of the Mother of God:

"Since Mary would not have been a worthy mother of God if she had ever sinned, we assert without qualification that Mary never committed a sinful act, fatal or non-fatal: You are wholly beautiful, my love, and without blemish. Christ is the source of grace, author of it as God and instrument of it as man, and, since Mary was closest to Christ in giving him his human nature, she rightly received from him fullness of grace: grace in such abundance as to bring her closest in grace to its author, receiving into herself the one who was full of every grace [for others], and, by giving birth to him, bringing grace to all." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica IIIa:27.4-5)"

It would be educational to see a transcript of the whole debate. Anyone know where to find it?

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 22, 2004.

Jasons' site.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

But let's not get into mud slinging articles back and forth. I just took an excerpt from Jason too see how Gail would respond.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

Vince,

In your quote, he is referring to personal sins during her life, and not to her conception. Augustine believed that Mary, like every other human being with the exception of Christ, was conceived with original sin.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

Andy,

Here is a debate between Jason and Phil. Though Phil chose not to finish it.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/debate2.htm

If you have any questions or feel Jason miscited something, etc. I can ask him for you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

Thanks David.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 22, 2004.

I see Phil just didn't get the closing remarks in. The rest of the debate is there. Lots of good stuff to digest.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 22, 2004.

Well, I would suggest you make another thread if you want to discuss it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

It's been 2 years almost, I don't think Phil will finish it :-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

David,

In your quote, he is referring to personal sins during her life, and not to her conception. Augustine believed that Mary, like every other human being with the exception of Christ, was conceived with original sin.

That's a good start. From my post, Augustine is referring to sin, to which Mary is excepted. From your post quoting JND Kelly, Mary is not even mentioned in his quotes of Augustine so it proceeds that he drew inference which are unjustified. Here's how(quoting, from your post preceeding mine):

For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin

That Augustine's exception with Mary(on nature and grace) already mentioned, does not need to be repeated. Now, your post does make it clear and this is the correct inference:

Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.

Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he 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 first part, "..free from sin..." Mary would have to be conceived immaculately.

For the second part, Jesus was conceived of Mary and the Holy Spirit. That the Word is immaculate is a given! Mary's sins were taken away because she is a creation just like you and me. If the "Mary side", the human side, of Jesus' conception had to be removed of sin, then that would mean sin was removed from Jesus! It's internal contradiction in our understanding of God. The only internally consistent view is that Mary was free from sin - created so, from conception.

Just those thoughts.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 23, 2004.

I forgot to say one thing: Mariology flows from Christology. You can actually see it from Augustine's writing.

-- Vincent (love@nomail.net), July 23, 2004.

:) I see what you mean, I didn't read the first quote from that passage I posted.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.

A correction to my post above:

If the "Mary side", the human side, of Jesus' conception was not removed of sin, then that would mean sin was removed from Jesus! It's internal contradiction in our understanding of

Correction is in bold. Originally, it could have been construed to mean I was saying sin was removed from Jesus, which is impossible.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 26, 2004.