Responses to Robert Bellarmine

 

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 1]

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 2] 

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 3]

The Old Testament and Sola Scriptura

The Infallibility of Church Councils - Response to Robert Bellarmine

The Patristic View of the Bishop of Rome: Answering Robert Bellarmine [Part 1]

 

Robert Bellarmine

Perhaps one of the best Roman Catholic scholars and apologists in history would be Robert Bellarmine. His tome De Controversiis is hailed by many as the "death-blow" to the Reformed faith and theology. However, this is shown not to be the case when one takes a look at the numerous tomes produced against Bellarmine. John Owen, in volumes 13 and 14 of his works, answers many of Bellarmine's arguments against Protestantism, especially in his treatise on schism. 

In this article, I want to take a look at chapters 15 and 16 of Bellarmine's work On the Roman Pontiff. There he provides numerous citations from the ancient fathers which he claims are proof that the early church held to the universal jurisdiction and authority of the bishop of Rome. I will answer each citation provided and show how it cannot be used to support the claims of Robert Bellarmine, and Roman Catholic apologists in general. 

[I will provide the patristic quote and then Bellarmine's commentary upon it red.] 

#1 - Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius, to the holy Church, which presides in the region of the Romans.” (Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1)

"Why is the Church said to be presiding, except because it is the Head of all others?" (Robert Bellarmine)

This is entirely unconvincing. Ignatius elsewhere gives "high" language to the churches of Smyrna and Magnesia:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the [Church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Mæander, and wish it abundance of happiness in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)

#2 - Irenaeus

"The Church of Rome, of the greatest antiquity and recognized by all, founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, that which has tradition from the Apostles, and heralding the faith to all through successions of bishops attaining even to us, we confound those men, who reveal that they gather it [the tradition] contrary to what is fitting by any manner or through their wicked charm, or vain glory, or through blindness and wicked knowledge. It is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, on account of a mightier principality, this is, those who are faithful on every side, in which always, by these who are on every side this has been preserved, which is the Tradition from the Apostles." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3)

"Mark that phrase It is necessary, and that For every Church to agree. And also: On account of a mightier preeminence, as well as: in which the Apostolic Tradition has always been preserved for all. For Irenaeus proves, that he can confound all heretics from the doctrine of the Roman Church, because it is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, and by it, just as by a head and fount, the Church depends; and hence it is necessary that its doctrine is Apostolic and true. He proves the fact that all Christians necessarily depend upon the Roman Church. In the first place, a priori, because rule was given to this Church. In the second place, a posteriori, because insofar as all always preserve the Faith in this Church, that is, in union and adhesion to this Church, as to a Head and mother" (Robert Bellarmine)

This passage is very commonly abused by the Romanists. I respond with the following points:

1) The question must be asked: What was the reason for Irenaeus' "high" view of the Roman church? Was it because of some jure divino authority inherent in her? The answer, in light of other data in book 3, is "no". Irenaeus had this view of Rome for a variety of reasons such as its being founded by two prominent apostles (Peter and Paul [not just Peter]), and also (most likely) it being the capital of the empire. 

2) Irenaeus, later on in the same chapter, gives similar language in reference to the church at Ephesus: "Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

All we can get from book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, is that the Roman church held a sort of non-jurisdictional primacy.]

I end with this observation from historian Eric Osborn:

“The subjection of all churches to Rome would be unthinkable for Irenaeus.” (Eric Osborn, Irenaeus Of Lyons, pg. 130)

#3 - Epiphanius

“Ursacius and Valens doing penance, together with little books professed to St Julius, the Bishop of Rome, so as to be restored from their error and crime.” (Panarion 68:9)

"Certainly they were bishops: therefore, why did they seek forgiveness from the Roman Pontiff, if the Roman Pontiff were not also the judge and Head of bishops?" (Robert Bellarmine)

William Bower, in his set The History of the Popes (vol. 1), gives a few reasons as to why this does not prove Bellarmine's claim (which was also made by Baronius):

1) Ursacius and Valens were not sent by the council, but rather went to Julius of their own accord. 

2) The matter was finally determined by the council of Milan, not by Pope Julius. 

