It is common for some (not all) Catholic apologists to latch onto an isolated text from an early Christian author that speaks of Mary being purified/refined prior to the annunciation/incarnation as if that is implicit, if not explicit, evidence for the Immaculate Conception. Consider the following:
That part of the flesh of the
virgin whereof the human nature of Christ was made was refined and purified
from corruption by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Our Savior is
therefore called ‘that holy thing,’ though born of the virgin.
If you are a Catholic apologist and a fan of Albrecht et al.,
would you consider this implicit (if not explicit) evidence for the Immaculate
Conception? If so, here is the source:
William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Complete and
Unabridged, Volumes 1-3 (Reformed Retrieval, 2021), 566
Shedd, of course, was a Reformed Presbyterian and did not believe
Mary was free from personal sin, let alone the stain of original sin. But absolutizing Shedd's comment here, it would indicate he held to some form of Immaculate Conception or pre-purification of Mary.
On an actual early Christian author who has been abused to support the Immaculate Conception, see:
Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) vs. the Immaculate Conception of Mary
