Insane insane Asylums
of the 19th Century

The Bethlem Royal Hospital Britain, England 1676

Ipswich Hospital, Australia for the
Insane 1878

USA Insane Asylums of the 19th Century

Bloomingdale Insane Asylum 1821

Kirkbride Insane Asylums (1844)

Sonoma Developmental Center 1891

Agnews Developmental Center was a psychiatric and medical care facility, located in Santa Clara, California.

Ανασκόπηση 1889 Agnews State Hospital now Santa Clara University Jesuit School Santa Clara, CA

Search our database of deaths and assaults at California psychiatric facilities By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA and IRIS LEE UPDATED JUNE 8, 2021 https://www.latimes.com/projects/psychiatric-hospital-deaths-incidents-database/

Napa state hospital grounds host a burial site for thousands

Destruction of Churches
Continues To this Day

The One World Tartarians The Greatest Civilization Ever to Be Erased From History. Είναι ένα βιβλίο που διαβάζει αλήθειες τυλιγμένες με ψέματα για να παραπλανήσει.

Αυτό το άρθρο είναι ένα σύντομο βιογραφικό που θα πρέπει να ενημερωθεί με περισσότερες πληροφορίες

READ counsils writings

Early Church Fathers – Additional Texts Edited by Roger Pearse

READ about christians writtings that were treated as heresy like the ones by nestorius and arius (αν και αυτός είπε ότι ο Ιησούς δεν είναι Θεός)

Council of Ephesus

The Church of the East (Classical Syriac: ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ, romanized: ʿĒḏtā d-Maḏenḥā) or the East Syriac Church,^[14] also called the Church of Seleucia-Ctesiphon,^[15] the Persian Church, the Assyrian Church, the Babylonian Church^[13][16][17] or the Nestorian Church,^{[note 3]} was an Eastern Christian church of the East Syriac Rite, based in Mesopotamia. It was one of three major branches of Eastern Christianity that arose from the Christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, alongside the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonian Church (whose Eastern branch would later become the Eastern Orthodox Church). During the early modern period, a series of schisms gave rise to rival patriarchates, sometimes two, sometimes three.^[18] Since the latter half of the 20th century, three churches in Iraq claim the heritage of the Church of the East. Meanwhile, the East Syriac churches in India claim the heritage of the Church of the East in India.^[4]

1. Wilken, Robert Louis (2013). “Syriac-Speaking Christians: The Church of the East”. The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 222–228. ISBN 978-0-300-11884-1. JSTOR j.ctt32bd7m.28. LCCN 2012021755. S2CID 160590164.
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Brock, Sebastian P; Coakley, James F. “Church of the East”. e-GEDSH:Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Retrieved 27 June 2022. The Church of the East follows the strictly dyophysite (‘two-nature’) christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as a result of which it was misleadingly labelled as ‘Nestorian’ by its theological opponents.
3. ^ Michael Philip Penn; Scott Fitzgerald Johnson; Christine Shepardson; Charles M. Stang, eds. (22 February 2022). Invitation to Syriac Christianity: An Anthology (22-Feb-2022 ed.). Univ of California Press. p. 409. ISBN 9780520299191. DYOPHYSITE Broadly, a Christological viewpoint that holds that Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. The East Syrian Church subscribed to a type of dyophysitism attributed to Nestorius and held in attenuated ways by both Greek and Syriac theologians. In the end, this association led the church to be labeled, erroneously, as Nestorian. This view held that Christ has both two natures and two persons. A moderated form of dyophysitism, according to which Christ has two natures and one person, was adopted by Chalcedonian Christians. EAST SYRIAN Dyophysite Syriac Church that has historically been centered in Persia, with missionary activity in Greater Iran, Arabia, Central Asia, China, and India. The East Syrian Church developed into the modern Church of the East. Polemical writings and older scholarship sometimes called the East Syrian Church “Nestorian,” but this is now recognized as pejorative.
4. ^ Jump up to:^a b Baum & Winkler 2003, p. 2.
5. ^ Stewart 1928, p. 15.
6. ^ Vine, Aubrey R. (1937). The Nestorian Churches. London: Independent Press. p. 104.
7. ^ Jump up to:^a b Meyendorff 1989, p. 287-289.
8. ^ Broadhead, Edwin K. (2010). Jewish Ways of Following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. p. 123. ISBN 9783161503047.
9. ^ Brock 2006, p. 8.
10. ^ Brock 2006, p. 11.
11. ^ Lange 2012, pp. 477–9.
12. ^ Payne 2015, p. 13.
13. ^ Jump up to:^a b Paul, J.; Pallath, P. (1996). Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church in India. Mar Thoma Yogam publications. Centre for Indian Christian Archaeological Research. p. 5. Retrieved 2022-06-17. Authors are using different names to designate the same Church : the Church of Seleucia – Ctesiphon, the Church of the East, the Babylonian Church , the Assyrian Church, or the Persian Church.
14. ^ Baum & Winkler 2003, p. 3,4.
15. ^ Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Pont. institutum studiorum orientalium. 1971. p. 2. Retrieved 2022-06-17. The Church of Seleucia – Ctesiphon was called the East Syrian Church or the Church of the East .
16. ^ Fiey 1994, p. 97-107.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Baum & Winkler 2003, p. 4.
18. ^ Baum & Winkler 2003, p. 112-123.