3) Since Athanasius (and other orthodox figures at that time) had referred to Julius before, it would make sense for Ursacius and Valens to do the same thing. [page 58]

#4 - Athanasius

Bellarmine first cites a quote from Athanasius' "letter to Pope Felix". I have not been able to find this letter anywhere or the quote contained it, therefore I will deal rather with the other citation he provides from Athanasius:

“Certain men from the Church thinking rightly, but ignorant of the case That is why since it stood thus, it was written by him that they should go up to Rome, and there they accused Dionysius before the Prelate at Rome.” (On the Opinion of Dionysius)

"Why, I ask, is Dionysius the Patriarch of Alexandria accused by good men in the presence of the Roman Pontiff, except because they knew the Roman Pontiff is the common judge of all?"(Robert Bellarmine)

Bellarmine's assumption is unfounded. There could be all sorts of reasons for why they might choose to go to Rome. This is similar with the above quote from Epiphanius of Salamis. Bellarmine makes a common error or assuming that every appeal to Rome, high view of Rome, or anything like that is because of stuff like universal jurisdiction and papal authority, etc. This is wrong, as I demonstrated all of the above stuff.

#5 - Basil the Great

"It appeared agreeable to write to the Bishop of Rome, that he might look to our affairs, and impose a decree of his judgment As that is difficult, some thence asked for a sentence of the Council to be sent; these gave authority of the affair to wicked men, that they could not bear the labor of the journey, by a leniency and facility of morals. Then by a prudent and agreeable prayer they, who had returned by the right way advised that every act of the Council of Armenia they should bear with them to get them rescinded, which were carried out with violence in that place."

"Basil attributes to the Bishop of Rome authority of visiting the Eastern Churches, and from that authority of making and rescinding the general Conciliar decrees which were at Arminia." (Robert Bellarmine)

Bellarmine provides no source for this citation besides saying that it is a "letter". We thus have no way of viewing the original context of this quote allegedly from Basil. 

#6 - Gregory Nazianzen

"The sixth is St. Gregory Nazianzen, who says that the Roman Church always preserved the true teaching from God, as is fitting for the city which presides over the whole world Nor is he speaking on the temporal empire, for in that time the capital of the Roman Empire was at Constantinople, not Rome" (Robert Bellarmine)

Here, Bellarmine does not give us an actual quote from Gregory Nazianzen but rather tell us what he taught. He gives the following citation: Carm. De vita sua. As far as I know, this is indeed an authentic work of Gregory, but I cannot find the text of it anywhere online. Like the quote above, I have no way of knowing if this is actually in the writing or if it is being read in context or not. 

We do have material from elsewhere in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen which shows his lack of belief in papalism. 

Here he views responsibility for the whole church as something not to be given only to the Pope of Rome:

"Having gone through the whole set of sacred offices to pass over intervening events, he is entrusted with the presidency over the people, which is the same as saying the rule of the whole world. And I cannot say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of his virtue or to be the source and life of the Church, for she fainting, through thirst of the truth, was like Ishmael to be refreshed, or like Elijah to be revived when the earth in the drought was cooled in the stream, and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life." (Oration 21.7)

Did Augustine Teach Purgatory?

 

There are two main passages are appealed to by Roman Catholic apologists to allege that St. Augustine held to the doctrine of purgatory. The first one comes from his Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love:

"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God, unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say suitable, I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, and to the latter, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire." (The Enchiridion, Chapter 69) 

Two things are to be said in regards to this passage:

1) Augustine does not give a definite answer as to whether or not such a "purgatorial fire" exists or not. He says merely that "it is matter which may be inquired into." The only thing RC apologists can get from this passage by itself is that Augustine that the existence of such a purgatorial fire was possible, not that it was a settled matter which Augustine firmly believed in. 

2) RC apologists fail to quote the preceding section (chapter 68) which says the following:

"But as these most plain and unmistakeable declarations of the apostles cannot be false, that obscure saying about those who build upon the foundation, Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay, and stubble (for it is these who, it is said, shall be saved, yet so as by fire, the merit of the foundation saving them ), must be so interpreted as not to conflict with the plain statements quoted above. Now wood, hay, and stubble may, without incongruity, be understood to signify such an attachment to worldly things, however lawful these may be in themselves, that they cannot be lost without grief of mind. And though this grief burns, yet if Christ hold the place of foundation in the heart — that is, if nothing be preferred to Him, and if the man, though burning with grief, is yet more willing to lose the things he loves so much than to lose Christ, — he is saved by fire. If, however, in time of temptation, he prefer to hold by temporal and earthly things rather than by Christ, he has not Christ as his foundation; for he puts earthly things in the first place, and in a building nothing comes before the foundation. Again, the fire of which the apostle speaks in this place must be such a fire as both men are made to pass through, that is, both the man who builds upon the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, and the man who builds wood, hay, stubble. For he immediately adds: The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The fire then shall prove, not the work of one of them only, but of both. Now the trial of adversity is a kind of fire which is plainly spoken of in another place: The furnace proves the potter's vessels: and the furnace of adversity just men. And this fire does in the course of this life act exactly in the way the apostle says. If it come into contact with two believers, one caring for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord, that is, building upon Christ the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones; the other caring for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, that is, building upon the same foundation wood, hay, stubble — the work of the former is not burned, because he has not given his love to things whose loss can cause him grief; but the work of the latter is burned, because things that are enjoyed with desire cannot be lost without pain. But since, by our supposition, even the latter prefers to lose these things rather than to lose Christ, and since he does not desert Christ out of fear of losing them, though he is grieved when he does lose them, he is saved, but it is so as by fire; because the grief for what he loved and has lost burns him. But it does not subvert nor consume him; for he is protected by his immoveable and incorruptible foundation." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm)

A few things are to be noted from this passage:

1) Augustine says the fire spoken of in 1 Cor. 3:15 takes place "in the course of this life", thus negating the possibility of the fire here as being a reference to the fire of purgatory. 

2) Augustine views the "fire" not as the flames of purgatory, but rather as the "burning grief" of the one who lets go worldly things in order to have Christ as his foundation. 

"It has long been debated, then, whether Augustine presents, in his writings, a doctrine of temporary, remedial suffering after death substantially corresponding to the later Latin doctrine of purgatory. Although, as we have seen, he often affirms that some sinners are only punished within history, not eternally, and that the prayers of their fellow Christians are effective in moving God to pardon their offenses, Augustine never presents this temporal punishment as being carried out in a distinctive "place," or as having, of itself, a healing or cleansing effect on the sinner. In fact, Augustine always seems hesitant to speak of punishment for sin as purgative or medicinal, presumably because he is contemptuous of the attempts of other "tender-hearted" Christians to see all punishment as purgative and therefore temporary (see below, and esp. De Civitate Dei 21.1 7- 2 7). Augustine's understanding of punishment is, in fact, wholly vindictive: God's truth and justice require that the creature who turns away from him, the one authentic source of its being, should suffer as a result (Enarr. in Ps 44.18 [403]; Sean 19.2[419])....Augustine is even reluctant to apply I Cor 3.10-15, the biblical locus classicus for belief in a temporary, purgative "fire of judgment," to the punishment of sinners after death." (Brain E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology, pg. 140-141)

Answering Arminian Proof Texts - 2 Peter 2:1

 

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1 ESV)

Arminians commonly use this verse to prove either one of two things:

1) That Christ died for all men (including the "false prophets" as they are named in this verse, who are obviously not among the elect) because they verse says they deny the Lord who "bought" them. 

2) That true believers can fall away, assuming that these false prophets were such types of people. 

So, what should we make of this? In this article, I hope to offer a reasonable solution based on some research I have done on this particular text.

I want to make a few points in response to the Arminian argument right here. 

1) It is not certain that "Lord" in this verse is talking about Jesus Christ. Why is this? Because in the New Testament, when the title "Lord" is ascribed to Jesus, it almost always uses the word κύριος. However, in this text it uses a different word: Δεσπότης. This word is seldom, if ever, used for Christ in the NT. In other places were Δεσπότης is used (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Timothy 2:21; Jude 4; Revelation 6:10), it is clearly in reference to God the Father, not to the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

2) What is the meaning of Peter when he says that the Lord "bought them"? Is he referring to actual complete salvation by the blood of the Lord Jesus (as Arminians have interpreted it, and some Calvinists in their other solutions to this text), or to temporal historical privileges. I think a good case can be made for the latter option. 