Ruins of the Monastery of Mar Eliya in Mosul, Iraq in 2005. It was destroyed by ISIS in 2014.

The Armenian Apostolic Church (Armenian: Հայ Առաքելական Եկեղեցի, romanized: Hay Aṙak’elakan Yekeghetsi)^{[note 1]} is the national church of the Armenian people. Part of Oriental Orthodoxy, it is one of the most ancient Christian institutions.^[5] The Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its official religion under the rule of King Tiridates III, of the Arsacid dynasty in the early 4th century.^[6][7] According to tradition, the church originated in the missions of Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus of Edessa in the 1st century. St. Gregory the Illuminator was the first official primate of the church. It is sometimes referred to as the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Armenian Church or Armenian Gregorian Church.^[8][9][10]

Officially Հայաստանեայց Առաքելական Սուրբ Եկեղեցի, Hayastaniayts Aṙak̕elakan Surb Yekeghetsi^[4]

1. Armenian Apostolic Church (Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin) and Armenian Apostolic Church (Holy See of Cilicia) in the World Council of Churches
2. ^ Panossian, Razmik (2006). The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 43–44. ISBN 9780231139267. The Armenian Apostolic Church formally became autocephalous – i.e. independent of external authority – in 554 by severing its links with the patriarchate of Constantinople.
3. ^ “Catholicos of All Armenians”. armenianchurch.org. Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.
4. ^ “”ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆՅԱՅՑ ԱՌԱՔԵԼԱԿԱՆ ՍՈՒՐԲ ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻ” ԿԿ – HAYASTANYAYC ARAQELAKAN SURB YEKEGHECI RO”. e-register.am. Electronic Register. Government of the Republic of Armenia.
5. ^ Augusti, Johann Christian Wilhelm; Rheinwald, Georg Friedrich Heinrich; Siegel, Carl Christian Friedrich. The Antiquities of the Christian Church. p. 466.
6. ^ Scott, Michael (2016-11-01). Ancient Worlds: A Global History of Antiquity. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-09473-8.
7. ^ Grousset, René (1984) [1947]. Histoire de l’Arménie (in French). Payot. p. 122.. Estimated dates vary from 284 to 314. Garsoïan (op.cit. p. 82), following the research of Ananian, favours the latter.
8. ^ “HISTORY”. ՀԱՅ ԱՌԱՔԵԼԱԿԱՆ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՈՒ Արևմտյան Եվրոպայի Հայրապետական Պատվիրակություն. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
9. ^ “History of the Armenian Church”. Armenian Prelacy. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
10. ^ “Armenian Apostolic Church (Holy See of Cilicia)”. World Council of Churches. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

The Armenian Apostolic Church believes in apostolic succession through the apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus (Jude).^[11][12][13] According to tradition, the latter of the two apostles is said to have cured Abgar V of Edessa of leprosy with the Image of Edessa, leading to his conversion in 30 AD. Thaddaeus was then commissioned by Abgar to proselytize throughout Armenia, where he converted King Sanatruk‘s daughter, who was eventually martyred alongside Thaddeus when Sanatruk later fell into apostasy. After this, Bartholomew came to Armenia, bringing a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which he placed in a nunnery he founded over a former temple of Anahit. Bartholomew then converted the sister of Sanatruk, who once again martyred a female relative and the apostle who converted her. Both apostles ordained native bishops before their execution, and some other Armenians had been ordained outside of Armenia by James the Just, brother of Jesus.^[12][13] Scholars including Bart Ehrman, Hendrik “Han” J. W. (H.J.W. Or Han J.W.) Drijvers, and Walter Bauer dismiss the conversion of Abgar V^[14] as fiction.