First, when christological redemption language is used in the NT, it always mentions the price of that redemption (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 5:9). That is not the case here. No price is mentioned. If Christ's atonement was in reference here, we would expect Peter to say something along the lines "...denying the master who bought them with his own blood", which obviously does not occur here. 

Second, it is useful for us to investigate the OT language of redemption to see if it always used in a spiritual and salvific sense. The word for "buy" used in the Hebrew Bible is פָּדָה (padah). The other word sometimes used is qanah. 

Notice the language of Deuteronomy 32:6:

"Is this what you do to the LORD, You foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father who has purchased you? He has made you and established you." (Deuteronomy 32:6)

"Purchased" here refers to the deliverance of the Jews from slavery in Egypt. We know that many of them were not saved in a spiritual sense, due to their being barred from entering the promised land (Psalm 95:11, cf. Hebrews 4:1-13). 

For more on the OT usage of "bought", see Deuteronomy 7:8; 15:15; Jeremiah 15:21.

In summary, my solution to this problem would be this: This is talking about false prophets denying the LORD who bought them out of Egypt. 

To be fair, there are other solutions. Here is one given by Thomas R. Schreiner, a Reformed NT scholar:

"The easiest solution, in some ways, would be to take the verse straightforwardly. Some who submit to Christ’s lordship subsequently deny him and are therefore damned forever. This is now the view of most commentators, and it has the virtue of providing a lucid and uncomplicated understanding of the text. At one level the proposed interpretation is correct. Some members of the Christian community had departed from the Christian faith. The issue is whether those who are genuinely Christians can commit apostasy. Peter taught elsewhere that those who are called by God’s grace are effectually called by his own glory and excellence (2 Pet 1:3), and 1 Pet 1:5 clearly says that those who belong to God will be preserved by his power through faith so that they will possess eschatological salvation. When we add to this many other texts that teach that those whom God has called will never perish (e.g., Rom 8:28–39; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24), it suggests that we should consider another interpretation. I would suggest that Peter used phenomenological language. In other words, he described the false teachers as believers because they made a profession of faith and gave every appearance initially of being genuine believers. Peter did not refer to those who had been outside the community of faith but to those who were part of the church and perhaps even leaders among God’s people. Their denial of Jesus Christ reveals that they did not truly belong to God, even though they professed faith. Peter said that they were bought by Jesus Christ, in the sense that they gave every indication initially of genuine faith. In every church there are members who appear to be believers and who should be accepted as believers according to the judgment of charity. As time elapses and difficulties arise, it becomes apparent that they are wolves in the flock (Acts 20:29–30), that though they called on Jesus as Lord their disobedience shows that he never knew them (Matt 7:21–23), that they are like the seed sown on rocky or thorny ground that initially bears fruit but dries up and dies when hard times come (Matt 13:20–22)." (Thomas R. Schreiner, The New American Commentary - 1,2 Peter, Jude)

Was John Calvin a Nestorian?

 

Lately, I have been doing lots of discussions people on Discord. It is pretty much the same as back when James White had #prosapologian IRC chat room, where Roman Catholics would commonly come in and try to debate him. Discord is its modern equivalent.

Anyways, I have heard the claim from an Eastern Orthodox that John Calvin taught the heresy of Nestorianism, appealing to a quotation from one of Calvin's biblical commentaries. In this article, I want to  give evidence from elsewhere in Calvin's writings that he most certainly did not teach the heresy of Nestorianism, and at one point even defended Chalcedonian christology. 

In his commentaries on the New Testament, Calvin at a few points teaches the one person of the Lord Jesus, and condemns Nestorius as a heretic:

"The plain meaning therefore is, that the Logos begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it. And, therefore as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons. Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs, one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed up by the Divinity.The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies. When he tells us that the Logos was made flesh, we clearly infer from this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives to the man Christ the name of the Logos, it follows that Christ, when he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh. In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Logos who had no beginning of time." (Calvin's Commentary on John 1:14)

"Because there be distinct natures in Christ, the Scripture cloth sometimes recite that apart by itself which is proper to either. But when it setteth God before us made manifest in the flesh, it doth not separate the human nature from the Godhead. Notwithstanding, because again two natures are so united in Christ, that they make one person, that is improperly translated sometimes unto the one, which doth truly and in deed belong to the other, as in this place Paul doth attribute blood to God; because the man Jesus Christ, who shed his blood for us, was also God. This manner of speaking is caned, of the old writers, communicatio idiomatum, because the property of the one nature is applied to the other. And I said that by this means is manifestly expressed one person of Christ, lest we imagine him to be double, which Nestorius did in times past attempt." (Calvin's Commentary on Acts 20:28)

Jerome's Letter 15 to Pope Damasus: A Proof for the Papacy?

 

Many of Rome's defenders have appealed to the following statements from Jerome's letter to Pope Damasus (letter 15) prove the papacy and Roman authority:

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul....My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm)

There are few things to know regarding the background of this letter which will help us to better interpret the meaning of Jerome's words here:

1). At the time of this letter's writing, Jerome had only been a Christian for about 9 years.

2) Jerome was baptized in Rome.

3) In this letter, Jerome was addressing the issue of which person (Meletius or Paulinus) was the true claimant to being the bishop of Antioch. 

Edward Denny makes the following comments about this letter:

"Yet exaggerated as is its language, the letter itself bears witness against Papalism. If St. Jerome had believed St. Damasus held the position alleged to belong to the Bishops of Rome by the institution of Christ, he would have adopted a different method. He would have appealed to him as the Supreme Pastor of the One Flock, having full and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, whose special office it was, according to the Divine Constitution of the Church, to preserve its unity, to declare to him with the final authority inherent in his office of Supreme judge of all the faithful, which of the claimants to the Antiochene throne was its rightful occupant. This he did not do, but as one who followed ‘none as his chief but Christ,’ he merely asks the Catholic Bishop with whom he, as a ‘man of Rome,’ was ‘associated in communion,’ to give him that guidance which, as a member of the flock of which he was the shepherd, he had a right to expect in his perplexity, so that having been informed by him which of the rivals was the one with whom he, his Bishop, as a Catholic was in communion, he would know who was the canonical Bishop." (Edward Denny, Papalism, pg. 224)

The reason why Jerome was appealing to Rome was not because Rome possessed some special divine authority from Christ that was unique to itself. Rather it was because, as Jerome himself says in the letter, "in the West the Sun of righteousness Malachi 4:2 is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, Luke 10:18 has once more set his throne above the stars", meaning that Rome was remaining Orthodox in its doctrine of Christ whilst Arianism was causing all sorts of trouble in the Eastern churches. This is why Jerome wrote to the bishop of Rome. 

Jerome, elsewhere in his writings, gives a view of apostolic churches and Rome (and related matters), which is very "non-papist":

"For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." (Letter 146 to Evangelus)

"But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. " (Against Jovinianus, 1.26)

Ambrose and the Immaculate Conception

 

I have seen the following quotations used to allege Ambrose' belief in Mary's immaculate conception (hereafter referred to as IC):

"Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Commentary on Psalm 118)

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to" (The Virgins 2:2:6 – 377 AD)

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?" (The Virgins 2:2:7 – 377 AD)

Regarding the first quote, there is a sense in which grace makes every belief free "of every stain of sin." 

The last two quotes don't say a word about Mary being free from original sin due to being immaculately conceived or anything like that. Viewing Mary as a model of living doesn't mean that Ambrose believed in IC. We could say that other biblical figures such as the Apostle Paul, for example, could (in some cases) be models for our lives.

Not only that, but Ambrose' teachings elsewhere are incompatible with any of so-called belief of his in IC:

"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." (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, Book 2, section 56, in PL 15:1571-1572)

"No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen" (PL 14:873)

[Latin text:  Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu]

"So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. " (On the Holy Spirit, Book 3, Chapter 18)

Ambrose scholar Boniface Ramsey says the following:

"We do not yet find the doctrines of Mary’s immaculate conception and her assumption in Ambrose, but his was the most comprehensive teaching on Mary produced up to that point, and it would help create an atmosphere conducive to further developments." (Boniface Ramsey, Early Church Fathers Series - Ambrose, pg. 51)