According to Eusebius and Tertullian, Armenian Christians were persecuted by kings Axidares, Khosrov I, and Tiridates III, the last of whom was converted to Christianity by Gregory the Illuminator.^[11] Ancient Armenia’s adoption of Christianity as a state religion (the first state to do so) has been referred to by Nina Garsoïan as “probably the most crucial step in its history.”^[15] This conversion distinguished it from its Iranian and Mazdean roots and protected it from further Parthian influence.^[11][15] According to Mary Boyce, the acceptance of Christianity by the Arsacid-Armenian rulers was partly in defiance of the Sassanids.^[16]

When King Tiridates III made Christianity the state religion of Armenia between 300 and 301, it was not an entirely new religion there. It had penetrated the country from at least the third century, and may have been present even earlier.^[17]

Tiridates declared Gregory to be the first Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church and sent him to Caesarea to be consecrated. Upon his return, Gregory tore down shrines to idols, built churches and monasteries, and ordained many priests and bishops. While meditating in the old capital city of Vagharshapat, Gregory had a vision of Christ descending to the earth and striking it with a hammer. From that spot arose a great Christian temple with a huge cross. He was convinced that God intended him to build the main Armenian church there. With the king’s help he did so in accordance with his vision, renaming the city Etchmiadzin, which means “the place of the descent of the Only-Begotten“.^[18]

Initially, the Armenian Apostolic Church participated in the larger Christian world and was subordinated to the Bishop of Caesarea.^[19] Its Catholicos was represented at the First Council of Nicea (325). St. Vrtanes I the third Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church through (333–341 AD), sent a letter with specific questions to Macarius of Jerusalem who was the Greek Orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem from (312-335, or 336 AD) sent to Jerusalem by a delegation of Armenian priests on the occasion of the Encaenia, in dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem in September 335 AD. In Macarius’s letter to the Armenians in 335 AD, it seeks to correct irregularities in the initiation rites of Baptism and the Eucharist currently in use in the Armenian Church by articulating present practices in Jerusalem. In so doing, it reveals the divergent forms being practiced in Armenia, which have strong echoes of old East Syriac Rite. Orthopraxy was conceived by Vrtanes and his Armenian colleagues in terms of liturgical performance in Jerusalem. In 353, King Papas (Pap) appointed Catholicos Husik without first sending him to Caesarea for commissioning.^[20] Its Catholicos was still represented at the First Council of Constantinople (381).

As Gregory was consecrated by the bishop of Caesarea, he also accepted the Byzantine Rite. However, the Armenian Church, due to the influence of the Church in Edessa, the large presence of Syriacs in Armenia, as well as the number of Syriac priests that arrived in Armenia with Gregory, also cultivated the West Syriac Rite (Antiochian Rite). Since Armenians at the time did not have an alphabet, its clergy learned Greek and Syriac. From this synthesis, the new Armenian Rite came about, which had similarities both with the Byzantine and the Antiochian Syriac rite.^[21]

Christianity was strengthened in Armenia in the 5th century by the translation of the Bible into the Armenian language by the native theologian, monk, and scholar, Saint Mesrop Mashtots. Before the 5th century, Armenians had a spoken language, but no script. Thus, the Bible and Liturgy were written in the Greek or Syriac scripts until Catholicos Sahak Part’ew commissioned Mesrop to create the Armenian alphabet, which he completed c. 405 AD. Subsequently, the Bible and Liturgy were translated into Armenian and written in the new script. The translation of the Bible, along with works of history, literature and philosophy, caused a flowering of Armenian literature and a broader cultural renaissance.^[22]

Although unable to attend the Council of Ephesus (431), Catholicos Isaac Parthiev sent a message agreeing with its decisions.^[23] However, non doctrinal elements in the Council of Chalcedon (451) caused certain problems to arise.

1. Gilman, Ian; Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim (2013-01-11). Christians in Asia before 1500. ISBN 9781136109782. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b Jacob, P. H. (1895). A Brief Historical Sketch of the Holy Apostolic Church of Armenia. H. Liddell. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b Issaverdenz, Jacques (1877). The Armenian Church. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
4. ^ Ehrman: Forgery and Counterforgery, pp455-458
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b “The Aršakuni Dynasty (A.D. 12-[180?]-428)” by Nina Garsoïan, in Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, ed. R.G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, Volume 1, p.81.
6. ^ Mary Boyce. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices Psychology Press, 2001 ISBN 0415239028 p 84
7. ^ Theo Maarten van Lint (2009). “The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium”. Church History and Religious Culture. 89 (1/3): 269.
8. ^ See Drasxanakertci, History of Armenia, 78ff; Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity, 316ff; Narbey, A Catechism of Christian Instruction According to the Doctrine of the Armenian Church, 88ff.
9. ^ Dočkal 1940b, p. 186.
10. ^ Drasxanakertci, History of Armenia, 86–87.
11. ^ Dočkal 1940b, pp. 186–187.
12. ^ Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity, 424-26.
13. ^ Narbey, A Catechism of Christian Instruction According to the Doctrine of the Armenian Church, 86–87.

The Armenian Apostolic Church uses a version of the Bible based on the Greek translation (Septuagint) of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was produced in the court of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283-246 BC) of Egypt, and includes Deuterocanonical books that are not part of the present Hebrew and Protestant canons.

The Armenian genocide^[a] was the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was implemented primarily through the mass murder of around one million Armenians during death marches to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of others, primarily women and children.

^[a] Also known by other names.

Gregory the Illuminator^[a] (ClassicalArmenian: Գրիգոր Լուսաւորիչ, reformed spelling: Գրիգոր Լուսավորիչ, Grigor Lusavorich;^[b] c. 257 – c. 328) was the founder and first official head of the Armenian Apostolic Church.^[c]

1. He is less commonly known as Gregory the Enlightener.^[3][4] Outside Armenia, he is often known as Gregory of Armenia or Gregory the Armenian. In Armenian, he is sometimes referred to as Gregory the Parthian (Գրիգոր Պարթեւ, Grigor Part’ev).
2. ^ Western Armenian: Krikor Lusavorich
3. ^ The Armenian Apostolic Church, as its name suggests, traces its founding to the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, who are said to have preached Christianity in Armenia in the first century.^[5]

1. Der Nersessian 1966, p. 390.
2. ^ Ayvazyan 1984, p. 45.
3. ^ “St. Gregory the Enlightener”. armenianchurch.us. Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. Archived from the original on 30 August 2022.
4. ^ Schaff, Philip (1867). From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great, A.D. 311-600, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner and Company. p. 779.
5. ^ Lang 1970, p. 155.

Was catholic Church influenced and manipulated by the government? If so it does not happen with catholics only but with protestants and any other church too

Collyridianism (or Kollyridianism) was an alleged Early Christian movement in Arabia whose adherents apparently worshipped the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, as a goddess.^[1][2] The existence of the sect is subject to some dispute by scholars, as the only contemporary source to describe it is the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, published in approximately 376 AD.^[1][3]

1. Block, Corrie (2013-10-08). The Qur’an in Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Historical and Modern Interpretations. Routledge. p. 186. ISBN 9781135014056.
2. ^ Angelika Neuwirth: Qur’ānic Studies Today. p. 301. The Collyridians, an arabian female sect of the fourth century, offered Mary cakes of bread, as they had done to their great earth mother in pagan times. Epiphanius who opposed this heresy, said that the trinity must be worshipped but Mary must not be worshipped.
3. ^ “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide“. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies (Second, revised ed.). 79. 2012-12-03 – via Brill.

The Assumption of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII defined it on 1 November 1950 in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus as follows:

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.[4]

The declaration was built upon the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which declared that Mary was conceived free from original sin, and both have their foundation in the concept of Mary as the Mother of God.^[2] It leaves open the question of whether Mary died or whether she was raised to eternal life without bodily death.^[3]

1. “Feast of the Assumption of the Holy Mother-of-God”. The Armenian Church. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
2. ^ Kerr 2001, p. 746.
3. ^ Collinge 2012, p. 53.
4. ^ “Maury’s Assumption”. The Catholic Telegraph. 8 August 2022.

La Inmaculada Concepción de María, conocida también como la Purísima Concepción, es un dogma de la Iglesia católica proclamado en 1854 que sostiene que la Virgen María estuvo libre del pecado original desde el primer momento de su concepción por los méritos de su hijo Jesucristo, recogiendo de esta manera el sentir de dos mil años de tradición cristiana al respecto. Se celebra el 8 de diciembre, nueve meses antes de la celebración de la Natividad de la Virgen el 8 de septiembre.^[1]​

La definición del dogma, contenida en la bula Ineffabilis Deus del 8 de diciembre de 1854, promulgada por el papa Pío IX, dice lo siguiente:

[…] Para honra de la Santísima Trinidad, para la alegría de la Iglesia católica, con la autoridad de nuestro Señor Jesucristo, con la de los Santos Apóstoles Pedro y Pablo y con la nuestra: declaramos, afirmamos y definimos que ha sido revelada por Dios, y de consiguiente, qué debe ser creída firme y constantemente por todos los fieles, la doctrina que sostiene que la santísima Virgen María fue preservada inmune de toda mancha de culpa original, en el primer instante de su concepción, por singular gracia y privilegio de Dios omnipotente, en atención a los méritos de Jesucristo, salvador del género humano. Por lo cual, si alguno tuviere la temeridad, lo cual Dios no permita, de dudar en su corazón lo que por Nos ha sido definido, sepa y entienda que su propio juicio lo condena, que su fe ha naufragado y que ha caído de la unidad de la Iglesia y que si además osaren manifestar de palabra o por escrito o de otra cualquiera manera externa lo que sintieren en su corazón, por lo mismo quedan sujetos a las penas establecidas por el derecho

Bula Ineffabilis Deus.^[2]

1. «Día de la Inmaculada Concepción: Qué significa esta fecha y por qué se celebra cada 8 de diciembre». El Comercio Perú. 8 de diciembre de 2022. Consultado el 8 de diciembre de 2022.
2. ↑ “de 8 de diciembre de 1854 – Pío IX PP.”

REVIEW

Church Fathers Who Denied the Immaculate Conception

Recently I had the privilege of participating in a discussion with some Catholic brothers over at the Reason and Theology channel on our respective views of the virgin Mary. Thank you, Michael, Erik, and William for having me! For anyone interested, we are talking again on February 9.

I thought it might be useful to compile some of the quotes I referenced that I regard as countervailing data among the church fathers with respect to the third Marian dogma, the immaculate conception of Mary. That way those following the debate can look them up for themselves.

I know there is disagreement on whether Origen and Tertullian are actually church fathers. I think it is difficult to sustain that Origen, in particular, was not a church father, but whatever view on takes on this, it is really irrelevant. Both were significant Christian voices whose views are reflective of broader beliefs throughout the early church. We are after historical evidence of what the early Christians actually believed—say, in the 2nd century, or early 3rd century. (Hence the Protoevangelium of James comes up in discussion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, despite the fact that it is an apocryphal text officially condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405). Origen and Tertullian are relevant to this historical question, however we classify them.

1. Origen, commenting on Luke 2:35, and specifically Simeon’s statement that a sword will pierce Mary’s heart:

“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).

2. Tertullian references certain flaws of Mary in his discussion of the unbelief of Jesus’ family (“not even his brothers believed in him” [John 7:5]) and Jesus’ question in Matthew 12:48: “What are mother and brothers to me?” He affirms, over and against Apelles and Marcion, Jesus’ genuine nativity, but has no hesitation in including Mary along with his brothers as unbelieving and the object of his rebukes: “when denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.” Evidently Tertullian is not aware that this is a controversial opinion. He even goes so far as to see Mary as a symbol of the unbelieving synagogue that rejected Christ: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren” (On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7.)

3. Like Origen, Basil interpreted the sword of Luke 2:35 as the sword of doubt, linking Mary with the disciples in receiving healing and confirmation in faith after Jesus’ resurrection:

“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 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, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).

The earlier context makes it clear that this is not a blameless doubt, for Basil is linking Mary with the other disciples in their “rising and falling” in doubt at the offense of the cross, which Basil interprets as the “sign” of which Simeon speaks (see Letter 260.6-9).

4. There are numerous passages in John Chrysostom where he indicates a moral fault in Mary. His comments on Mary’s vainglory in John 2, and Jesus’ rebuke to her, are well-known. Also relevant is his comment on Matthew 12:46-49, where John portrays Mary with a vainglorious desire to have power over her son:

“And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).

John proceeds to compare this occasion to Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in John 2, describing the effect of Jesus’ words to his mother as intended to “heal her vainglory.”

5. Hilary of Poitiers, once again on Luke 2:35, interprets Simeon’s words as a judgment upon Mary: “if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Tractatus in Ps. 118).

There are other examples we could give (just this morning I discovered a strong statement by Fulgentius of Ruspe as late as the 6th century that Mary was “conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice” [Epistula 17.13]). And even among theologians who affirm Mary’s sinlessness, many do not affirm the immaculate conception. Augustine would fall into this camp (e.g., he speaks of Mary being “derived from the propagation of sin” in Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32).

Perhaps what is most striking about these various statements is the lack of controversy they provoked. If belief in Mary’s immaculate conception was common in the early church, why did no one rise up censure Origen or Basil or John? This, combined with the absence of clear support for the immaculate conception in the first or second century (it possibly begins in the third, but is still very scant then), suggests that this dogma is an accretion, rather than a development of the apostolic deposit.

https://gavinortlund.com/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin

Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail4923 words · 129 views